Taking arms against a sea of troubles…

As most villagers will know by now, Gladman Developments’ (13/02515/OUT) planning appeal, re their proposed desecration of Oxhill Road, will be heard at a local inquiry: which will be held on 16 September 2014 starting at 10:00. This will take place at Ettington Community Centre; and is expected to last up to five days.

In the light of SHAPE’s recent victory (in battle, if not in war) – partly because of the need for a five-year housing supply finally being met by Stratford-on-Avon District Council… –

At April 2014 [albeit announced on 12 August 2014] there is considered to be a supply of 3,951 new homes in the pipeline. This is the equivalent of 5.4 years’ supply.

…does this render the inquiry moot – even without the Core Strategy (which will be submitted for consideration in September or October: which will, of course, be too late for us…) in place?

Or do we still need to rely on the NPPF – especially with regards to the heritage aspects of the Parish Council and Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group’s original objections?

Section 12 of the NPPF – at paragraph 128 – states that…

In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.

…although it has never been clear – to me, anyway – who decides on “the assets’ importance” or “their significance”: despite, of course, English Heritage – as the relevant statutory body – having made their views very clear with regards to the ridge-and-furrow adjacent to Tysoe Manor.

However, a landmark ruling in February – now widely considered an NPPF test case – may have helped clarify this: when deputy high court judge Robin Purchas QC ruled against an application for an 86.5 metre/284 feet-high wind-turbine at Pond Farm, Bodham, Norfolk. He stated that the consideration of “setting” needed to be set at a high threshold, due to the desirability of preserving the context of local listed buildings – including “the Grade I listed Barningham Hall, which is of Jacobean origin; Baconsthorpe Castle, also Grade I; and a number of Grade II* churches” – in the local landscape; and this had not been correctly assessed by the inquiry inspector who had given the go-ahead for the turbine. According to The Guardian…

Judge Purchas ruled the inspector did not comply with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, which required him to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings.

With such decisions being made, it does seem that legislation – and I am a strong believer in the NPPF, when applied correctly… – may yet come to our aid: although I am still unsure how we ensure this; or if it is even practicable. FORSE “is working with a planning expert and a specialist Barrister” in contesting the possible (probable?) GLH development of thousands of houses. But all this demonstrates to me is that to fight on an equal footing with the developers – and a government that appears to have vested interests in the harrowing of the shires (despite our MP’s lone protestations) – requires digging deep for resources (both time and money) that are probably beyond Tysoe’s means.

Even with the district council’s supposed/stated support, this still feels like a version of David and Goliath where the little guy has no rocks for his sling. Outrageous fortune, indeed.

Green versus brown…

With the decision to support the development of thousands of homes on productive agricultural land at Gaydon and Lighthorne Heath, rather than the brownfield Long Marston Airfield site, you have to question if the ruling Tories of Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC) have actually read (and/or understood) the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

Core planning principles

17. Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. [Two of these] principles are that planning should:

• encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value; [and]
• promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production)….

No wonder Chris Saint had to – figuratively – get the whip out to corral his fellow Conservative councillors: as those on the planning committee, when Tysoe’s decision was made, re Gladman, obviously knew the NPPF back to front. No wonder, too, that there was rebellion – although the thought of two councillors (whose wards were involved) having to prostrate themselves to obtain “special dispensation” makes me feel very ill indeed; and proves that true democracy died a long, long time ago – and that the twisted precepts of national government have infected regional and local politics (as I have long suspected).

It makes you wonder what Councillor Saint really means when he says that he “shall be arguing strongly for Gladman’s Appeal to be dimissed”: especially when – as was pointed out by Mike Lane, of Ilmington Parish Council, in this week’s Herald – SDC’s methodology for distributing large chunks of unsuitable housing across the district’s local service villages (LSVs), such as Upper and Middle Tysoe, is so flawed and unbalanced. I know we desperately need the Core Strategy in place… – I just don’t like the way it’s being achieved.

As Ken Livingstone said: If Voting Changed Anything They’d Abolish it – and with no Green candidate (the only party that seems to make any sort of sense, nowadays – and, yes, I am still in possession of my Labour membership card…) standing in our local council elections, next week, it’s very difficult to know if there’s anyone who will not only truly represent and work for us, as a community; but will also stick to their promises, and principles (if they actually know what that word means, and had any to begin with…) – especially when it comes to sustainable and affordable development, and protecting our countryside and our future.

