The Public Enquiry on the planning application to build 500 homes on the site to the north of Pearce Way reached its third day on Friday 6th May. Members of the public were able to put their case to the Inspector. Below is the evidence offered by the Parish Council through Ron Champion, its Chairman.
RESPONSE TO APPEAL INSPECTOR FROM LAVERSTOCK & FORD PARISH COUNCIL
Planning Application S/2009/1943 – Land to the north of Pearce Way, Salisbury
Intro and preamble
Sir - Thank you for this opportunity to put our case against this appeal. My name is Ron Champion and I represent the views of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council. Laverstock & Ford parish is very large and encompasses 4 separate communities; Laverstock, Ford, Hampton Park and Old Sarum. It speaks for about 5,500 residents. The proposed development is wholly within our parish. Some would argue for the need for more housing, particularly for affordable housing, but our experience is that, currently, the pace of homes being built in this parish has slowed considerably due to market factors. At Old Sarum there is planning permission for 674 houses, only 200 have been occupied in four years, where is the acute need for housing in this area? The developer at Old Sarum is a large national builder who could easily build at a faster rate if there was a demand. There are currently nearly 1000 homes planned or under construction in this parish and other sites elsewhere in south Wiltshire need to be considered to even out the local pressure on infrastructure elements such as roads and schools. This PC is not against all development, we are not nimbies; indeed we have recently accepted 121 homes in Laverstock and several hundred more homes are under construction at Old Sarum as mentioned previously, with a further several hundred scheduled for the Longhedge area. However, this PC has been against this specific development from the start and has suggested time and again to the developers that 500 homes on this site is simply unacceptable.
Strategic Gap and Core Strategy
500 homes would mean that two of our present communities would coalesce and lose their independence extending urban sprawl into what is currently open countryside and extending the boundary of what most people, unaware of parish boundaries, identify as the City of Salisbury. The retention of the Strategic Gap between our two communities is vital and reflects the aspirations of our residents as contained within our recently published Parish Plan. We believe that the Inspector’s report from Salisbury’s District Local Plan took the view that the Strategic Gap was, in fact, an accepted reality and therefore was not explicitly retained as a necessary term. The protection from coalescence is covered and referred to in policy C7 of the Local Plan. 500 homes would leave a narrow nominal strip of land between Hampton Park and Ford.
I am concerned that a gap of some 146 metres has been alluded to which I find difficult to believe as my estimate is somewhere in the region of about 40 metres. It very much depends on where you measure the gap from and too. We believe it should be measured from the tree line along LAf011 which is the edge of privately owned land. It was accepted during the Wiltshire Council debate in February 2011 on the adoption of the Core strategy, that there should be changes to the view of the strategic gap:
·‘The development template for the Hampton Park SSA will be revised to require a significant strategic gap with Ford and flexibility over the future function of the green open space, with the establishment of a community forum to include representatives of both Laverstock and Ford Parish Councils and the 2 local unitary Councillors to guide development.’ That is us! If the appellants want to include the Core strategy within this appeal then surely we need to be included in this process. To date no discussions have taken place about this size of the strategic gap.
As a matter of accuracy, the reference to a ‘community forum’ is inaccurate and we await corrections to the official minutes as the meeting in fact delegated the responsibility of considering the detail of the Strategic Gap to this Parish Council and the two elected Wiltshire Councillors.
This parish does not wish to be penalised for Wiltshire Council’s contradictions within the draft Core Strategy, which were not of our making.
Our view is that the, currently existing, Salisbury District Local Plan should prevail. This contains housing boundary policies which indicate that any land outside the boundaries as being open countryside. Policy H23 restricts housing development in the open countryside i.e. this proposed site.
The site in question was, in fact, offered as a golf course some years ago when the same land owner developed the estate to the south of Pearce Way, known as Hampton Park. That did not materialise and therefore casts doubt upon what is actually being genuinely ‘offered’ today.
