THAT DANGER HAS NOT FADED AND IS BECOMING MORE ACUTE!
Having reviewed developments in England on land areas of this nature it is clear that the Government is unpredictable in its decision making process on such sites, BUT IT APPEARS THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO APPROVE SUCH DEVELOPMENT THAN TO STOP IT.
We know that Beaulieu Homes owns that land and has plans to build there if they can get permission.
Our Local Authority, RBWM, has been working for some time on a new Borough Local Plan. One stage in this is that the Local Plan is put out for consultation by us, the residents of RBWM.
The stage after that consultation is that the plan and the residents responses will be considered by the Central Government Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol.
As the Planning Inspectorate has a history of rejecting Local Authority Plans if they are not seen to have considered all areas in which housing could be built, it is clear that RBWM will have to include the land I have identified above in their Local Plan as one of the areas where housing could be built.
Members of the HRA have demonstrated by joining that they have concern for our neighbourhood. It is well known that in general when consultations take place the response rate is generally around 4% of the population. As of 22nd March 2014, the HRA has 269 members, this being 9.4% of those on the voters roll. It could be supposed that our members are those same people who respond to consultations.
I therefore believe and hope that when the RBWM puts its Local Plan out for residents consultation, all HRA members will respond to the consultation and reject any proposal to build on our Green Belt and in particular not on the area between Holyport Road, Aysgarth Park and the Ascot Road.
The HRA needs more members. Only by being a member can you receive emails from HRA about any developments.
Please speak to your neighbours and ask them also to reject any proposals to build on our Green Belt land.
When the consultation comes out I will remind you of it.
The following background information is very relevant;
In the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Winter 2013 magazine, under the heading GREEN BELT they wrote;
Despite Government promises that its planning policies would maintain protection for England's Green Belt, CPRE research shows that the area of Green Belt earmarked for development has nearly doubled in a year.
Green Belts of open land outside our towns and cities make up a significant part of the English landscape, covering 12.4% of the country. The protected status afforded to Green Belt land has safeguarded open spaces for farming, forestry and recreation, and helped prevent the kind of urban sprawl here that has disfigured cities from Los Angeles to Lahore. Yet despite Secretary of State Eric Pickles vowing to revoke the old-style regional plans that threatened to sacrifice Green Belt for housing targets, our research has shown that more than 150,000 dwellings, plus 1,000 hectares of mines, warehouses and offices, are planned for Green Belt sites.
In fact, 2013 has seen proposals for development return to much the same level as under the former regional plans.
We welcomed the Government's statement in summer stating that housing demand alone is not enough to justify building on Green Belt - but we're pressing for further action. A commitment to building on brownfield first would take the pressure off the open spaces around our towns and aid regeneration; as would measures to help local authorities direct development away from the Green Belt and clearer guidance on housing requirements in local plans.
`Ministers saying that the Green Belt is not being given the level of protection they expected is a welcome recognition of the problem,' says CPRE Senior Planning Campaigner Paul Miner. `But the extent to which the threat is growing is deeply worrying. It should not be necessary to build on Green Belt land when there is enough brownfield land available for a million and a half new homes.'
The following link to a Telegraph article of 17th November 2013 gives the text shown below it;
Campaigners claim localism pledges are being undermined by planning decisions
Beauty spots and protected areas of countryside are to be destroyed to make way for housing after Government inspectors overturned local planning decisions despite promises by ministers to hand more control to communities.
Despite promises by ministers to hand more control to communities, campaigners say decisions by local councils to turn down developments are being routinely overridden by the centralised Planning Inspectorate.
The Sunday Telegraph has discovered that several developments on legally protected landscapes, including greenbelt land, and areas of open countryside have all been approved within recent months by the Inspectorate under the National Planning Policy Framework, the Coalition’s controversial planning reforms.
All the rulings have reversed decisions by local authorities to reject the housing in a bid to safeguard the land.
