|
Blisworth and the Planners, 2009 - 2011 Tony Marsh Abstract: This
deals mainly with two major housing planning matters that were imposed
on the village. An account is given of the major difficulties
encountered by some in the village but mainly the Parish Council.
There was potential for the character of the village to be changed in an
adverse way because the proposed housing numbers were quite high. In this
period, however, the total housing increase was only 33 units, mostly to
be placed on a new estate adjoining Chapel Lane. It is
pointed out that there are lessons to be learnt in dealing with planners
and developers. This account is given from the perspective of a member of the public listening to the Blisworth Parish Council (PC) sessions, sometimes asking questions afterwards and sometimes writing to SNC officials to try and clarify matters or just to express a view. In the early months of the time period mentioned above, there arose three big issues - see A, B and C below. (A). Affordable Social Housing. In 2009 the village was surveyed by SNC for the need of more social housing. This was in response to an approach by SNC in August 2009 and there was agreement around November, without vote, that such survey would be a good idea. The result which has been published was that some 34 houses were required, mostly of a single-occupancy or small family type, and the PC agreed to this. (B). SNC Village Enlargement Edict. Also in 2009, the SNC were put under pressure, from roughly March 2009 onwards, to speedily allocate and proceed with the building of extra dwellings in about 17 Northamptonshire villages otherwise they would be deemed somewhat tardy in the execution of what was required of them - or words to that effect, the author not wishing to enter a legalistic discussion here. Their survey for the extra dwellings resulted in a notional 40 houses being suggested for Blisworth, corresponding to 5% of dwellings within the village. The decision was based upon the sustainability of an implied enlargement of the village. The reasoning for it has been published - the decision was SNC's with no discussions with any PC in the county. The majority of villagers probably accepted both of these pressures - "what must be, must be". Actually, the social housing project could have been refused by the PC. Regarding the numbers, the 34 in (A) is approximate in the sense that demand fluctuates and the survey was a snapshot. The 40 in (B) is notional and might be lower or considerably higher though few people who are probably in touch with such matters doubt the number would exceed 70. We have been advised that the above-mentioned approximate 34 and the notional 40 may be simply merged rather than added together - an important point. All infill building going on or agreed in Blisworth has no bearing whatsoever on these allocations. (C). A Planning Application - Chapel Hill Farm Development. The third issue was an outline planning application to the SNC lodged in October 2009 by an outside developer, to create a modest sized cluster of variously sized houses, 27 in all, 11 of which would be properly managed social houses. This application for development is located to the north of Chapel Lane on Chapel Hill Farm. If this were granted there would still be ~23 social houses needed somewhere else and that 23 along with the 27 in the application would exceed and therefore satisfy the call for a village enlargement by 40 houses. To chronicle the series of events on these three topics in a combined chronological order would generate a complex story, consequently they are discussed separately in what follows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The need for affordable social housing: In Nov/Dec 2009 the PC and an SNC housing representative conducted a walkabout in the village to discuss various empty fields, in search of the land for the 34 social houses, and some preliminary findings were fed back to a public PC meeting. The possible sites which were put forward during the village walkabout are shown in white in the map below, A through G. Shown also, in yellow, is the proposed Chapel Hill Farm development which is discussed below. Favoured sites were B and D with C, the others being too remote from the village centre. Site B had meanwhile been earmarked as open space (because of the adjacent proposed development). So the remaining social housing needs had to be accommodated on D with C. That is a dearth of options indeed - this was the impression gained around April/May 2010. What ever is suggested might be influenced by a rather new policy for housing estate design, that is; to achieve a "tenure-blind layout" so that social housing cannot be readily segregated in anyone's mind, 40% of the houses would be 'social' and sprinkled amongst 'free-market'.
