STONE VIEW, OVING, PLANNING APPLICATION IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Transcription

1 STONE VIEW, OVING, PLANNING APPLICATION IMPORTANT INFORMATION Dear Resident, You may be aware that Rectory Homes have submitted a planning application for 24 homes on the south side of Stone View. This would have a dramatic and highly damaging impact on the village. Chris Welch from Stone View has put together a very articulate and extremely well thought through response as a private individual and has given the Parish Council (PC) his permission to share with residents in the village. The PC is formally discussing this application at its meeting on the 12 th April at 7.15 and will be sending its response to the application following the meeting. In the meantime should you wish to comment on or object to the development you may wish to reflect the points made in Chris Welch s letter. Please note that only 'material considerations' are considered by planners and some are listed at the foot of this message. Issues that are not relevant include: Effect on the value of property. Loss of view over other peoples' land. Possible future development not included in the application. Matters controlled under building regulations or other non-planning legislation e.g. structural stability, drainage details, fire precautions etc. are not grounds for planning refusal - so I suggest sticking to the key planning points raised in Chris s letter. I do hope that you will choose to respond to AVDC: The council decision will be impacted by a forceful and high number of informed responses. You can make your comments online at: age=intray Kind regards, Ambrose Ambrose McGinn Chairman Oving Parish Council M: E: ambrose@ambrosemcginn.com

2 LETTER FROM MR CHRISTOPHER WELCH Mr Dunn-Lwin Aylesbury Vale District Council Development Control By only Dear Mr Dunn-Lwin, 16/00967/APP Land South Of Stone View, Oving, Buckinghamshire I am writing with respect to the above to the above application. I apologise in advance for what is a somewhat lengthy letter, but the history of this site is complex and the proposals raise very serious concerns. Planning History The applicant sets great store by the fact that the area of the proposed development received planning permission in No one would seriously be trying now to get permission at a location as inappropriate as this if it was not for this old permission, granted more than half a century ago in a completely different economic, social and policy world. It is important to establish an accurate narrative of its background and subsequent history. In the 1930s a row of semi-detached houses was built on the north side of Stone View by the local authority. There was then no proposal to build any on the south side, a fact which is evident from the name they gave to the road. In 1960 the County Council granted planning permission to the then Aylesbury Rural District Council to build a small estate of council houses on the south side of the road; what would today be termed fixed-rent affordable housing. Apart from four bungalows, the development was never carried out. In 1984 the local authority sold the land, as it had long since abandoned any intention of building the estate. In doing so, it placed a restriction on future development in the form of a covenant under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act The whole purpose of this planning restriction was to negate the effect of the 1960 permission. In 1995 a planning application was made for a single bungalow on this land (95/00510/AOP). This was refused by the local authority and it went to appeal. The Planning Inspector concluded that that proposal (involving just one bungalow adjacent to the existing bungalows, rather than a whole estate of 24 houses) would be visually intrusive and harmful to the well defined rural character of the area. He felt that it would encourage further development (exactly of the kind now being applied for) and that that would be damaging to a far more extensive area of countryside. As now, the fact that the land already had planning permission formed a key part of