Among the cases to be overturned by planning inspectors are two applications to build a total of 289 houses in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – land that is protected by law – close to Highgrove House, the Prince of Wales’ private residence in Gloucestershire.
One of these two developments, which were both rejected by Cotswold District Council before being reversed by inspectors, will see 39 houses being built less than a mile from Highgrove. The homes are expected to be visible from Prince Charles’ property.
Although the Prince has not raised any specific objections to these developments, other locals have reacted angrily to the decisions.
Councillor Lynden Stowe, the Conservative leader of Cotswold District Council, said: “Local people are livid and the councillors are extremely angry. We feel completely let down by Government ministers even though they are in our own party.
“Localism appears to be completely one sided in favour of development. Communities have absolutely no say in objecting to proposals that they don’t want.”
Ministers have repeatedly insisted the NPPF, which came into force in April last year, would ensure that developments would be built on brownfield land first before being built elsewhere.
The Government faced intense opposition to the new rules from campaigners, including the National Trust, who insisted the framework would result in unchecked development in the countryside.
At the time ministers dismissed the concerns and said greenbelt land would also continue to be protected under the new rules. In the past year, however, plans to build 135 houses on greenbelt land on the outskirts of the picturesque village of Whittle Le Woods, in Lancashire, have been approved by the Planning Inspectorate despite Chorley Borough Council’s decision to reject the proposals.
Another council decision to reject plans to build 140 homes on greenbelt land in Sedgley, south Staffordshire, was also overturned, while eleven houses on greenbelt outside Stanley Common, Derbyshire were also approved against the wishes of Erewash Borough Council.
There have also been a number of cases where developments were turned down by local councils due to concerns about the impact they would have on the rural nature of the area, but were then later approved by government inspectors.
In Beverley, near East Riding, Yorkshire, a £17 million scheme to build 141 homes was last week approved by the Planning Inspectorate despite being unanimously rejected by East Riding Council due to concerns about its design.
Another application to build 269 homes on greenfield land in Sandback, Cheshire, has also been allowed to go ahead after developers appealed against a decision by the local authority Cheshire East Council.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles approved the application said that although the development would cause “material harm to countryside protection policies”, this was outweighed by the council’s “significant shortfall” in housing land supply and affordable housing.
Paul Miner, senior planning campaigner for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said the cases appeared to be at odds with the Government’s promises to allow local communities determine what is built in their area. He said: 'When the Government introduced its planning reforms last year it promised that the local plan would be the keystone of the planning system, and that the intrinsic value and beauty of the countryside would be recognised.
“Instead, we are seeing that applications for new housing are being approved regardless of their impact on local areas. This includes some of our most treasured areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”
It comes after figures revealed that more than half of local authorities do not have local plans in place to allow communities to set out clearly where building can take place, meaning they will not be able to prevent developers from trying to build where they like.
The National Trust has warned problems implementing the new rules posed a serious threat to the countryside.
PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND UNTIL THE LOCAL PLAN IS ISSUED FOR CONSULTATION - IT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT THAT AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE WILL VOTE AGAINST BUILDING ON OUR GREEN BELT LAND.
The following quote is from the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan Chairman's letter of 17th November 2012 to the RBWM's Cabinet Member for Planning and Partnership.
"...the BPNP now has a clear indication of the strength of feeling amongst Bray Parish residents that Bray Parish Green Belt is inviolable except in special circumstances where there is significant community support and benefit.
The BPNP will therefore have as one of its key policies that any developments on any land in the Parish that is in the green belt, such as the aforementioned land or parts of it, should only take place if there is a significant community benefit and a majority of those living in the area have voted for the proposed development at a specially convened consultation meeting as part of any planning application."
It is to be hoped that the Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan will actually include such a key policy.
The Bray Parish Neighbourhood Plan will also have to be put out to residents for consultation.
BE SURE TO REJECT IT IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROMISED PROTECTING POLICY.