.
On 7th July 2010, the SCDC Planning Committee refused to grant outline planning permission for 97 houses to be built on the land East of 18-28 Highfields Road, Caldecote. The decision notice was issued on 2nd August 2010.
.
Reasons for Refusal
The reasons cited for refusal were:
- that the land was no longer allocated for housing development, and
- the proposed financial contributions towards improving local infrastructure would not offset the demand arising from a further development of 97 dwellings.
Meaning, the development would be unsustainable in the existing context of the village.
.
The Appeal
Banner Homes Ltd appealed the decision, as expected, and the appeal was heard at SCDC offices on Thursday 6th January 2011, by the Planning Inspector Mr John Felgate BA(Hons) MA, MRTPI.
The process of the appeal is simple. The inspector asks for, and receives all the documentation, pertaining to the planning application, from the Council, the Developer, and other interested parties, several weeks before the hearing. S/he then reads through the documents, visits the site in preparation for the appeal hearing. At the hearing, the Inspector asks questions from all parties involved, on the main points raised for the refusal. A further site visit is arranged, after which the inspector then goes away with all the information gathered, weighs them up in the light of prevailing planning laws and adopted policy plans, and makes a decision. This could take a further 4-6 weeeks, depending on the case load of the inspector.
.
Points of Appeal
The hearing for the Banner homes application followed this pattern. The main points discussed were:
- Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle in the light of the relevant policies relating to settlement hierarchy and housing growth
- Whether the number of dwellings/density proposed would be acceptable in terms of the physical appearance and content of the development itself
- Whether the impact on local education services would be adequately mitigated by the proposed contribution of £527,680
- Whether the impact on local transport networks would be adequately mitigated by the proposed contribution of £140,000
- Other issues raised by local residents and the Parish Council (drainage, traffic, recreation facilities for young people, effect on character of village etc.).
.
The SCDC Planning officers were brilliant in their defence of the position taken by the Council. The lead officer gave the inspector clear and coincise answers, and was able to answer all the questions that the Inspector asked.
.
The lone Banner Homes representative, did not let the weight of the opposition distract him, and stated the case for the Developer clearly, appealing to the Inspector to take into account other material considerations in making the final decision. He clearly relied on the information given to him by the County Council officers (flawed and/or incomplete), in regard to the contributions for education and local transport, saying that if there had been a serious problem the County would have said so. Unfortunately, it would seem that the contribution had been calculated based on a “formula”, rather than on the actual reality of the situation in the Community.
.
He also stated that he had a letter from Anglian Water stating that the Pumping station had adequate capacity for to deal with the drainage and foul water from the new development. Residents of Caldecote know otherwise.
.
Local Representation
The Parish Council (PC) turned out in force, with a team of 5 councillors (out of 9) led by the PC Chairman Cllr Jack Lang. The County Councillor, Cllr Fiona Whelan and the District Councillor, Cllr Dr Tumi Hawkins were also present at the hearing to speak on behalf of the residents of Caldecote. There were also four Caldecote residents present at the hearing. The Inspector was left in no doubt as to the importance of the hearing to the people of Caldecote, and to the strength of feeling about the inappropriateness of the development in its current form.
.
Local Needs Come First
The Local councillors made the point that the community was not against development of the site in principle. The opposition was to the scale of the development, the mix of houses, and the inadequate infrastructure to cope with such a large development. It was also explained that the proposal to build a large number of social housing in a rural location was inappropriate, as there was no infrastructure to deal with the needs that such housing would require.
.
The point was also made very strongly by Cllr Hawkins that any significant development in the village should be based on a housing needs survey, to ascertain the types/mix of housing that is needed. As there is no longer a central government top-down house building target, and in view of the new “localism” agenda, this point is all the more relevant. This was the same point that had been expressed by Cllr Hawkins in her written response to the Council and in her oral address to the Planning Committee at the meeting where it considered the application. Read the full address for more information on points discussed.
.
Caldecote was previously identified as a growth village, and the developments by Taylor Wimpey, Banner, Ashwells etc. were given the go ahead in order to save the village primary school and the community. The existing developments have done just that, together with smaller in-fill developments that have occurred over the past 10 year. However, infrastructure provided is either not sufficient, or is at maximum capacity (such as the school). Therefore, this proposed development, if allowed, would be 97 houses too many!!
.
The Inspector was left in no doubt that the proposed contributions to education, transport etc., if made to the County Council, was unlikely to be sufficient, or to be used to meet the particular needs of the community, in the light of the spending review and budget cuts. Cllr Hawkins also highlighted the fact that previous developments had left the community with the much hated mini-roundabouts and speed thumps, approved by the County Council even though it was aware of the dangers they posed and the damage the thumps had done to cars in the village.
The Parish Council has been in a battle with County Highways for nearly 10 years now, to get the roundabouts removed and replaced with T-junctions, and the thumps replaced with more appropriate speed-calming measures. The record of the County council with respect to Caldecote matters, is less than exemplary, leading to the scepticsm about any S106 agreements that might be reached in relation to the proposed development.
.
Appeal Decision
There will be a site inspection at date yet to be fixed, when the Inspector will return to visit the site, accompanied by the Planning Officers, and the Local representatives, to get a good feel of the location and assess the impact the development would have.
.
The Inspector will then make the final decision after the visit, having considered all the representations made by all the relevant parties.
Watch this space.
.