|
Home
Up
The planning process
The Public Inquiry
Archaeology work
Precautionary principle
Ecology
Supervisory failures
Site's potential
Impact
Community
Presentation script
CLOSING STATEMEN
York City Planning documents online
YouTube videos
The Final Report
Kindle edition of Finding Fulford is now available
The Fulford Tapestry
Visiting Fulford
Map York
| |
Evidence presented to
the public inquiry:
-
Summary
-
Archaeology
-
Precautionary principle
-
The
ecology
-
Supervisory failures and defects in the work done
-
The
potential of the area
-
The
impacts that will flow and what the rules say
-
The
exclusion of the community and their rights and role in the planning process
-
Script for the presentation
-
Closing statement (with call in letter for
reference)
3. Ecology
3.1. The Fulford battlefield site links the Ings, most of which is designated as
an SSSI, and an extensive green area including Heslington Common and Walmgate
Stray. This represents one of York’s green wedges that links the countryside to
the urban landscape. The site is not only of historic importance but is
invaluable for its ecological context. The call-in letter asks about conflict
with PPG 9. The fragility of this historic landscape will now be explored.
3.2. Flooding has been identified as a problem. However, it must be remembered
that regular floods maintain the local landscape.
- 3.2.1. According to PPG 25, “planning authorities should recognise the
importance of functional flood plains, where water flows or is held at times of
flood, and avoid inappropriate development on undeveloped and undefended flood
plains”.
- 3.2.1.1. Having worked alongside Germany Beck for so many years, its importance
as a reservoir and drain can be appreciated. It is a dynamic system and the work
of the group has revealed much about the interaction of the beck and the Ings.
- 3.2.1.2. This is a fragile ecology and the water feeds the Ings which is an area
that is recognised as a protected, rare environment. No ecological study has
been conducted about the effects that any changes in water flow from the
development will have.
- 3.2.2. The same planning guidance recommends that the “planning authorities
should apply the precautionary principle to the issue of flood risk, using a
risk-based search sequence to avoid such risk where possible and managing it
elsewhere”. The possibility that the proposed pond system might release extra
nutrients, pesticides, algaecides or other toxic material as run-off from the
proposed development has not been assessed but could be disastrous and not
allowed because of the status of the Ings. An investigation is required.
- 3.2.3. The choice of the natural drain of Germany Beck, created when the last
ice sheet retreated, as the route for the single access road, fails both of the
tests set out in the planning guidance.
- 3.2.3.1. First, the impact that the re-engineering will have on the Ings
environment has not been assessed. The proposal must be seen as the sort of
inappropriate development referred to in the planning guidance.
- 3.2.3.2. Second, the precautionary principle demands that this ancient drain is
not dramatically altered in the way proposed.
- The archaeological evidence allows us to model ‘land height growth’ and the
impact it will have on future flooding for this area. The Ings are making their
way very slowly along the beck.
- 3.2.4. So flooding must be assessed in terms of the sustainable ecology of the
beck. The impact of the unspecified gates, sluices, pumps and anti-reflux valves
should have been assessed before permission was granted and must be done now
before using Germany Beck as the access is considered.
3.3. Germany Beck is a vital ecological corridor where the needs of heritage and
ecology are coincident which is why it has green belt status.
- 3.3.1. There is some argument about the general status of the site as green belt
land in the development. There is however, no dispute that the access road is
planned along a section that is clearly marked in the draft plan as green belt.
The loss of this particular green belt land is small but it must be considered
highly significant until its potential importance has been fully investigated.
- 3.3.2. PPG15 defines the purpose of reserving land for Green Belts "to provide a
reserve supply of public open spaces and of recreational areas and to establish
a green belt or girdle of open space". English Heritage and others have
expressed a powerful case for preserving the green belt around York so those
arguments are not rehearsed here. However, even within the draft city plan,
Germany Beck is an area of Green Belt and it is proposed that this is covered to
provide the access road. This is unacceptable.