At its Strategic Planning meeting of 16 February, Wiltshire Councillors, who had local knowledge of the site, unanimously rejected this site as suitable for the proposed 500 homes. Incredibly, just 6 days later, the full Wiltshire Council (of which most members had no local knowledge) accepted this site as appropriate for 500 homes! We believe that this was because of the perceived dangers inherent in the draft Core Strategy. The original Core Strategy is being reviewed with numbers of required housing being reviewed down. That review will be complete under the inspector in August and he might well be minded to remove this site from the Strategy, a case that will be vigorously argued by this PC. The Wiltshire Council members were cautioned into accepting this site as ‘suitable’ as to reject might have made the Core Strategy unsound with all the possible negative concomitant outcomes. It would be a sad irony indeed if this appeal is granted when the site might have been removed for development under the Core Strategy review! We believe that natural justice would be better served if no decision was made on this appeal until the Core Strategy review has been completed. Without reference and consultation to this Parish Council, the 500 homes were allocated to this site whilst another more appropriate site in the parish with Parish Council support, Longhedge, had its numbers reduced by 350! This demonstrates that this parish is not against development but would like its own view of WHERE development should take place to prevail. The Longhedge site is so much better suited with its current infrastructure and this PC would be prepared to accept the extra homes there. We do not accept therefore the Appellant’s contention in his point 2.19 (proof of evidence p 8) that Wiltshire Council could not demonstrate a 5 year land supply without this site. The current economic situation and slowdown in building at Old Sarum makes a mockery of the Appellant’s claim that this site is vital for the Council’s short term front ended delivery of housing. Whilst the site has been the subject of public consultation, the local view has not prevailed with Wiltshire Council. We suspect that this is due to the pressures of the original high numbers of houses required in the Core Strategy before those numbers were revised down.
Appellants point 3.32 (p19) refers to the full council not seeking the removal of the site at its Core Strategy adoption in Feb 2011, as argued by this Parish Council. We believe that Wiltshire Council Spatial Planning had by then got itself into such a position that it was concerned that to do so i.e. remove it, would lead to the Inspector considering the Core Strategy, unsound. You will understand the frustrations of this Parish Council that it now finds itself in a situation NOT of its own making where a site that it has consistently fought against is ‘reluctantly’ supported by Wiltshire Council and included for reasons of expediency.
Localism Bill
The Localism Bill makes its slow and tortuous way toward the statute book and, whilst not yet active law, should guide the decision here as, under that bill, this appeal would not be taking place as the site would not have been identified by the local residents within the new concept of the Neighbourhood Plan. Our preferred sites would have been elsewhere. Our understanding is that local residents will be able to produce a Neighbourhood Plan which identifies suitable and acceptable areas for development. Applications which fall into those identified areas would be granted, whilst those that did not, would not get off the ground. We are confident that local residents, through the Parish Council, would not have identified this strategic gap as suitable for 500 homes. The Localism Bill seeks to give back power to local authorities to manage growth on behalf of communities. The Appellant’s Proof of Evidence claims that, in regard to the Local Plan, ‘many of its policies have (either) been superseded by national evidence.’ We would claim that the spirit of the Localism Bill supersedes all. Indeed the Appellant in 7.16 (p56) also invokes the desires of the current Coalition Government in terms of reforming the planning process.
Country Park
The developers suggest that local residents will welcome and support the planned ‘gift’ of the Country Park. The developer is offering the remainder of his land, on which planning is unlikely to be successful, as a ‘sweetener’ for his 500 homes development. It is disingenuous of the developers to state that over 90% of those asked welcomed a Country Park. Ask the question in a particular way and it will get support. The proper question is, ‘Is the Country Park a worthwhile trade-off for having 500 homes on what is currently open countryside with some access already?’ I suggest a different response would have been received to that question. The Country Park is being offered without any funds for its future upkeep and development. It is conceived in a way that makes it too formal in open countryside and not sustainable with many acres of grass cutting required. It would be a financial burden to the local taxpayers in perpetuity and is unsustainable. The Appellant suggests that, ‘The delivery of a Country Park is agreed by both parties’. (3.27 p18) With respect, there are three parties here as the Parish Council also has a huge interest in this possible asset in its own parish. We conceive the park in a less formal more sustainable agricultural form, which retains public access but also provides further land for our own very successful local Community Farm. That said the appellant as we understand matters, has move on this issue to the extent that some form of agreement may now satisfy some of these issues.
One of the points made about the Country Park from the appellant is that this gift will protect the Strategic Gap in perpetuity. Bearing in mind that most of the Country Park is opposite open fields, this will not protect any strategic gap. The estate in the middle of the development is the main area of this Gap and the strip of land opposite the Steadings, Ashlands and Merrifield which is currently occupied by an equestrian business is effectively the Gap.
The Country Park cannot therefore claim to be able to protect the gap in perpetuity.
