It is very unfair when negative comments are made from the written word of some residents having read an activist site. It's certainly not the view of the thousands of residents that actively play a part in village life within the local pubs, restaurants, sporting clubs, churches, charity groups, retailers and Neighbourhood Watch activities which make this village special. These residents who I know personally realise I and other councillors have diligently represented them for many years.
I'm aware and fully sympathise that many residents in Hook are upset at the outcome of the Brown Croft ( High Ridge farm) and Reading Road ( Adjacent to John Morgan Close ) planning applications and I would like to put the record straight regarding the process and outcome.
We are in worrying times and very different from previous years when then a current Local Plan protected the Village of Hook. The failure of the new Local Plan (LP) by the Government Inspector was a disaster for Hart and all the residents within the district, as it opened the doors to developers who have obtained options to buy land, especially around Hook. It's commonly believed that it was failed because the Government didn't want to cap the housing numbers captured within a LP and so to enable the Government to build more houses many Districts LP's were not agreed. The resubmitted plan would have to increase it housing numbers allocation with the intention of triggering the economy into growth by the notion of building more dwellings.
The land areas most at risk are those already identified on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) list which includes the applications to Brown Croft (SHLAA 9), Hop Garden (SHLAA 8) and land Adjacent to Reading Road..Gas Reducing Station (SHLAA 7). They were identified as possible development sites some time ago and so the development concept for those areas for housing has been well known by residents for many years as developers have tried before to gain planning permission on these sites but the then current LP helped block these.
The tools that Hart District Council planning committee use to determine planning applications come in the form of policies. The policies utilised without a LP are saved polices from the last LP and the " over-riding" document the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF).
Objections could only be raised at the planning meeting if they were 'material planning reasons' which contravene planning policies. Even resident objections have to focus on policies and not like....don't want affordable homes near my house, country views lost and perceived loss of house value. Every detail is looked at by professional planning officers, the planning committee and before that by me. Unfortunately having worked many hours on these applications trying to locate issues outside of policy none were show stoppers and those found could be mitigated by conditions.
At the heart of the lead document the NPPF is a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development', which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
Where the LP is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, the Local Planning Authority should grant permission unless:-
"any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole". That statement from the NPPF doesn't give much opportunity to decline applications. This is frustrating and annoying but it's the times we are currently in without a LP!
The only chink in the policy armour with the Brown Croft application was the traffic numbers and road safety. Even though at the planning committee meeting the Highways Authority Officer bungled his report, the Senior Planning Officer interjected and informed the Planning Committee that the amount of presumed vehicle movement to and from the site was within policy. Once he quoted that it then wasnt a material planning objection matter and this argument had no legs. However, myself and the planning committee questioned the officers regarding additional vehicle movements to and from the Suitable Area of Natural Green (SANG). That's why the SANG was discussed and a good job it was as we were able to obtain single use for that amenity space SANG for the proposed houses and for those local residents that could walk there only! Which means No additional car movements to or from the SANG from outside the development.
Both Brown Croft and the Reading Road applications went to Full Council on 27th February because they were a departure from the LP and Interim Housing Delivery Strategy (IHDS). The only reasons that can be discussed at full council are those that contravene planning policy and as previously stated without a local plan and with the NPPF's presumption to develop there were no such reasons. However, as I was concerned about the Internal Highways advice regarding vehicle movement numbers, I have helped arrange that the Brown Croft highways element undergoes a further full and thorough investigation of traffic numbers and road safety assessment. This will be carried out by an non political outside expert. Should this expert find fault in the safety of the road or entrance/exit to the site it could be a show stopper. However, if he considers everything within Government policy or mitigation allows the road scheme to become safe, the Director of Planning will then and only then release the grant documentation. Even then the developer has to abide by all the conditions that are placed upon the grant documentation. These conditions are similar to those at the Reading Road and include foul water and surface water conditions to ensure adequate facility before development commences along with many other conditions to mitigate the effects of the development on the village.