3 the applicant s case. The Inspector accepted that the 1960 planning permission was still live, but said I consider that the planning history of the land to the south of Stone View adds little to a case for allowing your appeal. Quite rightly, he said that the question of whether the old planning permission could be implemented was beyond his remit, but he concluded that the fact that this site had been given a planning permission thirty-five years previously added little to a case for development here. There are no reasons why this position should change twenty years later. In 2001 a planning inspector confirmed that the 1960 permission remained live. However, he made it clear that this had no bearing at all on the planning restriction imposed in In 2002 Aylesbury Vale District Council considered opening negotiations to see how much they might receive in compensation if they lifted the planning restriction imposed in 1984.There was an outcry from local residents and the parish council and the matter was called in by the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee took the view that the purpose of the restriction was to prevent the further implementation of the 1960 permission, that there had been no change in circumstances since 1984, and that to build on this site would set an unfortunate precedent in villages across the Vale. Following the receipt of legal advice, the Cabinet Committee resolved in March 2003 that there should be no further negotiations about lifting the planning restriction. In 2015 the Council confirmed that it had no intention of lifting the 1984 planning restriction and that the situation with respect to this land remained exactly as it was in In 2015 the applicant attempted to submit a similar scheme to the current one as an amendment to the 1960 planning permission. Presumably being advised that that scheme bore no meaningful resemblance to the original consented scheme, they withdrew their application (59/A0477NON). In that application they stated that the 1960 scheme could never be implemented today, and they considered it outmoded, impractical and of a poor design quality which they would not wish to see implemented. They want an entirely new planning permission for a completely different scheme precisely because the old one cannot be implemented. In summary, then, the applicant considers weight should be given to a planning permission from fifty-six years ago for a council estate that was never built, and which everyone accepts could never be built today. On the other hand, the local authority signalled that this site was completely inappropriate for development in 1984 and placed a restriction on any future development. They refused a single bungalow in 1995 and were supported in that by a planning inspector who thought the 1960 permission virtually irrelevant, and they confirmed their position in Landscape Significance Oving is a hilltop village, surrounded by fields. It lies within the Quainton-Wing Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL), and within Landscape Character Type 9 the Pitchcott- Whitchurch Ridge. The special quality of the landscape lies in its undulating hills and ridges with distant panoramic views across the strongly rural and picturesque landscape, including the Vale of Aylesbury to the south, a description which could have been written with the proposed development site in mind. AVDC have recently (2015) commissioned a

4 report which confirms this special quality. None of this appears in the planning application. Without any of the above assessment, it is very obvious to anyone enjoying the countryside along Stone View that this is a particularly sensitive location. The clue is rather in the name. When Aylesbury Rural District Council decided to build a row of houses reflecting the Arts and Crafts style, with hanging tiles and weatherboarding, they deliberately built them along one side of the ancient lane that led past the limestone quarries that occupied the site, leaving the view southwards from the lane clear. Only in the 1960s, under pressure to build social housing quickly, did they contemplate blocking the view and fortunately, they never did. The condition of the landscape is good and the sensitivity is high. As the Inspector recognised in 1995, the immediate area of the development is an open and attractive landscape. Beyond that, looking from Stone View and across the proposed development site, there is a stunning panoramic view which takes in the Winchenden Ridge in the foreground, and the Chilterns, some ten miles away in the background, stretching away into Oxfordshire. The landscape and geology of the area the ridges of limestone and chalk and the vales of clay - can be instantly appreciated. The 2015 report refers to how the public rights of way network in this AAL enables appreciation of the landscape. Stone View is not just a road it is a public right of way and also part of the Outer Aylesbury Ring, a 53-mile routeway developed in 2013 and whose key features are the panoramic views offered to walkers. There are many walkers and villagers who stop and enjoy this view, and the residents rather love it too. Impact Rectory Homes would like to spoil this countryside and block this view with 24 houses. The impact of this development would be disastrous, destroying the key reason that the council has designated this area as part of the AAL. A recent application in the neighbouring village (from the same developer) was recently refused precisely because of the damage to this Area of Attractive Landscape, on a less sensitive location (15/03270/AOP). In another recent case in the AAL, a new dwelling was refused in 2014 for exactly the same reasons a short distance away at Sandpits (14/00455/APP). A more recent application there for a new dwelling has been approved (15/02903/APP), but this is because it is underground! The applicant suggests that the proposed development site is separated from the Oving Conservation Area. Possibly this is technically true, but the panorama described above is framed on one side by the late-nineteenth century ornamental planting of Oving House, which is very much within the Conservation Area, and the proposed development will evidently harm its setting. Any appreciation that the woodland planting was set within a wider arable landscape will be completely lost. Policy The National Planning Policy Framework states, as a core principle, that planning decisions should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Saved policy RA.8 requires that development proposals in AALs should respect their landscape character. If they adversely affect this character, they should not be permitted. The quality of the AAL has been reviewed and confirmed by AVDC last year. Saved policy GP.35 requires that new development proposals should respect and complement the natural qualities and features of the area and the effect on important views and skylines.