- 3.3.3. It appears that the COYC is looking towards the ring road as the new belt
or limit for the city. If the plan to surround the city in a black rather than a
green belt this must be the subject of proper public consultation and agreement.
3.4. The ‘very special circumstances’ case made by developers does not stand up
to examination.
- 3.4.1. They claim that there is a pressing need for housing in the area.
- 3.4.1.1. Various correspondents have contributed figures to the inquiry about
the number of empty houses in the area and it would be possible to engage in an
inconclusive argument about the management of the supply by property developers
to ensure that prices are not depressed.
- 3.4.1.2. A report in the planning file at COYC indicates that housing supply
calculations (until 2011) show 1,820 homes on the drawing board giving a crude
oversupply of 1,091 against their government-imposed target. This represents, in
crude terms, a 60% oversupply of housing units up to 2011. So there is no rush
to develop this site.
- 3.4.2. ‘Community benefits’ are claimed for removing the green belt but these
benefits are not listed and it is very hard to see how the noise and visual
impact that the access road along the green belt will offset any of the
unspecified gains. Given that the community is going to suffer a dramatic
increase in traffic congestion the developers need to provide a list of the
benefits to the community for sacrificing their green belt. There are comments
later on the lack of information and local consultation so it is only the
developer who is assessing these supposed community benefits.
- 3.4.3. Allocation of the site in the draft city plan is repeated as points 5 and
6 in the ‘very special’ case presented by the developers.
- 3.4.3.1. Elsewhere it is pointed out that planners cannot simply ignore all the
other planning rules simply because an area has been earmarked for some purpose
in a plan. Any plan confers no more than permission to investigate. The planners
must still enforce the planning regulations which they have failed to do here.
These failures are investigated in section 4.
- 3.4.3.2. The statement made by the developers is wrong in claiming that all of
the green belt had been allocated in the draft plan for housing development. The
city draft plan unambiguously preserves the route selected for the single access
road as green belt for the very good ecological reasons. It is therefore hard to
find words to dismiss this ‘special circumstance’ claimed for taking away the
green belt.
- 3.4.4. The claim that the land does not ‘contribution to the purposes of the
green belt’ has been dealt with by the paper from English Heritage. The
assertion also ignores the importance of this ecological corridor for which no
investigation is presented. This is one of many examples in the planning
documents from the developers and city planners inject expressions of what they
would like to be true into their paperwork but for which there is no supporting
evidence or analysis.
- 3.4.5. Even if all the other arguments, cases and causes set out in this paper
for refusing permission to build the access road on the route that is proposed,
this issue of pre-existing protection should alone prevent the construction.
3.5. Minister wants to know if the development plan accords with advice in paras
17& 18 of the planning guideline.
“17. The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the
natural and historic environment, in both rural and urban areas. Planning
policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity
value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A high level of protection
should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and
natural resources. Those with national and international designations should
receive the highest level of protection.
“18. The condition of our surroundings has a direct impact on the quality of
life and the conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment
brings social and economic benefit for local communities. Planning should seek
to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects
of declining environmental quality through positive policies on issues such as
design, conservation and the provision of public space.”
- 3.5.1. No extra commentary is offered on these paragraphs as their relevance to
the proposed development are clear. These official documents set out the policy
that has been carefully prepared for the guidance of planners and developers.
The present proposals fail the test set. Later in this paper, alternative ways
to improve the environment and the economic benefit that the environment can
deliver is discussed [5].
3.6. The minister also asks about paragraphs 33-39 of PPS 1 which looks at the
design. Sadly, the planners can have little effective influence over the
detailed design with such large developments. For a project of this size, the
officers do not have the resources to micro-manage the project and ensure that
the guidance is followed. The record of Persimmon is not good.
- 3.6.1. The report from last November by Lord Rogers criticises ‘shoddy’ house
builders and poor design among the big house builders. Persimmon claim to be the
biggest builder of houses in England.
- 3.6.2. Ninety-four per cent of new private housing built over the last three
years in the north of England fails to measure up on design quality, according
to an audit published by CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment.
