|
Grange Farm - Chester
Road
April 2006 -
The Public Inquiry into the new Local Plan has confirmed VRBC's decision to
reclassify the Grange Farm land as open countryside and this should protect it
from development until 2016.
The Local Plan can both be accessed on
www2.valeroyal.gov.uk
by taking the Local Plan Alteration link.
A copy of the
Inspector's findings is also available on the VRBC site as a pdf document. As
this is 313 pages long the relevant section for Grange Farm is reproduced below
for your convenience:-
start of extract
5.30 H2
OMISSION SITE: LAND AT GRANGE FARM, HARTFORD
OBJECTION
No. Name
895/08
Netherton Estates and Calmland Properties Ltd
0906/06
Persimmon Homes
SUPPORT
See Annex
Issues
a. Whether the
land should be allocated for a mixed-use development.
b. Whether the
adopted Local Plan allocation (H2.02) should be carried forward.
c. Whether the
site should be reserved for housing purposes.
Inspector's
Reasoning and Conclusions
5.30.1 The
objection site is allocated for residential development in the adopted Local
Plan and is included within the Hartford settlement boundary. In the VRBLPFRA
the allocation is deleted and the site is returned to open countryside.
5.30.2 It would
appear that the site was included within the settlement boundary of Hartford
because it was allocated for development. I have dealt with the issue of whether
the objection site should be included within the settlement boundary of Hartford
in paragraphs 2.12.5-6 of this Report. I have concluded that, now that it is no
longer allocated for development, the site should not be included within the
settlement boundary because its size and character allow it to operate as open
countryside which is separate to, and distinct from, the character of the
built-up part of the settlement.
5.30.3 PPG3
advises that the choice of housing allocations should follow a sequential
sequence with previously-developed land within urban areas being preferred for
development. It also makes clear that there is a presumption that
previously-developed land should be developed before greenfield sites. The
council has allocated sufficient sites in sustainable locations within urban
areas and largely made up of previously-developed land to meet housing
requirements. In my view it is proper that sites such as the objection site
should not be preferred for development ahead of the chosen allocations.
5.30.4 The
objectors propose a mixed use allocation on the part of the site which is
occupied by the Grange Farm buildings. The farm buildings are located close to
the heart of the settlement. However, as agricultural buildings they do not fall
within the definition of previously-developed land. The buildings are partly
overgrown and this part of the site has an untidy and partially derelict
character. I accept that redevelopment would allow the site to be tidied up.
However, I do not consider that this by itself provides sufficient justification
for development. The objectors suggest a range of uses to which the site could
be put. However, apart from affordable housing, there is no clear evidence to
suggest that there is an otherwise unmet demand for any of the other
developments. If such demand did exist, I have seen no evidence to indicate that
the objection site would be the most appropriate location in which to meet it.
5.30.5 I accept
that in the adopted Local Plan the objection site is in a Tier 1 location and
that a mixed use development could help in providing local employment, shopping
and other opportunities. However, in the absence of any clear evidence of need
for the facilities, I do not consider that an allocation is necessary.
5.30.6 Within
the Plan, Monitor and Manage approach to housing provision, I can see no sound
reason for identifying reserve housing sites. The housing delivery programme set
out in Policy H2a will deliver adequate numbers of dwellings. If shortfalls
arise, the Plan, Monitor and Manage approach would allow the council to identify
divergence from the programme and to implement remedial measures. This may
require the bringing forward of additional sites but it would be for the council
to decide which of the many candidate sites would best meet national guidance
and its own objectives.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend
that no modification is made to the plan.
end of
extract
Recent History
of Development Proposals
March 2005 - No doubt many people
within the village are aware of the fight, a couple of years ago, to prevent
the Grange land in the centre of the village being used to build 300 houses. Due
to the combined efforts of many people and some fortuitous government
legislation that threat was narrowly avoided.
The redesignation by
VRBC of the land from housing to open countryside in the revised Local Plan,
which is currently on deposit (available for comment and consultation), was felt
to ensure that no development would take place for at least five years.
However, part of the
Local Plan process allows people to object that land has been omitted from
particular categories. Netherton Estates and Persimmon Homes are doing so with
Grange Farm. They are asking for the land to be categorised for "retail and
commercial use with housing infill".
This information is
included in an Omission List that has been complied by VRBC and will be made
available to the Inspector who will review the Local Plan before it comes into
force. This is necessary as part of the public consultation exercise and does
not imply VRBC necessarily agree with the contents of the Omissions List.
If the Inspector were
to agree that the change was justified it would be binding on the Council.
The public only had
until 30th March to raise their objections to anything included within the
Omissions List and it was clearly in the village's best interest that as many
people as possible did so. All objections from the public will also go to the
Inspector.
The danger was that
people were not aware that this process was in hand until it was too late to
influence the outcome.
April 2005 - The Civic Society
has objected to the proposal to reclassify the land, as have many Hartford
residents. We understand that VRBC received approximately 80 objections.
|
