Site address Land at the end of Gateway Avenue, Baldwins Gate, Newcastleunder-Lyme, Staffordshire Description of development Erection of up to 113 dwellings and associated works Application reference 13/00426/OUT Appellant Richborough Estates Appeal reference Appeal start date 06 June 2014 STATEMENT OF CASE Interested party Whitmore Parish Council and Baldwins Gate Action Group 15 July 2014
Statement of case Page 2 of 8 1 Introduction: the interested party [Evidence items 1] 1.1 Whitmore Parish Council has put the democratic process into practice by calling three public meetings to ascertain the views of parishioners on the proposed development and by keeping parishioners informed of developments through its quarterly parish newsletter. In so doing it has acted under the terms of the Whitmore Parish Plan. Its representations to the Local Planning Authority have been informed by the views of the local population. Whitmore Parish Council has Quality Parish Council status under the government s Quality Parish and Town Council Scheme. 1.2 Whitmore Parish Council is an official consultee for planning applications within Whitmore Parish, which comprises the communities of Acton, Baldwins Gate, Butterton, Madeley Park Wood, Whitmore and Whitmore Heath. The area defined by the Baldwins Gate village envelope and popularly referred to as Baldwins Gate comprises the village of Baldwins Gate (west of the railway line) and part of Whitmore (east of the railway line and a strip of land west of the railway line). 1.3 Baldwins Gate Action Group was formed in recognition of the fact that some people are not as capable as others when it comes to stating their opinions. The group has helped villagers to discuss and decide their position regarding the proposed development; it has coordinated the gathering and submission of representations to the Local Planning Authority; it has organised attendance by villagers at Planning Committee meetings and at the Committee s formal site visit; it has kept villagers informed through leafleting and communication via an email list, Twitter, a blog and a website. 1.4 Together the Parish Council and the Action Group have maintained contact and worked with local elected representatives (both borough and county council) and have maintained contact and participated in meetings with the Planning Department. 2 Introduction: our case [Evidence items 2 and 3] 2.1 Our case is that the proposed development: would not be sustainable; would not accord with Development Plan: the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy (CSS) and Key Spatial Diagram 2006-2026 (KSDCSS); the Newcastleunder-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (NuLLP); the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance December 2010; and the Whitmore Parish Plan; would not accord with the aims and objectives of the NPPF; would be contrary to the core land-use principles set out in NPPF para. 17; would have adverse impacts that significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole. 2.2 NPPF paras 7 10 are clear that: sustainable development has three mutually dependent dimensions: economic, social and environmental; sustainable development seeks to make positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people s quality of life ; plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account. 2.3 NPPF para. 14 states a presumption in favour of sustainable development and defines that this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan ; where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date not granting permission if any adverse impacts of [approval] would significantly and
Statement of case Page 3 of 8 demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the NPPF] taken as a whole. 2.4 The appellant has not engaged with the local people to the extent that would be expected in relation to such a large development. It has never consulted with either Whitmore Parish Council or the parishioners other than to hold a 4-hour public consultation event in Whitmore Village Hall on 17 July 2013, nor did it make any significant modification to the application subsequently to that event. The appellant s agent was invited to attend the public meeting held in Whitmore Village Hall on 24 July 2013 in order to hear and discuss parishioners concerns but declined either to attend or to send a representative. 2.5 The appellant has claimed that a development that was permitted at Barnside Way, Moulton, Cheshire is comparable to the proposed development at Baldwins Gate. 3 Planning history of Baldwins Gate 3.1 Within the context of a small rural village there have been significant residential developments within the area defined by the village envelope of Baldwins Gate over the last 40 years which have generally been well accepted by local residents. 3.2 Planning consents for housing post-1975 within the village envelope of Baldwins Gate total 129. 3.3 The present number of dwellings within the village envelope of Baldwins Gate is approximately 320. 3.4 All planning applications referred to Whitmore Parish Council by the Local Planning Authority are considered with reference to the Whitmore Parish Plan, which is the expression of parishioners views on matters affecting the parish. 3.5 The proposed development, by reason of increasing the size of the village by 35% and the population by as much as 50%, and by reason of being wholly outside the village envelope, would be a step too far. 4 Planning history of the site [Evidence items 4 to 15] 4.1 The appellant did not address the previous planning history of the site in its Planning Statement. 4.2 The site was the subject of four planning applications during the years 1959 1964. 4.3 Each of the previous planning applications was refused by Newcastle-under-Lyme Rural District Council, in 1959, 1961, 1963 and 1964. 4.4 The site was the subject of a planning appeal in 1965, which was dismissed. 4.5 A fifth planning application was unamimously refused by the Planning Committee of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council on 18 February 2014, as confirmed by the Council s Decision Notice of 10 March 2014, and is now the subject of the present appeal. 5 Not in accordance with the development plan [See reasons for refusal Nos 1 and 2] [Evidence items 16 to 20] 5.1 The proposal does not accord with the CSS and the NuLLP, which are informed by a Sustainability Appraisal and underpinned by (a) spatial principles that recognise the economic interdependence of the urban areas and (b) a focus on the targeted regeneration of Newcastle-under-Lyme (NuL) and Stoke-on-Trent (SoT) and renewal of housing.