In May the SNC made a presentation to the PC expressing the intention to occupy area C, only, with a proposed six rentable housing units for family sizes of up to 3, 4 and 5 persons and made a key point in saying the units would have their own separate entrances (hinting that single person flats are wasteful and less easily designed). They dismissed the PC's objections that such houses were not consistent with the housing needs survey by saying that the architect was constrained by the size and shape of the small plot available. The point was made in subsequent discussions that the SNC were holding back on proposing any more social houses, to fill the previously required 34, because of the anticipated financial difficulties. There was a formal planning application in June and the PC formally objected to it in early July. By 20th July the application had however been withdrawn by SNC but replaced with a new application a few weeks later with the explanation that the design was wrong in the first place. Again the PC formally objected to it for reasons of not providing the housing indicated as needed in the survey. They also pointed out the out-of-date design of the exit to Ladyfield, in terms of visibility, and pointed out the invited hazard arising from an increase in the number of vehicles using the exit. The new houses also appeared incongruous. By the end of September 2010 full approval was granted - parish council objections overridden. Incidentally, with area C used up for housing, the only realistic prospect of the village having a school car park is eliminated. Note that there was a proposal for a school car park on area C generated by a villager in October 2009 and an account of the difficulties encountered with that proposal are given in Appendix I. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Need for Village Enlargement - including the Planning Application. Obviously the village walkabout equipped the PC with ideas for accommodating the enforced village enlargement. However, the focus became the planning application. Any emphasis on achieving the right numbers seems to have disappeared since then, perhaps because of possible financial constraints for servicing more houses. The development proposed in October 2009 was for 27 houses on a new road headed north from Chapel Lane. The layout is shown in the figure below. Note that the area encircled in blue is held by the same owners and that, for some curious reason, the new development is drawn 30 or 40 metres short of the northern limit of the field.
The application was initially in outline and it transpired that this was because various assessments had not been completed (eg. flood risk). The PC was initially ill-equipped to deal with topics of this magnitude but eventually recovered. It objected to the plan mainly for these reasons: 1.
builder's traffic would choke the village and it should be admitted only
via a temporary entrance created at BA on the Northampton Road. At a housing development meeting one objector for the PC was allowed 3 minutes to make representation (the standard provision), and one objector from the village also - 3 minutes. Between them the above objections were made. Also included was the suggestion that the temporary entrance for lorries etc. be made permanent instead and that the estate road should not come out onto Chapel Lane at all. Furthermore it was suggested that a pedestrian and cycle pathway be created, as A in the diagram above, to join Little Lane. There would be an extra stretch of estate road X in this plan and that could accommodate the rest of the village enlargement, both (A) and (B). This 'wonderful scheme', which will be recalled in a review below, would have killed a few birds with one stone but, as viewed from the Gayton Road, it would have more obviously signalled a village enlargement. The temporary lorry access was granted but in the opinion of the NCC Highways department the junction with Chapel Lane was perfectly safe in regard to both traffic and pedestrians (the 30mph limit sign would be relocated near the canal bridge) and SNC will not challenge the judgment of the NCC highways department, whom they treat as key consultants. An enlargement of the project to encompass the major change of access and the pathway to Little Lane was deemed inadmissible. Apparently, this is because one cannot object and propose extensive additions that are based on aspects that are, in an objector's opinion, omissions from the plan. Anyway, as part of the SNC plan, the rest of the field was previously set as green open space. Subsequently a letter was written by an incandescent villager demanding that consideration be given to a new pavement at P on the north side of Chapel Lane to make things safer for pedestrians, this being an idea picked up later.
