Thanks for attending Contents Introductions Who weve been - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Thanks for attending

Contents

Introductions Who we’ve been speaking to The application & policy Objection advice What to do next What happens when we win/lose

Who are we?

A team of 12-15 committed ‘locals’ dedicated to protecting our very special village. Split into teams focusing on objection details, legal, and communications. Meetings at least once per week.

Who are we?

Who we’ve been speaking to

• Local Government

○ Kirklees Planning Officers ○ Holme Valley Parish Council ○ Peak District National Park

• Planning Professionals

○ 2x Planning Consultants ○ Planning Lawyer ○ Transport Consultants ○ Landscape Architect

• Regional and local action groups

○ Campaign for Protection of Rural England ○ Scholes Future Group ○ HoTT (Holmfirth Transition Town) ○ RSPB ○ Friends of the Peak Park ○ Historic England ○ Kirklees Wildlife Protection ○ Yorkshire Wildlife Trust ○ Kirklees Community Action Network

• Utilities

○ Yorkshire Water

Since the last public meeting we have had consultations with or spoken to… …...AND SCORES of fellow residents!

The Application

Application Number 2016/60/91967/W (link) Outline application for 66 houses plus a convenience store and ‘provision of open space’. Application status: Validated. Unanimously opposed by HVPC on 22nd Aug. Comments are invited up to 7th

• September. No decision date set.

The Application

The POL / Safeguarded land

The Application

The Current Application: ‘Outline application for residential development and convenience store, and provision of open space’. 66 houses at outline stage - could change. We assume that the land is still owned by Ms Symonds-Campbell but Jones homes have secured an option to buy.

The Application

The potential impact if all POL allocation is developed

• 187 extra houses - approx doubling

the village

• 300 extra cars?
• 55+* extra school children

The Current Policy

...according to Kirklees. The land was designated as ‘Public Open Land’ in the UDP in 1999 (revised 2007) and ‘safeguarded’ in the (draft) Local Plan to run from late 2015. ‘the council has stated in the plan that safeguarded land is not intended to be released before the end

• f the plan period, which is 2031’

However…. ‘The Council is not currently objecting to the principle of development on POL sites identified in the UDP, given the length of time since the UDP was adopted and the current need for housing land in the district.’

The Current Policy

Furthermore, due to Kirklees being unable to provide 5 years housing land, the existing UDP is considered to be ‘out of date’. ...even though the supply is deemed adequate (up to 7+yrs) in parts of the Holme Valley, housing demand is calculated ‘borough-wide’. … and even though the biggest need is for 1-2 bedroom accommodation this application has no provision for this.

The Current Policy

Based on discussions with planning lawyers, consultants and many interested parties, we are in no doubt the presumption is in favour of development unless it can be demonstrated that the harm of development significantly

• utweighs the benefit.

Recently, in cases where Kirklees has ruled against development they have lost at appeal and incurred significant costs.

Grimescar Valley Lindley Moor Us. Honley Upperthong Netherthong Scholes

4,500

homes already allocated in plan as Building Land. POL Land exploitation is in addition to this. ________ Despite 2000+ homes lying empty in Kirklees Despite many unused brownfield sites Thongsbridge

The Results

Can we Challenge Policy?

A legal challenge to the policy was considered. However even if we started down this route and managed to win, the result would only have a chance of affecting future plans. Too late for this application in Hade Edge. New local plan is anticipated to be finally adopted in late 2017.

• Q. So given all

that doom and gloom, why are we bothering fighting?

• A. Because we think we have an
• argument. We think Hade Edge is a

‘bit different’.

All the advice and discussions so far have led us to believe there are Subjects where we can demonstrate better than the

• ther locations that the harm of development

significantly outweighs the benefit.

3 main areas to contest

Intent of Local Plan

Sustainability

(transport, employment, C02, schools, distance from, hospitals, shops, leisure, etc…..). P e a k P a r k P r

• x

i m i t y B i

• d

i v e r s i t y G u i d a n c e

• f

N P P F W a t e r S u p p l y Broadband Intent of old UDP

1 Services

Primarily drainage and water runoff - these are the hardest to fix.

Character

& amenity. Scope and style of the development ‘swamping’ the village.

2 3

The 3 main areas of opposition.

Example argument 1.

In the application it is recognised that private car commuting will be the primary mode of transport for the population, which is in direct opposition to the intent of the NPPF and DLP. However their supporting surveys and arguments are poorly researched and will be relatively straightforward to contest with local data and research. As well as residents, service vehicles, deliveries, visitors all add up in C02 terms and traffic delays when considering the impact of developing rural locations.

Example argument 2.

Guidance says ‘POL sites are judged to be capable of development but there is a need for the highways, sewers and school places to be in place to cope with the demand of population growth.’ Think traffic in Holmfirth/ Dunford Road, Scholes, capacity of sewers, broadband, water supply,

25 March 2013

23 March 2013

Example argument 3.

The site is located in a character area which forms the setting to the Peak District National Park. The Kirklees landscape character assessment (LCA) states that this character area ‘provides an immediate setting to the Peak District National Park’… ‘It contributes to the flow of landscape character beyond the National Park boundary (which is recognised as one of the protected landscape’s ‘special qualities’).’ ‘The landscape character area forms a valued transitional landscape between the developed valleys below and the nationally designated moorlands rising immediately above.’

What do we do next...

What do we do next?

Working Group

1

As Individuals

2

Working group

Deliver a Master Dossier of opposition

• Critiquing the content and challenging the facts in

the application (e.g. sustainability, traffic, wildlife surveys)

• Compile accurate data and local knowledge.
• Supplemented by professional surveys and

arguments on key policy points.

• Backed up by professional credentials and possibly

delivered by legal/professional representation.

Working group

How can you help?

Professional skillsets and / or experience? Time? Energy? Commitment?

Opposition as individuals

Submit an objection mentioning the 3 main points plus your own factors.

1. Sustainability 2. Services 3. Character and amenity ….. Plus other points - Schools, lifestyle, biodiversity, impact on you personally, etc.

Individual action

Your own

• bjection

Ask Family / friends who love the village Engage Action Groups / Associations Use Social Media / Networks Help is available for letter writing

So…. How much does keeping your village from turning into just another suburb mean to YOU?

Fundraising

Donations raised so far:

£6,600

Target Budget:

£20,000

Not peanuts, but not much when split among a village

Fundraising

£

What happens if we lose?

We have no redress other than on a point of law if we lose. Contesting on a point of law will be very expensive and is very unlikely to succeed.

We have one shot at this.

What happens if we win?

It’s likely that Jones Home will appeal on either fundamental or specific points. On the applicant’s appeal, we have no right to argue - so our original arguments need to be watertight. If the arguments are good enough we may prevent altogether or massively reduce the impact on the village. If they win on appeal, our only form of redress is to influence the ‘massing and bulking’ and aesthetics of the development. If we win we may buy time within which the local plan may be adopted. (Safeguarding the land until 2031).

To recap.

• 1. Please talk to us about

joining the working group.

• 2. Please donate what you

can.

• 3. Please object through the
• fficial channels…..

...within

14 days

Official comments need to be in to Kirklees before Wednesday 7th September.

Thanks for listening. Any questions?