| Welcome to ActonBridge.Org | Strawberry Lane Pages : the Parish Council's letter to Cheshire West and Chester Council, June 2015 |
Here is the text of the Parish Council's letter to Cheshire West and Chester. You are welcome to refer to the points made when preparing your own submissions, but please don't just copy and paste, or it won't look original.
Click to return to the main Strawberry Lane Page or the Parish Council Page
| ACTON BRIDGE PARISH COUNCIL | |
|
Development Management, Planning Service, Cheshire West and Chester Council, Civic Way, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, CH65 0BE For the attention of Ms Fiona Hore |
2, Chapel Lane, Acton Bridge, Northwich CW8 3QS 8th June 2015 |
| Application 15/01882/FUL Construction of Ten New Dwellings - Land Adjacent to Strawberry Lane, Acton Bridge. |
|
Acton Bridge Parish Council has considered the Planning Application, referenced above, at its meeting on 1st June inst, in the presence of sixty five residents. The Parish Council and residents believe that the proposals are contrary to planning guidelines and fail to satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Green Belt requirements and the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (CW&CLP). This assertion is based on the failure of the application to satisfy a number of principal criteria for building in the Green Belt, as follows;
1, New building inside the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate, unless for "very special circumstances".
2, Infill building is limited to a small gap in a developed row of buildings.
3, Sustainable Development is required to be proved and Affordable Housing is required to be shown as needed in a location for there to be development in the Green Belt.
4, Openness, Character and Appearance of the Site is to be preserved and not damaged.
5, Rejection of the scheme by residents based on multiple additional grounds to those pertaining to the green belt for refusal.
The Parish Council provide substantiation on all these matters in the sections below and request that you find them as reasons and grounds for refusal of the application.
1 Building in the Green Belt
It is again emphasised that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is not permitted except in special circumstances. This is a corner stone of Green Belt policy in the NPPF Chapter 9 - Protecting Green Belt Land, it is further reinforced by the adopted CW&C Local Plan Part 1 and the still relevant sections of the Vale Royal Local Plan (VRLP). There are no "very special circumstances" claimed for this application and thus it does not fundamentally comply with the stated requirements.
The exclusion of building in the green belt is of paramount importance as exemplified by the former County Structure Plan, the CW&C Local Plan Part 1 and the still valid VRLP which together with the CW&C Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment reiterates protection of the North Cheshire Green Belt. Acton Bridge is completely washed-over by the North Cheshire Green Belt.
The Parish Council wish to stress that the proposals also fail to satisfy other relevant paragraphs of Chapter 9 of the NPPF, i.e.
79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
As previously stated, there are no 'very special circumstances' offered to justify this application.
In March 2014 the Government published new web-based Planning Practice Guidance to accompany and give further detail about the policies in the NPPF. This guidance makes clear that unmet housing need in a particular area is unlikely to meet the "very special circumstances" test justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt. This is clearly relevant to this application.
2 Infill Development
In terms of Green Belt policy, the objectives of the NPPF and Strat9, is to regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development save for a number of exceptions. The applicant seeks to construct, in many places in his submissions, a case to utilise exceptions in NPPF, particularly Para 89, bullet point 5 - limited infilling in villages, to allow building in the green belt. The definition of infill is thus pertinent and defines the value of the applicants' case before examination of the other assertions that have been introduced.
Definition of 'infill' is available both grammatically from various dictionaries and practically by reference to a number of Local Authority planning guidelines. Grammatically the definition is typically; 'the act of filling or closing gaps, etc, in something, such as a row of building'. In practical terms, the statements in Local Authority planning guidelines give the definition as 'buildings constructed to occupy the gaps between existing structures' or from PPG2 'acceptable infilling is unlikely to be more than the filling of small gaps within built development, where it does not significantly impinge upon the openness of the Green Belt'. The proposed site does not vaguely relate to any of these definitions. The following facts about the proposed site provide substantiation of this assertion.