Statement of case Page 4 of 8 5.2 The regeneration, revitalisation and prosperity of the urban area are as important to the rural population as they are to the urban inhabitants because the rural population depends socially and economically on the quality of services and opportunities available in the urban area. 5.3 This proposal would do major harm to the realisation of the CSS and the NuLLP, the overall aims of which are to regenerate and revitalise a major urban area that remains in a depressed state following the loss or decline of major industries. 5.4 The proposed development would be contrary to and do harm to the following Strategic Aims of the CSS: SA1, SA3, SA4, SA8, SA10, SA11, SA14, SA15, SA16, SA17, SA18. 5.5 The proposed development would be contrary to the spatial principles of targeted regeneration, as set out in CSS Policy SP1. 5.6 The proposed development would be contrary to Rural Area Spatial Policy as set out in Policy ASP6 of the CSS. Paras 5.195 5.199 of the CSS are particularly relevant in this regard. 5.7 The proposal is contrary to Saved Policy H1 of the NuLLP. 5.8 The proposal is contrary to NPPF para. 17. 6 Newcastle-under-Lyme borough housing supply [Evidence items 21 to 23] 6.1 The policy basis of the Borough s 5-year Housing Land Supply statement (May 2013) is the housing requirement of the CSS (para. 5.25 p.43 and policies ASP5 p.91 and ASP6 p.99), in turn based on the emerging West Midlands RSS examined in 2009 (as revoked in May 2013). In this adopted policy, which is the agreed basis of the 5-year Housing Land Supply Statement, the housing requirement is a minimum requirement in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Kidsgrove urban areas and a maximum requirement in the rural area of the Borough. 6.2 The relevant requirement for the rural area of Newcastle-under-Lyme is 900 dwellings maximum over 20 years, 45 dwellings per annum and 225 dwelling maximum 5-year supply. 6.3 Consistent with the provisions of the CSS the Council had progressed with a Site Allocations Issues and Options Document (October 2012) clearly identifying substantial housing capacity within the urban area. 6.4 The current Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2012 2013, which identifies substantial site capacity in the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Kidsgrove urban area as suitable, available and achievable, appears unduly pessimistic about the delivery time of sites classified in the 6 10 year trajectory. It appears entirely reasonable to assume, in improving macro-economic conditions, that some of this housing supply will come forward in the next five years. 6.5 Recent evidence has shown that there is a ready supply of sites coming forward within the key rural service centre villages identified in the CSS. 6.6 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council conducted a housing needs survey of Whitmore Parish in 2009 and concluded that based on the very limited local housing need no provision for housing needs to be taken in Whitmore Parish at the current time. 6.7 The number of vacant residential properties in the area covered by the Newcastle-under- Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy at 11 July 2014 was 5530, of which 59 were in Loggerheads and Whitmore ward. 7 Unsustainable development [See reasons for refusal Nos 3 and 8] [Evidence items 24 to 28] 7.1 The proposal does not accord with the three dimensions of sustainability economic, social, environmental as defined in NPPF para. 7. These three dimensions are interdependent and
Statement of case Page 5 of 8 inseparable, as our evidences make clear. They are also further related to issues of Landscape; Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land; and Density and Urban Design. 7.2 The proposed development would be contrary to the 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th and 12th of the 12 core land-use principles of NPPF para. 17. 7.3 In its Affordable Housing Delivery Plan the appellant discredits its own claims for the sustainability of the proposed development. 7.4 With the exception of the pub, all facilities and services in the village are located on the south side of the A53. Because of the perceived danger of the road residents of the development would be likely to use their cars to access the village s facilities and services, including the school. 7.5 The appellant s Travel Plan should have been prepared following local consultation, including consultation with the Parish Council, in order to be meaningful. 7.6 The Travel Plan does not take account of the inadequacy of public transport serving Baldwins Gate. 7.7 The 64/164 service is a single service and the only bus route through Baldwins Gate. 7.8 The route is poorly advertised and does not pay for itself. As such, and the service could be reduced or lost at any time. 7.9 The bus voucher scheme proposed in the Travel Plan would be unlikely to promote use of the bus service by residents of the development. 