An undeserved rescue for HorseWorld ?

It looks like HorseWorld's bodged up attempt to sell off its visitor centre site in Whitchurch for development may not be totally dead – in spite of being turned down by BaNES councillors last November.

HorseWorld's MD and the charity's trustees used the whole costly fiasco as an excuse to close the popular visitor centre in February. It now lies idle, the income it generated is lost, and the charity admits to being in all sorts of financial difficulty.

The perpetrators may yet be rescued from the hole they dug themselves into. On 10^th July BaNES will likely adopt a new 'Core Strategy' that takes the Visitor Centre land out of Green Belt and turns it into a development plot, providing up to 200 houses. See p.12 of this for a location map. The land was offered, under pressure to up the housebuilding land allocations, as a sacrifice to Mr Pickles, and has been gratefully accepted by his Inspector.

What next? It looks like going through.... so expect HorseWorld to make the most of the instant leap in land value by selling the land to one of the big developers. Perhaps to someone like Barratts, who are already turning the other side of the narrow rat-run Sleep Lane into an extension of clone village Britain

What HorseWorld would do with the windfall is anybody's guess. Would they revisit their expensively prepared scheme for a new Visitor Centre / Arena, with its dodgy business plan and its reliance on added road traffic? Would they give their MD a performance-linked pay rise? Would they go back to basics and do what the charity is supposed to do?

Only one thing's for sure. 200 new houses here will not provide affordable homes for those who really need them. 

HorseWorld fails to convince

HorseWorld's bid to build 125 houses - and a very big visitor centre - on green belt land at Whitchurch village was roundly rejected by BaNES development Control Committee today.

The ailing charity had claimed that it must have the revenue from selling off its current visitor centre for housing if it was to survive. It's Big Idea was to use the development cash to build a bigger better visitor centre. With similar amenities as the old centre, but a bigger shop and and a bigger cafe and (wait for it) a new 250-seater Indoor Arena, it could up the visitor numbers by a third, and get them to stay longer, while paying more per admission, and spending more in the shop and in the cafe. Problem solved.

The BaNES councillors weren't persuaded. The business plan didn't convince them. They didn't like being told that only 10% of the houses could be 'affordable'. The traffic figures suggested much more congestion in an already congested area. The schools didn't have the capacity. An hourly bus diverted to pass the site (except evenings and Sundays) wouldn't make anyone abandon their cars. And the new visitor centre would be a blot on the landscape. All in all, there were no 'very special circumstances' that might make it ok to permanently build over the Green Belt.

The scheme's not dead though. BaNES themselves are looking at releasing local Green Belt for development to meet their housing targets. A proposal's just been floated to release a chunk of HorseWorld land and neighbouring fields for 200 homes. If that's agreed in the Core Strategy, HorseWorld will be back. And if BaNES nominate other space for new homes, the developers will be queueing.

Hoofnote: 1st Dec.

A curious feature of HorseWorld's application to build 125 houses on the greenbelt with a minimum of 'affordable' dwellings among them was the announcement to the BaNES planning committee that Bristol had withdrawn its objection.

Not so. It's true that Bristol's LibDem leader Tim Kent had been lobbied beforehand by HorseWorld chief Mark Owen, who told him that without the planning permission the ailing charity would go belly up. And it's true that Tim, in turn, had lobbied the other south Bristol councilors asking for their support in getting the Bristol objection withdrawn. And it's true that Bristol did put in a surprise 11^th hour 'comment' to BaNES about the application.

But it didn't withdraw the objection. The secretive attempt by Tim (and any henchpersons who might have been equally worried that they might be portrayed as 'cruel to horses') to overturn the case made by their own officers didn't withdraw anything, even though the BaNES officers tried to make it look that way.

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] 

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.