Alder House is the only building on the south side of Strawberry Lane. There are no other properties on the South side of Strawberry Lane thus there is no defined gap for infill. Neither does the part segregation of a much larger plot of land constitute an infill. Surely the photographs in the applicant's documents, of the large plot of land in its present state are confirmation that the claims of 'infill' and 'being enclosed by built development' are not credible. It is therefore submitted that the 'infill' aspects offered by the applicant are totally invalid.
The stated exception of 'limited infilling in villages providing that it preserves the openness of land and the purposes of including it within the Green Belt' are two issues for consideration here. It cannot be claimed that a string of ten properties occupying a distance of over 100 metres is limited infilling or satisfies either of the principles of preserving openness or the purpose of the land being included in the Green Belt. Also, Drawing 772 - 104 of the Proposed Street Scene, shows only hard-standing for cars at present and ignores the inevitable inclusion of garages / garden buildings that will eventually occur such that the true impact / damage to the openness of the green belt by the development is not revealed.
The NPPF states (at paragraph 55) 'Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances'. None of the special circumstances listed in paragraph 55 are appropriate to this application.
The NPPF states (at paragraph 214) that due weight should be given to relevant policies in plans pre-dating the publication of the NPPF according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Following the adoption of Part One of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan and based on the housing figures contained within it, the CW&C Council now considers that it can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. As a result, relevant policies of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan for the supply of housing are now no longer 'out of date' and thereby reduces the pressure to develop sites outside of the most sustainable locations for residential purposes.
3 Sustainable Development and Affordable Housing
The Sustainability Statement supplied in support of the application contains many statements that are inaccurate, disingenuous or generalisations that are not applicable to Acton Bridge or to building in the Green Belt per-se. For example, the Sustainability Statement refers to the site as being 1.2km from Weaverham, but this is to the Parish Boundaries at the A49 road. The distance to the shops, schools, etc., in Weaverham is more like 3km from the application site.
Acton Bridge is a rural village that has no schools, no shops (the 'farm shop' quoted and illustrated in the applicants documents was in fact closed down last year !!) little or no local employment (some agricultural activities and pubs) and very limited travel services. The Parish Council request that you refer to the table given at the end of the applicants Sustainability Statement where seven of fifteen categories significantly fail the required standard. With nearly half the categories failing the stated standard the case submitted for sustainability fails. The Parish Council has discounted the obvious (and careless) numerical errors, such as 1600mm from community facilities (perhaps 1600m) and 1000km from the station (perhaps 1000m) in assessing the significant failures to meet sustainable development criteria.
Reference NPPF paragraph 89, bullet point 5;
Crucially no case has been made for the demand or any need for affordable housing in the village of Acton Bridge. Emotive arguments are sometimes raised to the effect that young people having grown up in the Village cannot then acquire properties in the Village. Yes there will be isolated incidents but as a 'local community need' this has not been shown to be the case and there are many former 'young' residents that have set up home in the Village.
In the late nineteen sixties, four properties (two pairs of semi-detached bungalows) termed at the time as 'old peoples bungalows' were built for renting to people of the Village. It has since been shown that there is no demand for these in the Village and that to avoid the properties being empty the management trust has had to let these properties to tenants from any location, of various ages and circumstances.
The NPPF provides, at Annex A - Glossary, a definition of social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. The description of Affordable Housing discusses ownership, management and control of such properties. No ownership, rent management or control of occupiers / tenants has been supplied with this application. However, there is a final statement at the end of Annex A, following the descriptions of social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing which says that;
Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as "low cost market" housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.
The Parish Council believe that the application specifically fails to make a case in either the sustainability or the need for the building of the ten properties termed as affordable housing in Acton Bridge.