7.10 The A53 is noted as being a difficult and dangerous route for cyclists; there is no local cycle network. 7.11 The signalled crossing proposed by the appellant has cost and design issues. 7.12 Any speed management issues on the A53 are subject to approval by SCC Highways and allocation of budget. 7.13 Footpath improvements would be welcomed, but it is unlikely that a residents group would further this because of the difficulty in getting people involved in local issues groups. 7.14 The fencing requirements along the public right of way would be likely to discourage use of this walking route. 7.15 Baldwins Gate lacks the economic, social and environmental infrastructure to support the increase in population that would result from this development. 7.16 Economic: The proposed development is not in the right place to deliver the economic benefits claimed by the appellant (Planning Statement pp. 20 21, paras 9.12 9.16), such as employment, economic growth and innovation, and would therefore conflict with NPPF para. 7. 7.17 Social: The proposed development is not in the right place to deliver the social benefits claimed by the appellant, such as: market and affordable housing, reduction in reliance on private transport, support for existing shops and services (Planning Statement p. 21, paras 9.17 9.20). 7.18 Environmental: The proposed development would not protect and enhance the natural environment of the locality (see Landscape; and Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land), nor the present built environment (see Density and Urban Design). By reason of its location in a place with poor choice of modes of transport, creating dependence on the use of private motor vehicles, it would not contribute to the transition to a low carbon economy. 8 Best and most versatile agricultural land [See reason for refusal No. 4] [Evidence items 29 to 31] 8.1 The site comprises best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land (Grades 1 and 2). 8.2 The appellant has not demonstrated any necessity to develop agricultural land.
Statement of case Page 6 of 8 8.3 On both of these counts the proposal is contrary to NPPF paras 111 and 112 and to the7th, 8th and 9th of the 12 core land-use principles of NPPF para. 17. 8.4 In its Planning Statement the appellant seeks to downplay the loss of BMV agricultural land. 9 Highway safety and access to the development [See reason for refusal No. 5] [Evidence items 32 to 46] 9.1 The width of Gateway Avenue is insufficient to safely accommodate the increased traffic that would result from the proposed development. 9.2 The A53/Gateway Avenue junction does not meet the standard required for an access onto a classified road from a road serving 146 houses. 9.3 The measured traffic data for the A53 in Baldwins Gate shows a large number of vehicles travelling in excess of the signed speed limit. 9.4 The appellant s Transportation Assessment does not take account of other active junctions onto the A53 in this area which would impact on the safety of the junction and in turn be impacted on by it. 9.5 The appellant has not carried out a full safety audit of current pedestrian and vehicle issues on the A53 and at the junction with Gateway Avenue. 9.6 The proposed pedestrian crossing with call loop to enable vehicles to exit Gateway Avenue conflicts with the proper purpose of a pedestrian crossing. 9.7 The proposed location of the pedestrian crossing is inappropriate on account of its proximity to a bend in the road and to accesses from private frontages. 9.8 The blue light services have been called out to five traffic accidents within the Baldwins Gate 30mph zone between 17 July 2013 and 30 May 2014, including one each at the site of the proposed pedestrian crossing and opposite the site of the proposed construction access. 10 Construction traffic access and management plan [See reason for refusal No. 5] [Evidence item 47] 10.1 Both Staffordshire County Council Highways and the appellant have confirmed that Gateway Avenue is too narrow for construction traffic. 10.2 The proposed use of Gateway Avenue as access for construction vehicles under 7t would be contrary to the safety of pedestrians and traffic both on Gateway Avenue and on the A53. 10.3 The proposed construction access on the A53 east of Baldwins Gate Farm would be unsafe, in view of the large number of vehicles travelling in excess of the signed speed limit and the proximity of the access to a blind bend. 10.4 The proposed construction access would be unsafe in view of its proximity to and impact on active road junctions onto the A53 in this area. 10.5 The proposed construction access would involve the removal of significant lengths of important hedgerow as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and could affect two hedgerow trees. 11 Density and urban design [See reason for refusal No. 6] [Evidence items 48 to 56] 11.1 The number and density of dwellings in the proposed development would be wholly inappropriate to the rural setting and the proximity of the open countryside.