‘...conservation of the River Bourne is also agreed and supported by the Planning Application decision’ (3.27 p18) It is very disappointing that no actual river access is included in the planning application as the site boundary is drawn just a few metres from the river!
Community provision
Likewise, there is, at the time of writing, no reference to the provision for Community Provision in the form of a meeting/social building facility. 500 homes would add considerable pressure to the existing pavilion at Hampton Park which does not currently meet the demands made upon it. The fact that this application was submitted without the drafting of an S106 agreement is reason enough to reject it. Alas, this Parish Council has not been involved in constructing the detail of the S106, as it requested, and this has been going on between the developers and Council in a hurried and pressured way as the date for this Appeal has approached. Should you be minded to grant his appeal then Wiltshire Council will be negotiating an S106 from a position of weakness and compromise and it will demonstrate that big business profits can ride roughshod over local democracy. The offer of £65k to enhance the Pavilion in Hampton Park is inadequate provision for 500 homes who will have difficulty in accessing these facilities across a large road almost trunk size.
Education
The development of 500 homes would generate about 120 primary aged pupils and about 80 secondary pupils. Because there is no, as yet agreed, S106 agreement the provision of the primary school is unclear. However, of more concern to this parish is the increase in secondary school demand. There are three secondary schools sharing one campus in the middle of the village of Laverstock. Currently there is no spare accommodation and many of the c2000 pupils are accommodated in temporary mobile classrooms. The coming and going of this huge number of pupils gives rise to gridlock and chaos at the start and end of the school day. Students for the proposed new development would probably mainly travel in by car adding greatly to the current chaos and discomfort of local residents. It is unacceptable for a developer to put up 500 homes, hand over the education contribution based on the agreed formula and simply walk away to count the profit and leave the problems for the local residents into the future. The school campus in Laverstock is unique with a total of four schools and to apply a simple education formula of contribution, will not help the residents of Laverstock.
Traffic & Transport
The road infrastructure in this area is not fit for purpose. The lack of a workable ring road means that drivers take every opportunity to use cut-throughs or rat runs. 500 homes would generate more than 700 cars and put further pressure on the village of Laverstock as drivers seek alternative routes to shopping on the A36 and journeys east on to Southampton. The new homes would be unlikely to be occupied by residents who would work locally and whose journey to work would be ‘green’. The 500 homes would add to the already frustrating and slow journeys on inadequate roads. We understand that the highways issues raised by the experts have yet to be resolved and ask, ’Where is the viable school traffic plan?’
We fully support what was said by Councillor McLannan in his remarks about the bus service and accessibility to the service.
We do not accept, as suggested in 5.21 (p33) that, ‘the site benefits from good accessibility to local services and facilities by means of walking and cycling.’ Given today’s preoccupation with car use we would suggest that a trip to the nearest shop would not be by foot or bike as suggested.
Pearce Way was constructed to serve as a possible northern distributer road for eastern Salisbury. It is wide and encourages speed and that would demand crossing with caution, given the large extra number of car journeys. A more creative approach would have been to remove Pearce Way entirely to allow building further south adjacent to current Hampton Park with the new road (including speed constraints) forming the northern boundary to open country. Alas this reflects the lack of creativity on the part of the developers, inappropriate densities, numbers and styles which make up the application. The width of the road would lead to two divided and separated communities making accessibility from the development to the facilities of Hampton Park, both difficult and dangerous by foot and cycle as assumed by the Appellant.
Design and Materials
The design of the current estate of Hampton Park meets standards rarely seen these days. Design and materials, including knapped flint and brick quoins, reflect the chalk downland area in which they are built. Similarly, the roads are designed to constrain speed. The design submitted for the proposed development is a standard off-the-peg design, typical of today’s new developments found everywhere. It fails to complement the existing houses on the opposite side of the road, includes inappropriate three storey buildings and fails to acknowledge the rural scene in which it is set.
Ownership of public open space
We do not support the concept of Barratt Homes retaining ownership and responsibility for the green open spaces and play areas. Our own experience of this, where a construction company delegates the responsibilities of repair and maintenance to a third party, has not been successful. Where control is put into the hands of local people through their council then standards can be challenged and monitored more successfully.
Concluding statement
This Parish Council fully endorses the technical reasons for refusal as submitted by Wiltshire Council. We consider this development to fail the sustainability test in terms of traffic and transport, education, community provision and country park viability and respectfully request that you dismiss this appeal in favour of the view held by the local residents.