Controversy at the other football ground

The planning decision had been clear, very popular, and democratically arrived at by the elected members. Twice. But some time later, the unsuccessful party, driven by self interest, chose to go against the will of the majority and challenge the planners to get the decision overturned.

To deal with this dissident minority, the council has to assemble a legal team at great expense, headed by a barrister and drawing on evidence from 'expert' professional witnesses. Likewise, the self-interest group get themselves a QC plus a team of advisers. A venue is hired for the hearing, which will be in public. There's plenty to be said: this will take at least four full days, maybe more.

But the Bristol Post (in whose distribution area all this controversy is happening) ignores it. No headlines about 'spitting in the face of democracy' or 'holding Bristol to ransom'. There's no orchestrated vilification of anyone. This time, it has nothing to do with Sainsburys and only a very tenuous link with Rovers

Yesterday was the first day of the appeal into BaNES' rejection of a bid to build over the green belt between Stockwood and Whitchurch village, and it was held at the Bath City ground, Twerton Park, before a Planning Inspector, Mike Robbins. He'll eventually report his findings to that localisation hero and champion of the Green Belt, Eric Pickles. Expect a final decision sometime in the spring.

At some stage in the hearings, the Inspector will be doing a site visit. He'll find it's been prepared for him... the usual rough grazing and wildlife-rich hedgerows have been harshly cut back in anticipation, so that it looks less like real countryside

The first day saw introductions and explanations, opening statements from the two sides, and an examination of the landscape impacts of the proposed development. It was notable mostly for what his website describes as “the pure theatre of his cross-examination “ performed by the appellants' Anthony Crean QC – a silk who's evidently in high demand, and usually from the rich bad guys. It was uncomfortable theatre, too – he could switch between bullying, patronising, warmth and anger almost within a single sentence, in his efforts to confuse and break down his witness. Not nice.

The hearings will run from 10 till 5 or later for the rest of the week, and maybe stretch into next week.   They won't be looking at the scheme for 295 houses that originally got turned down by BaNES - this is about a revised 'concept plan' with a 'mere' 200 homes, which the developers have introduced since.   It goes straight into the appeal/Pickles stage without first having being tested by local councillors.  

Lunchbreak nostalgia.... Stockwood Pete's first visit to Twerton Park since 1952 (when Southend United lost 3-1 to City in the cup)

[Meanwhile, Horseworld's application to build a new estate and visitor centre has been delayed while BaNES sorts out its housing allocations for the area.  The Bristolian has plenty to say about that one] 

Artful Dodgers - how to bypass the local planning system.

No, this isn't about the Mem or Sainsburys. Strictly speaking, it's not even about Bristol, because the site is just 'over the border' in BaNES.

It's the three fields that lie between Stockwood and Whitchurch village. Normally used for grazing ponies, and criss-crossed by footpaths, the fields were bought a few years back by Robert Hitchins Ltd, a Cheltenham based developer specialising in commercial business parks.

Hitchins' ambitions for the three fields are a bit different, though. Up to 295 houses, pretty much filling up the remaining Green Belt open space between the two settlements. No shops, no schools, no health centre, no....... anything, really. Just an estate.

Twice they've put in planning applications to Bath and North East Somerset's development control committee. Twice, they've been unequivocally turned down, because their proposals break most of the rules in the planning book.

Now they're trying a new approach. They're appealing to the Planning Inspectorate against the most recent refusal, in the hope that Mr Pickles will override the considered views of local residents and councillors. But at the same time they're introducing a slightly scaled-down alternative version of the original proposal – with 200 houses instead of 295.

We have the opportunity to comment on this 'reduced' scheme – or at least, on the summary diagram that seems to provide the sole documentary foundation for it

But this version will skip the local scrutiny that was enough to see off the original plan. Instead, it will be for the government Planning Inspector to look at the evidence and make a recommendation to the boss – Eric Pickles, Localisation Hero.

Smart, eh?

The Planning Enquiry is expected next month. Deadline for comments is 15^th September.

[added 19th Sept]   The public inquiry is scheduled for 22nd October, 10am, at the Bath City F.C. ground, Twerton Park BA2 1DB

Green Belt wars: a developing front.

Around Long Ashton the developers, enthused by the prospect of the South Bristol Link Road, are lining up to challenge the green belt, and to make a quick fortune in the process.

Over on this side, around Stockwood and Whitchurch village, BaNES planners are also facing relentless bids to overturn the policies that protect the open space.

The attempt by developer Robert Hitchins to put close on 300 houses (and negligible supporting infrastructure) to fill the remaining gap between the two settlements has become a war of attrition. Twice the application has gone in; twice it's been refused, because it breaks all the agreed land-use planning priorities. On the first refusal, Hitchins started an appeal and then backed off. Now they're again going to Pickles and his inspectorate to complain that they've been badly treated.

You have to wonder what might have been said to make them think it's worth it.

Just across Stockwood Lane, you'd expect the neighbours at the rescue charity HorseWorld to value their green belt asset – that's why they're there. But for one reason or another (and the Bristolian offers his explanation here), they're having a hard time balancing the books .

Horseworld's Big Idea to secure its financial future is to scrap the existing Visitor Centre and the grazing around it, and put 120 houses there instead. This would, they hope, raise enough to build a bigger better Visitor Centre even further from the main transport links, to which lots of new people would drive ready to empty their purses and wallets in the cause of providing an income to keep the charity going forever.

I suspect that's not the most promising of business plans – but it is the foundation for the case for allowing 120 houses to be built on the present site, along with conversion of a number of listed buildings to residential use. That's why it's called an 'enabling' development. It's much like the way Sainsburys get permission for a new superstore, not on its own merits, but on the promise of a new football stadium. No-one, not even the applicants, pretends that this application has any merit per se – but the planning committee will be asked to judge it on the merits of the greater prize; more horses rescued = more jobs = economic growth. Except there won't be any more long term jobs.

Whilst Horseworld have been fairly upfront about their long term plan, they've been far less public about actually putting in the planning application, so few people outside HorseWorld's own email list are aware of it. The official closing date for comments is today Thursday, July 18^th.

The major issue is using green belt land to build a remote housing estate with no amenities other than a service road (that even the developers admit would double as a rat run for a rat run), plus a big car park and some industrial scale sheds where, previously, the rescued horses grazed.  Even so, a few more oddities about the application.....

• There's no attempt to mitigate the considerable carbon footprint of the new development. Not even the Horseworld's biggest product, manure, gets utilised to offset energy inputs. 
• The huge arena roof expanses remain pretty much untouched by solar panels. 
• The sole attempt to improve public transport access is to suggest that the 515 bus be diverted that way, away from many of us who benefit from it just now. 
• An existing bus service, the single trip 636 Tuesday and Friday route, is claimed by the 'professional' consultants to provide a daily service to Horseworld's nearest public road. 
• The same consultants use an 'apples and oranges' strategy, with different traffic measures to play down the increases in road traffic. 
• Every possible excuse is used to avoid 'green' construction standards. 
• Above all, the business plan seems to pluck future visitor figures out of thin air – and these are the figures that 'justify' the enabling development.

On balance, this is a shoddy, cheap, unsustainable and unjustified bid with high environmental costs, relying mostly on emotional blackmail that horses will suffer if the development is turned down.

We're not persuaded.