Statement of case Page 7 of 8 11.2 The proposed number and density of dwellings would be wholly inappropriate to the character of the existing village. 11.3 The proposed number and density of dwellings would be wholly inappropriate to the character of the two adjoining existing estates. 11.4 There would be loss of amenity to residents of Gateway Avenue by reason of a rural cul-de-sac being turned into an access route serving a significantly increased number of dwellings. 11.5 Any highway alterations to Gateway Avenue to accommodate the increased level of traffic would significantly change the appearance and character of this rural cul-de-sac. 12 Drainage and flood risk [See reason for refusal No. 7] [Evidence items 57 to 71] 12.1 Baldwins Gate is located in a recognised wetlands area, the West Midlands Meres and Mosses (Natural England s Natural Area 27). 12.2 The Environment Agency s maps show that there is a major aquifer in the area. 12.3 There is evidence of historic water extraction from boreholes at Baldwins Gate/Whitmore. 12.4 There is evidence of historic flooding on the site. 12.5 The appellant s Flood Risk Assessment takes no account of seasonal flooding at the site. 12.6 Percolation tests were performed during the summer (28 June 2013), when flood risk is at its lowest, and were not performed to the required standard. 12.7 It is unlikely that the proposed SUDS and soakaways would be capable year round of disposing of surface water on site. 12.8 The proposed development would increase the already existing flood risk for existing dwellings in the Sandyfields and Gateway estates. 12.9 The Baldwins Gate Action Group has been in contact with the Environment Agency and is awaiting further information from Staffordshire County Council, which is the Lead Local Flood Authority for this area. 12.10 The proposed development would create a risk of flooding on the adjacent West Coast Main Line railway. 12.11 There is evidence of historic flooding on the railway line. 13 Impact on the landscape and countryside [See reason for refusal No. 9] [Evidence items 72 to 92] 13.1 The appellant s Landscape Impact Assessment is inadequate and focuses almost exclusively on the visibility of the so-called urban edge of the development and fails to take account of the impact of the proposed development in the context of the wider landscape within which it would be situated. 13.2 The appellant s ecological survey is inadequate. 13.3 The site of the proposed development is within an Area of Landscape Restoration as marked on the NuL Local Development Framework Proposals Map and is surrounded by Areas of Landscape Maintenance. 13.4 The entire area of Baldwins Gate Farm is situated within a historic landscape. 13.5 The size of the development and its encroachment into the open countryside would impact adversely on the landscape. 13.6 The development would block views outwards to the open countryside from publicly accessible locations within the village envelope of Baldwins Gate. 13.7 The development would adversely affect views of the open countryside from publicly accessible locations outside the village envelope of Baldwins Gate.
Statement of case Page 8 of 8 13.8 The development would adversely affect views of historic elements within the wider landscape. 13.9 Adverse impact on views would result in a significant loss of amenity. 13.10 The development would be contrary to CSS policies CSP1 and CSP4, NuLLP saved policies N17 and N21 and NPPF paras 17, 55 and 109. 13.11 The Baldwins Gate Action Group is in contact with the RSPB regarding bird life on the site. 13.12 Harm to wildlife as a result of the development would result in a significant loss of amenity. 14 Sum of adverse impacts 14.1 The sum of the adverse impacts and harm of the development would significantly outweigh any benefits. 14.2 The proposed development would therefore be an unsustainable development and would be contrary to the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).