Taylor Wimpey appealled against BFBP's rejection of their proposal to build an additional 390 dwellings (bringing the total to 1120) on The Parks site. This was actioned by Public Inquiry in February 2009. The appeal was "called in". This means that because of its strategic importance for the government's housebuilding agenda the outcome would be determined pesonally by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (John Denham). In this case the Planning Inspector, Edward Simpson, made his report and recommendations to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal. Wimpey does not have approval to build the extra 390 houses but under UK planning laws they do have the right to submit another proposal (and experience has taught us not to rely on any assertion that they will not).
Overdevelopment
OSPV. The local planning policies and design brief for the site define an 18.8 hectare area of "open space of public value" (OSPV) to be retained. The developers have proposed to build on this area and have argued on various technicalities that that the requirement is to provide a total amount of space not a specific area. The inspector concluded that the OSPV was a specific area as defined in the S.299A agreement between the Secretary of State for Defense and BFBC. The developers had only achieved the total OSPV they claimed by including small areas within the developed part of the site, which was not envisaged in the Design Brief or the S.2999A agreement. Furthermore their claim to have only redistributed some of the 18.8ha of space to bring it within the developed area was untrue.
Sports pitches were discussed at length. The inspector ruled that the extant (730 dwellings) approval was the baseline and this provides for football and rugby pitches for under 16's, a senior length cricket pitch, and a 'sports grassed area' big enough for mini-soccer. These are well spaced and contribute to the sense of spaciousness. Overlapping summer and winter facilities is not appropriate in this case. There also needed to be adequate spacing for two locally equipped areas of play (LEAPS) and careful siting of a neighbourhood equipped area of play (NEAP). It was not appropriate to take account of proposals to provide full sized pitches at South Hill park or elsewhere because these had not been subject of any local consultation. The Inspector noted that Ranelagh School hoped to use the cricket pitch but did not agree that that should influence the planning decision. However Ranelagh govenor, Mr Ireson, had substantially contributed to detailed matters with respect to size of facilities.
Character of the area. The area of OSPV, with its woodland, would maintain a substantial tract of open land, giving good vistas and a pleasant feeling of spaciousness - features which are characteristic of Bracknell. Reducing the width of the parkland would change its character from a relatively informal spaciousness to a constrained and regimented open area dominated by formal playing pitches. Although the proposed valley walk would improve the visual penetration from Broad Lane and some other interesting views would be provided, other views would be enclosed and greatly foreshortened. Overall the sense of spaciousness would be lost and appear to be unneccessarily restricted and congested by sports pitches. The visual significance of The Copse would be greatly diminished by 3-storey buildings and its role as a free-standing feature within a generally open parkland setting would be lost.
Impact on Thames Basin Heaths SPA
Legal interpretations of the evolving laws and regulations affecting Special Protection Areas (SPAs) were debated within this appeal (and the earlier one). [This development is within 5km of a heathland site which is now protected under European rules. The outcome could be important in English case law]. Under planning law the existing permission would be a baseline for considering further proposals (whereby the proposal is for 390 additional dwellings) however that does not apply under the 'Habitats Directive'.
The Inspector concluded that, "under regulation 50(1)", as soon as reasonably practical BFBC must review and affirm, modify or revoke their authorisation for all of the hitherto approved 730 dwellings that have not yet been built. BFBC are addressing this as quickly as possible under the circumstances that the Delivery Framework was not endorsed until February 2009 and no other Thames Basin Heaths authority had yet commenced a regulation 50(1) review. There is no fallback position and the proposal would need to be assessed for potential impact of the erection of 781 dwellings. This important finding based on the latest evidence and has been endorsed by the Secretary of State.
SANGS (suitable alternative natural green spaces) are required to mitigate against developments impacting on integrity of the SPA. Although the current 730 dwellings permission does not include mitigation measures such as on-site SANGS, the forthcoming regulation 50(1) review by BFBC could require them retrospectively. Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan (SEP) published May 2009 addresses this and now requires mitigation measures to be delivered prior to occupation and in perpetuity. This would not prevent constructon but could result in undesirable delay in the occupation of new dwellings.
The Inspector was satisfied about the quality of the bespoke SANG proposed for this (1120 dwellings) development but it represented a shortfall of some two hectares [SCRAM notes the shortfall equates to about 100 dwellings]. He was not satisfied that land owned by HCA at South Hill Park would satisfactorily compensate for this under-provision and he felt it was unbecoming of HCA to use that ownership to prevent proper planning of the area.
Traffic
The inspector concluded that the proposal would have no greater highway and traffic implications than the approved scheme. This had been agreed between the appellants and BFBC but Mr Pennell disagreed on behalf of SCRAM. [Bob comments: That's OK: that statement is literally nonsense, but I don't feel the battle on traffic was wasted or even really lost!]
Biodiversity
The inspector concluded that despite a loss of greenspace for bats to forage, overall the proposal would not harm and would tend to enhance biodiversity.
Housing supply
PPS3 para 71 says that Local Planning Authorities who cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites should consider favourably planning applications for housing. The Inspector concluded that this applies but was diluted by the fact that the proposal only supplies an additional five houses within the five years. The Secretary of State did not agree the dilution but did agree this is outweighed by the reasons for refusal [above].
Residents' contract
Although this was not material to the planning decision and would need to be addressed elsewhere; the Inspector reported that many residents felt that the proposal differed from what had been presented to them at the time of sale, particularly in regard to housing density and parkland. Their contract had included the statement that they should "not object to any planning application the Transferor or Developer may submit in respect of residential development within the Estate". He was surprised that a government agency such as HCA was party to such an apparent attempt to fetter freedom of speech but noted that local residents were now aware that such a condition would be difficult to enforce. The Secretary of State noted the Inspector's observations.