What transpired came as a surprise: the developer agreed to late changes and the NCC Highways finally conceded that a footpath (presumably on the lines of the inset schematic above) would be included in the project - a revised legal agreement was drawn up with the developer to accommodate the changes. The reader might wish to compare this position with that described in the first two sentences of the previous paragraph and wonder "why is the job done so inefficiently; why so much blood, sweat and tears?" With 'policy framework' resolved, the planning application was given approval by SNC in 'outline' on Nov 29th 2010, nearly 14 months after it was first lodged. Execution of this village development was delayed by a spectacular amount of time in which 'nothing has been heard', see below, and it has been noticed in the meantime that the private driveway to the house adjacent to the junction had not been shifted as indicated in the above inset diagram (curved blue arrow). This would result in a pavement drop-kerb being sited nearer to a road junction than the approved 10 metres and NCC were informed of this apparent faux-pas on November 10th 2012. Villagers thought it important to mention this so that the issue could not be later used as an excuse to 'delete' the north-side pavement - we will see!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Lessons to be Learnt 1. Be in touch with the "process" and act swiftly and decisively. This is advice primarily for the Parish Council. But with our present council, some members, some training for this objective must start at "square one". In the "affordable houses" activity the PC should have insisted on receiving, before agreeing a survey would be made, a written undertaking that the houses that would eventually be pushed through would comply with those the village's housing needs. And when the first layout was presented, in which the needs were obviously not going to be heeded, the PC should not have been satisfied with the reply to the effect that the architect had little scope to do otherwise. In the "27 new houses" activity the PC was incapable of straightaway creating an agenda for what needed to be done, indeed, one month later, they were overtly embarrassed by their lack of progress and resolved to hold future "serious" discussions in camera to avoid any further embarrassment. It was many weeks later still that a four man action team was assembled to deal with the planners and so one lesson was learnt on the fly. Delays in the PC's response were quoted as the reason that items to be included in the 106 agreement were left out at first. The SNC chose to ignore letters, that would have been "well in time" from at least one resident. They appear to imply that only communications from a PC are acceptable. 2. Insist on a change in the process. This is a heavy-weight political matter. In the "27 new houses" activity it is a fact that 3 months before the outline planning application was launched, a senior at SNC mentioned that a major project was "coming our way". It was identified as having a measure of "planning gain", alluding to the use of land which would be improved etc. Clearly the project was the Chapel Hill Farm development. Then would have been the time for an action team within our PC to hold confidential discussions with the planners. Both sides could then assess the relevance of an enhancement to the plan such as mentioned above in an enhanced colour (click here to go there, and then the back button to return here). Both could appreciate the validity of the assertion that there was a poorly specified junction between the estate road and Chapel Lane and moves could have been made then to request, at least, the extra footpath. Both would have realised that there was a need for builders' traffic to enter the building site by a route that avoided Chapel Lane - and so on and on. In this way the 106 agreement would have been drafted accurately and would have needed little blood, sweat and tears later. However, given denial of any political change that would allow the PC this earlier access, the 106 agreement process seems to be just a way of adding things that were overlooked in the first place; the process being charged with anxiety in that it has to be done efficiently and speedily as it is all against the clock. These agreements also seem to be seen as something of a last-minute imposition on the developer and not on service providers, limited in scope at the outset (by rules): all this rather than an encouraged right for villagers to improve on what has been proposed by planners. Frankly, the situation seems inadequate. 3. In dealing with intransigent officials, should any be encountered, use all the guns you have; even look to tribunal review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What happened after the Outline Approval in Nov 2010 . . . 2011 The two housing projects referred to above were thought to be progressed in 2011 with the work possibly running into 2012. By February 2011 however, the small Ladyfield project was still believed to be going ahead but there was a persistent rumour that the Chapel Hill Farm estate of 27 houses, after all, might not be the subject of a full planning application. The year 2011 has been given as the year in which the village confines boundaries will be revised. This will give us all a good idea of the authorities' intentions regarding enlargement of the village. A developer was already looking, in November 2010, at the prospect of building maybe as many as 100 houses on the southern boundary of the village. The Community Management Plan was published eventually in 2011. Any village attitude to development was rather muted. The organisers had switched their planned path to writing a Village Design Statement (VDS) in which the issue of development will be central. The year 2012 has been labelled as seeing the emergence of a VDS. There is no surprise here - dealing with planners always has the "paper-chase" element. 2012 Amazingly, the greater part of 2012 has passed us by without any news on when the 27 houses on Chapel Hill Farm will be started. The site has been cleared however. The work on a VDS was stalled when government goalposts were again moved as they called for a "neighbourhood plan" instead. Some villagers responded to that with initial enthusiasm but everyone's interest faded out during 2012. The next "big deal" for Blisworth will probably be when the SNC decide on new Confines Boundaries and whether they will include that next door field across which the contractors for this project have been so seemingly reluctant to cross. 2013 In February Orbit entered a full permission application for the 27 houses. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I, Blisworth School Car Park Some within the village had identified site C as best used as a car park for the school. This idea was brought out at the "Have your Say" day held 10 October 2009 to identify village needs and design the questionnaire for the village Community Plan. The idea of a village school car park was received very well indeed. So well, in fact, that the school governors were expected to come forward with a pressure group that would talk to the SNC. The nub of the car park idea is set out in the diagram below.