The Reading Road development had a condition placed upon it at the planning meeting to review the safety of Junction into the site. I will be meeting with the applicants highways engineers and a senior Hart District Council Planning manager to discuss a new layout to make it safer. Once this has been resolved then the application goes back to the planning Committee in March. In the mean time the safety of the new junction will be independently sanctioned by the same expert used on Brown Croft. As the planning committee had already granted permission for this development only the changes to the entrance can be discussed when brought back to the planning meeting.
The application then goes back to Full Council. As before only contravened policies can be discussed at this meeting and unfortunately there are none and so there's no grounds like that at Brown Croft to 'call in' the application.
As previously said I was very disappointed with the Highways Officer at the planning meeting so I requested at Full Council that the Leader request the portfolio holders of Environment and Planning to look into and review the current level of internal highways representation and advice received at planning meetings and to report back on their conclusions.
The Failed LP identified sites SHLAA 1, 2 ( North East of Hook ) and possibly 7 (Land Adjacent to Reading Road..Gas Pumping Station) for housing/retail development and the amount of housing to each SHLAA site, totalling 600 dwellings. That has all changed including the numbers. It is expected that the new LP which should be ready for inspection by Government inspector early next year, will more than likely need to raise the numbers of housing to be delivered by Hook and other settlements within the district. Therefore if it would have been possible to prevent the developments SHLAA 7 and 9 there was no guarantee that, even with the housing numbers from rejected LP which would have brought forward 600 , those numbers may not have be enough to fulfil the new LP housing number requirements for Hook. Meaning SHLAA 7, 8 and 9 and the NE Hook Development (600) may be part of the new LP after all!
Much has been spoken about the IHDS Hart produced and that it's housing numbers mentioned in the document should prevent any additional development . However the IHDS is only a preference (strategy) to what Hart would like housing numbers to be, it's not policy and could not be used for valid argument regarding housing numbers or where they were sited. There is hope with this Strategy as Hart District Council are furiously working on a housing number capping strategy to hopefully align with the IHDS and this maybe will have a restrictive value for applications coming forward in the future.
As your Ward planning member I have spent many hundreds of hours studying hundreds of planning applications within Hook and Rotherwick and I have worked conscientiously with each Parish Council to ensure applications are fairly and honestly determined. Even though I was fully aware that Brown Croft and The Reading Road developments were within policy I went against my impartial principles and was one of only a few on the planning committee to vote against both applications as I didn't agree with the locations and still had concerns about the traffic. The later concern I will deal with professionally and the former I'm still not happy with but policy has determined its outcome.
With regard to Sainsbury's the majority of Hook residents were in favour of a Sainsbury's store within the village including those near the store (I know I live there!) and although I was never in favour of its position the NPPF and saved policies allowed the application to be granted. Hundreds of hours were expended by the planning officers at Hart, myself and the Parish Council ensuring mitigation was carried out to minimise the effects on the village. An enormous amount of funding will be spent by Sainsbury's in the form of Section 106 legal contributions on extensive highways improvements to cope with the addition traffic, including a larger and more efficient roundabout. Other conditions include to control light pollution, noise, surface and foul water removal, safety cameras to car parks and junction for safety, acoustic fencing to protect the Hook House Hotel, silent unloading bays to protect adjacent dwellings. In addition the surgery car park will be free for the first 4 hours and the Grand Parade car park will also be refurbished. Even if it was possible to defer/reject this application (which it wasn't) all the section 106 mitigation funding to benefit Hook would have been lost when the inevitable granting permission would have taken place at appeal.
Tesco's application came on the scene after Sainsbury's application was granted and even should Tesco's get planning permission it's still unclear whether it will be built as it's thought Rawlings has not yet found a alternative location to move to!
I'm sorry this is long winded but it's a complicated subject and I wanted to make clear the process.
Cllr Mike Morris BEM
District Councillor
Ward Planning Member for Hook and Rotherwick.
No comments:
Post a Comment