5 This policy could have been written specifically to prevent this development. Saved policy GP.53 states that proposals for development will not be permitted if they cause harm to any views of or from a Conservation Area. Saved policy GP.84 states that the council will have regard to the amenity and public enjoyment of rights of way, and the explanatory text notes how footpaths give access to Areas of Attractive Landscape. In the absence of a local plan, the applicant claims that saved policies carry no weight. This is simply wrong. That policy GP.35 carries considerable weight was made evident in the recent appeal decision in respect of the proposed development at Fleet Marston, where the contradiction of GP.35 was one of the two reasons for the dismissal of the appeal. It would be possible to go on listing all the policies in the NPPF and all the saved policies that are contradicted by this proposal, but it is evident to anyone that this development at this location would have a disastrous effect on the quality of the local landscape and on distant views. The inspector at the 1995 appeal thought this, and nothing has changed. This is why the local authority has made it repeatedly clear for more than thirty years that it does not wish to see development here. Settlement Hierarchy In another very recent report commissioned by AVDC, a draft settlement hierarchy for the various settlements in the district has been produced, which lists major settlements, larger villages and smaller villages. Not surprisingly, Oving is a smaller village with an average population for such settlements. The report states that Oving has four key services, but both it and the application are wrong in this as the bus service was sharply reduced in 2014 and is certainly a lot less frequent than hourly. Such villages are thought to be able to sustain only small scale development or even none at all. The applicant refers to this, but seems to believe that the proposed 24 houses on the new estate represent small scale development. In recent years the village has seen four new houses on Marston Hill and another seven are currently under construction, so it has absorbed considerable small scale evelopment. There are about 200 addresses in the village, so the new development would represent at the very least a 10% increase in size. Housing Supply In common with many recent speculative applications, the applicant interprets paragraph 14 of the NPPF as requiring local authorities without local plans to be forced to accept any development, no matter how appalling it might be. They also point to the fact that AVDC does not have an adequate housing supply and is required to build thousands of houses each year to meet demand. But the 24 houses proposed here would make a tiny dent in that demand, while causing huge damage to the environment. Any public benefit would be far outweighed by the harm caused by a development in this rural location. There are any number of brownfield sites where 24 dwellings - perhaps even the affordable ones that we actually need- could be built. Recent government guidance has made it clear that local authorities do not need to accept unsustainable proposals if their benefits do not outweigh the harm, and that is most certainly the case here. Oving Community Led Plan

6 The parish council has recently published a Community Led Plan, following extensive consultation with residents. Two (of five) key items identified by the residents were the views out from this hilltop village, and the need to restrict development in what is a small village. Conclusion The fact that permission was given for a council estate here in 1960 should carry no weight. It was never built, couldn t be built today and the permission was effectively rescinded in In 1995 a planning inspector considered the 1960 permission virtually irrelevant, and the Council has confirmed that nothing has changed since 1984 and it has no plans to lift the planning restriction it imposed then. A new development of the type and location proposed by the applicant would significant and adverse harm to the natural qualities and features of the area and will adversely affect the character of the Quainton-Wing Area of Attractive Landscape. This has been recognised by the Council for over thirty years. Similar applications nearby have been recently refused for exactly this reason, and if anything the harm caused would be worse at this location. Oving is a smaller village, and cannot be expected to take the level of development proposed here. This is another example of a speculative application by a developer hoping to make a profit while spoiling our unique and precious countryside. The application should be refused. Yours sincerely Christopher Welch Examples of some material considerations include: Consistency with neighbourhood, district, county and national planning policies; Any emerging new planning documents that have been through at least one stage of public consultation; Previous planning decisions; Highway issues, e.g. traffic and highway safety; Overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing; Scale of the development; Design, appearance, layout and materials to be used; Loss of important open space or sporting facilities; Capacity of physical infrastructure, e.g. public drainage or water systems; Deficiencies in social facilities, e.g. spaces in schools; Impact on nature conservation and biodiversity; Effect on listed buildings and conservation areas;