09 Jan 2024
An application from Scott Properties to build 95 houses on 11 acres of arable land in Park Street is due once again before the planning committee on Monday, five months after a decision was deferred.
In August the committee requested that the planning department seek expert consultants to support their case for refusal, which revolved around meeting the purposes of the Green Belt and the traffic situation along Watling Street.
Four people passionately spoke against the application in August: Park Street district councillor Nuala Webb, David Yates chair of the parish council and ex-chair of the planning committee, district councillor Ajanta Hilton, who is also vice chair of the parish council, and Paul King from the campaign group Greenbelt.
Paul said: “At the August meeting councillors instructed planning officers to seek experts that could uphold reasons for refusal along traffic and Green Belt grounds. The planning officer’s report demonstrates through these consultants’ responses that there are significant grounds for refusing this application.
“Despite this, planning officers ridiculously cling to the mirage of empty roads from data derived in the Covid period and are recommending its approval on this basis. ”How can the planning department be so determined to build on the Green Belt, in breach of government policy and create even worse traffic issues in the process?”
Lee Stannard, who is the planning officer responsible for the application stated at the meeting in August: “The fact of the matter is, this district does not have a five year land supply, and that is a serious material consideration in this case, the Local Plan is not much younger than me. We are in a desperate situation in planning terms, this council has not delivered the housing that it needs to, for too long… we need to improve our housing land supply as a council if we are to essentially, have any potential way of not being put into special designation by the Government.”
Nuala, who has been very active in the campaign to prevent the nearby rail freight terminal from proceeding, said: “I’m pretty horrified to think that this application could be passed. There are so many problems with it that it is hard to know where to start when listing them, but it would result in the loss of beautiful open Green Belt farmland, create pedestrian safety issues around the site and make any attempt to reach the Park Street roundabout at peak times an even more optimistic wish. It is crucial that decisions which could set a precedent for removing vital buffer zones of Green Belt round the district are judged by the planning committee on hard evidence and not just a developer’s report.
“Given the aggressive approach of those favouring this application in August last year, and the fact that it has taken four submissions from the developer, supported by the planning officers over more than two years, this application appears to be very loaded.
“Sadly, if it were passed, it would make no difference to the working families in my Park Street ward who are about to be made homeless, as not one of the 95 housing units will be for social rent, and the 40% ‘affordable’ houses suggested in the outline planning permission application would cost in the region of £500,000- £600,000. This won’t help the homeless or even our children who want to stay in the area, who simply can’t raise that sort of money. We would lose this beautiful open Green Belt forever without any benefit to Park Street at all.”
At the meeting in August, councillors asked the planning department to ascertain whether a refusal on planning grounds could be upheld, because Highways had raised no objections and insisted, along with the developer that the Park Street roundabout operated “well within capacity”.
Three consultants were approached and all indicated that there were substantive reasons for refusal on Highways grounds, starting with the fact that the data being used to justify the scheme was collated during a Covid “Stay at Home” advice period.
Ajanta commented: “It is unbelievable that Highways and planning officers cannot see that the traffic data is flawed.
“If they were not aware at the outset, after over 300 residents have told them, you might think that they would re-evaluate their position, but no.
“This is an unsound application that breaches at least two of the Green Belt purposes, not to mention the aggravation and additional safety issues surrounding the traffic situation. If this application is passed, it will be seen as setting a precedent for development on numerous other Green Belt areas around the district. I very much hope that councillors will vote against this application, as they did for a similarly poor scheme in my ward several months ago, where the planning officer recommended approval.”
In December, the government updated the National Planning Policy Framework, which is the over-arching government regulatory document on planning matters.
One of the paragraphs was changed in order to give further protection to the Green Belt around the country, and now reads: “Once established, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated. “Authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, in which case proposals for changes should be made only through the plan-making process.”
David said: “It is astonishing that councillors are being advised to approve this ghastly application by ignoring national Green Belt policy, disregarding appeal decisions by the Planning Inspectorate, and discounting documented evidence from residents.
“The ‘alternative facts’ that councillors are, instead, being told are the only ones they should consider, range from being merely nonsensical to posing a real threat to lives.
“There’s a passage in the book 1984 when the main character is told to forget the evidence of his own eyes when seeing how many fingers are being held up in front of him. In the case of the district council, government policy, the Green Belt, and the people of Park Street, it is definitely two.”
Paul added: “What the numerous local residents who almost universally oppose this application do not understand, is why the planning officer is not just supporting the scheme, but why he is so actively promoting it in the face of the overwhelming community opposition and the strong evidence against it.
“It is a bad proposal, in the wrong location and is driven solely by the financial interests of the developer and the land owners. I hope as many residents as possible attend the meeting next Monday.”
Details of the application can be seen on the Council Planning Portal reference: 5/2022/0267. The meeting will be held at 7pm on Monday January 15 at the Civic Centre.