The Parish Council wish to stress that the Village is not isolationist or excludes itself from any change or growth. As proof of this, the facts are that the Census data given for 1961 has a housing stock of 184 dwellings while that for 2011 has an equivalent figure of 274, an increase of 90 being nearly half as much again as the original figure and, understandably, the population has also grown correspondingly.
There are currently eight / ten properties (depending on sales and availability) of varying accommodation and price available for sale in the Village. Considering the size of the Village, this is a significant number of properties that offers opportunity to anyone wishing to locate and reside in Acton Bridge. There is thus no demand for extra housing in the Village.
4 Openness, character and appearance
The Parish Council ask you to consider that another significant issue with the proposed development is that of visual harm and the loss of openness and character of the area. The application site comprises the front portion of an otherwise large open field, which offers pleasant views into the surrounding countryside and contributes positively to the predominantly rural character of the area. The large field that is positioned between Hill Top Road and Strawberry Lane creates a feeling of openness and has also stopped the further spread of development, which the proposal would undermine. The proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the land and the purposes of including such land within the Green Belt.
A similar view was taken recently by an Inspector in assessing an infill development in the North Cheshire Green Belt on the edge of the settlement boundary in Anderton (Appeal reference: APP/A0665/A/14/2228579). Although the Inspector concluded that the proposal constituted infill in that instance, this was outweighed by the material harm that would have been caused by the proposed development, describing it as a visual obtrusion that would significantly diminish the sense of openness in the surrounding area. Reference was also made to the strong degree of visual inter-connectivity between the site and the rural landscape, which can also be used to describe the application site. The proposed development will undoubtedly cause a significant degree of harm to the Green Belt, which is not outweighed by any very special circumstances. The proposal is thereby contrary to the basic principles of STRAT9 and the NPPF.
5 Additional Grounds For Refusing This Application
From time to time there has been the need to consult the residents of Acton Bridge as to their wishes for building in the Village. On every occasion the Village has rejected further growth and development. Most pertinently, the applicant, via his agent Mr Ashall, held Public Meetings in the Village in October 2011, to discuss the development of the whole of the plot of land in question, not just the strip created to further this application. Various proposals to accommodate up to 16 houses on the field as a whole were put forward. These proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by the Village residents.
More recently, the applicant submitted plans (Application 14/00930/FUL) for two houses in the same field but at a different position and claimed exception from the Green Belt under 'infill'. This application was refused.
The Parish Council meeting, on the 1st June inst, filled the Village Hall to over-flowing. The residents strenuously stated their objections to this application. Some already have and more have stated that they will send their objections directly to you.
Not to re-iterate the reasons and grounds given above, a brief outline of additional points raised is;
It was also emphasised that the proposed development is near a listed building (Pepper Street) and that the adjacent locality is enhanced by a number of listed or buildings of historical interest (Hall Green Farm and Wall Hill Farm at Cliff Road). It is therefore believed the a number of clauses in BE1 and BE 5 of VRLP and draft CW&C LP Part 1 are contravened by this proposed development.
The site is located in the Weaver Valley Area of Special County Value for its landscape quality, it is also a Tier 4 location as defined in Policy H4.
Acton Bridge Parish Council asks you consider that all the reasons and grounds given above fully justify and validate their objection to the application. Acton Bridge Parish Council respectfully urge you refuse this application as contrary to the Green Belt requirements of NPPF, CW&C Local Plan and VRLP and to preserve the essential characteristics of the green belts that are their permanence and their openness.
|
Yours faithfully
M C Holt (Mrs) |
You can submit a comment online, by clicking on the "Comments" tab on the CWAC page linked above (and registering, if you have not done so already); by e-mail to planning@cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk ; or in writing to Development Management, 4 Civic Way, Ellesmere Port CH65 0BE, quoting the Reference 15/01882/FUL.
Click to return to the main Strawberry Lane Page or the Parish Council Page
|
|
|
Click on the house for ActonBridge.Org Home Page |
|
Website © Copyright |
| [Site directory] | [E-mail address] |