An open letter to Councillor Chris Saint, leader of Stratford-on-Avon District Council…

Dear Councillor Saint –

Proposed development of land south of Oxhill Road, Tysoe [13/02515/OUT]

As you will be aware, Gladman Developments have formally appealed against the unanimous vote of Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s Planning Committee (East), on 8 January 2014: which rejected the proposal for outline planning permission for an estate of eighty urban-style houses on the edge of Tysoe – and a Public Enquiry will therefore be held at Elizabeth House in the near future.

I am writing to you, therefore, to ask what help you and the council will be giving to the inhabitants of Tysoe – particularly the Tysoe Residents (Neighbourhood Planning) Group (TRNPG) – both in the run-up to this inquiry, and during it: especially in light of the staunch support Gill Roache provided for the initial hearing.

Background

In a meeting you held with one of the members of the Steering Committee of the TRNPG (of which I was then a member), just before Christmas, last year, you stated that you did not want to see this particular development happen; and that you were happy to be quoted in saying that Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC) would defend the decision if the committee voted to reject the application and Gladman then appealed – as they now have.

Additionally, in last week’s Stratford-upon-Avon Herald (20 March 2014), Peter Reading, vice-chair of Friends of a Rural and Sustainable Environment (Forse), detailed the following – from “a public meeting in Long Itchington”, where you gave “a compelling insight into [your] beliefs relating to to planning development and the preparation of SDC’s emerging core strategy…”:

He told us that there is no point in having isolated housing with no bus routes or employment and that communities should develop in an organic way which is sustainable. In response to a question, he assured us that he wants to keep boundaries around settlements and not join them. He said he is actively looking for opportunities for community identities and character to be maintained and will only allow development if villages have the existing infrastructure to support them.

Further, he went on to promise that our rural landscape is safe because special landscape areas are being introduced; that he wants the characteristics of that landscape preserved, not to have any houses built on it, and will resist any planning inspector who suggests otherwise.

Implementation

While I do not doubt either the sincerity or the passion behind these pronouncements, nor your integrity in making them, I am keen – as they are all pertinent (and parallel) to Tysoe’s existing defence against Gladman’s proposals (as detailed in the TRNPG’s briefing paper to the planning committee, Sustainable Tysoe?) – to learn:

– how you and the council plan to implement them;

– when they will be put in place; and

– what the legal basis is for their foundation.

As the Planning Inquiry is imminent – with written submissions having to be received by the Planning Inspectorate before 1 May 2014 – I would also like to know what part these statements – and their enaction – will play in your support of our village at that event; and what resources (e.g. monetary and manpower) the council will provide to enable us to successfully oppose Gladman’s wholly unsustainable and speculative proposals. Additionally: do you plan to be proactive in your/our defence; or do you intend to be reactive, and therefore led by the TRNPG?

Planning Practice Guidance

I am also curious to discover what role you think the new/revised planning guidelines have to play in the above: particularly the improved protection of Green Belt (which obviously echoes your pronouncements); and the reinforced arguments concerning prematurity – i.e. answering “In what circumstances might it be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity?”.

As far as the latter is concerned: although Tysoe’s Neighbourhood Plan is only just getting off the ground (i.e. is barely “emerging”), would you agree that the council’s Core Strategy is well-advanced enough “to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity” because “the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development”? If so, would you then also be prepared (in both theory and practice) “to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process”?

[As you may know: in January – before the new guidelines were announced – David Wilson Homes dropped plans for a legal challenge to an emerging Neighbourhood Plan in a village governed by Harborough District Council: which I believe had been detailed as one of the reasons for not giving planning permission. Admittedly, the plan was at the final referendum phase; but this does show, I believe, that prematurity arguments can be made to hold water. I also think that, at some stage (preferably soon), these planning guidelines will have to be tested; and that the Tysoe Planning Inquiry would provide a good opportunity to do so.]

Defending the district

Finally, it is obvious from the content of the Herald over the last few months that more and more bodies are springing up, throughout SDC’s jurisdiction, to fight what Nadhim Zahawi has described as “rapacious developers” – e.g. SHAPE, in Ettington; as well as Forse, and the TRNPG.

Although some of these groups (for obvious and comprehensible reasons) appear to be opposing the district council, as well as local development proposals, do you feel that SDC has a part to play in bringing them together – perhaps in alliance with our MP – to help them in their fight for true localism and truly sustainable development (which, of course, is the “golden thread” running through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF))?

If so: how? If not: why?

[I, for one, do not blame SDC for the position we find ourselves in – as you can read on my blog – but I sympathize strongly with the plight of those that do.]

Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy and complex missive. I look forward to receiving your detailed and comprehensive answers to my questions.