As time passed, however, it turned out that little action had been taken; neither the SNC nor the PC were lobbied (except by one villager) at all, though by the end of January 2010 a school governor was expected to write to the SNC. There are only 4 governors from the village out of a total of 17. Many people just muttered that the SNC would do what they liked and there was no point to this. Other villagers remarked that, even if built, the use of the car park could not be enforced - it would make no difference to traffic congestion in the village and some thought it was not near enough to the school and was too bothersome to use. The PC simply said at one point that site C was earmarked by SNC for housing units, taking this with a characteristic lassitude as a 'knockout blow' against any further discussion. In fact they were right, of course! In separate interviews, the head of strategic planning at SNC said that the car park plan would be far too expensive in relation to the number of houses that might be considered. However, someone working on strategic housing undertook to raise this as an issue at an appropriate time but thought that by far the best idea would be to approach the owner of the land involved and this was given some serious consideration. In June/July 2010 the SNC had started to consider developing site C so it appeared unlikely they will allow a car park there. As stated above, area D appears to be the obvious new development site to which an application for a car park might be attached. The year 2011 was the year for revising the confines boundaries and this might trigger a new development, without invoking special conditions, that could "carry the car park proposal with it". However, the longer walk to/from it may be too far and a consequence may be that all residual interest in it will die off. Interestingly, the plan offered above suggests how access to new housing might be designed.
|
At
the June 2010 PC meeting it was made plain by SNC that their attitude
was going to be inflexible and that no
further improvements to the scheme would be granted. Parish
councillors were admonished for trying to second guess the technical
assessments by engineers in the NCC Highways Department.
Furthermore, all the "106 contribution" (this topic is discussed in the
summary below) would be used up
in providing the temporary access road,
moving the 30mph sign and rendering the original site fit for housing
after the hazards from farm sheds and sewage cesspool receptacles had
been cleared. This comment was seen by many to
demonstrate SNC's misuse of the 106 provision. By this time the PC had
awakened somewhat and selected an
action team to deal with planning and, armed with photographic evidence,
this team asked for further consultation and demanded, among other things,
a new 'north' pavement for pedestrian access (shown in pink in the
inset) to obviate the need for a dangerous pedestrian route
suggested by the red arrows. Luckily, perhaps, the decision process had been halted
as SNC was waiting for the outcome of "a fluctuating and
unclear policy framework" in relation to calculating SNC housing
needs, this being a planning
upheaval, affecting how their "Enlargement Edict" would be played
out, induced by a local government lawyer (Eric Pickles - later the
Community Minister). The
background politics are outside the scope of this account. A decision date was set for 15th July
and later extended to merely an estimated time around early
October.
The consultation opportunity between PC and SNC was duly granted for Sept 7th,
at which SNC pointed out that the PC
'action team' were too late with their input and anyway, as much of it
related to highways, SNC were not empowered to respond.
However
they promised to open the topic again with "Highways" with a
view to maybe revise the 106 list. 
This development will provide Blisworth with 27
new houses of which 11 will be "affordable" and will be
rentable and managed by South Northamptonshire Homes. With the 6
granted in Ladyfield there will be a total of 17 rentable houses but perhaps the more austere
financial circumstances will leave the SNC satisfied that this amounts
to only 50% of their target deduced from the survey. The 16 other
houses to be built at Chapel Hill Farm amount to far less than the
notional 40 arrived at by SNC originally but, apparently, some other
villages in South Northamptonshire have incurred "larger than
expected" building projects. The inset conveys an idea, in
fact a mock up image presented on the architects' website, of what our 27 new houses may look
like (there are 