- 3.6.3. An article in the Yorkshire Post of 22 November 2005 commenting on the
CABE report lists a few successful projects but Persimmon is not among them.
- 3.6.4. The BBC also carried a report a report about the CABE findings and named
the estate in Consett built by Persimmon as ‘ the worst new development’.
- 3.6.5. Catherine Riley writing in The Times on the 18 November 2005 looked
behind the views about aesthetics to see if the estate, nevertheless worked for
the residents. The majority felt is was ‘average’ and just 6% rated it as good.
In the independent survey quoted in The Times it is worth noting that the
residents were particularly critical of the need to rely on a car, poor bus
links and felt that the sales literature mentioned services that were never
delivered.
- 3.6.6. We can have no confidence that the needs of the new residents will be met
under the development model proposed.
- 3.6.7. Some stringent conditions need to be applied to ensure that the guidance
of PPS 1 is followed. If this requires the developer to fund additional planning
controls costs such a condition should be imposed. The developers must also be
obliged to fulfil their responsibilities to consult the community, as set out in
the guidance, and act in a responsive way to the suggestions raised [See 5.3 5.4
7].
3.7. The bio-diversity of this site is impressive as anybody who has walked the
area for many years can confirm. Regrettably, there has not been a before and
after study to confirm the impression that shooting, especially the nocturnal
‘lamping’ reported to the land agent has not already degraded the wildlife. The
land that forms part of this development, links the ancient grazing land of
Heslington Common through the network of waterways to the SSSI on the Ings and
then to the river Ouse. This is an active conduit as the footprints of several
species of rodents can be identified in the soft mud along the banks. This
proposal will cut this conduit.
3.8. No formal landscape character assessment has been undertaken which makes it
impossible to follow the guidance that “it would not be onerous to undertake
further analysis against those criteria at the development control level.”
(PPS22 15.1)
3.9. The suggestion in the PPS is that this discussion about the landscape
should form part of an on-going local consultative process. It also makes it
clear that the ecological and the visual impact on the landscape must be debated
as separate issues.
3.10. This development must now be subject to this public scrutiny not only
because of its special environmental location but also to preserve the visual
context of the battle site. The planning process should, at the very least,
revert to a point where these issues can be debated. The problems encountered
when one tried to enter into a debate with the developers are discussed later.
3.11. There is no economic model to assess the importance of an environment or
the bio-diversity of which Germany Beck is such an important part. This is why
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) has
a list of key principles which should be applied.
- 3.11.1. Those who are familiar with this environment would suggest that every
one of the six principles has been ignored by this development.
- 3.11.2. Paragraph 12 emphasises the importance of considering the natural
network and not the assess places in isolation. The role of Germany Beck in its
ecological context has not been assessed.
- 3.11.3. The policy set out in PPS9 is clear. It is the whole environment, or
habitat that should be preserved especially where protected species are present.
A proper study must be undertaken before a planning decision is made to inform
the planning decision.
- 3.11.4. This is the same process of ‘investigation before any planning
decisions’ that was urged in connection with the battlefield archaeology.
3.12. The antiquity of this conduit is in little doubt.
- 3.12.1. The developer’s desk-top study assessed the date of the hedge along
Germany Beck, at the eastern edge of the site, to be 1000 years old. Sadly, much
of this has been grubbed out but the good news is that many of the willow trees
have survived and are remerging.
- 3.12.2. To the west of the A19, outside the development area, another ancient
hedge is visible which is estimated to be 1000 years old.
- 3.12.3. While the linking hedge has been lost, laying 300 metres of road along
this ancient waterway will cause permanent damage to the complex environment of
the Ings and the extensive hinterland if the road is built.
- 3.12.4. It is unacceptable that the hedges have not been studied and the impact
of the development assessed. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of PPS9 state that areas
adjacent to SSSIs “should be given a high degree of protection under the
planning system”. This has not happened.
3.13. A formal assessment must be undertaken before any decision is made. All of
this should have been undertaken during the planning process and included
consultations. As with the archaeology, this assessment work should have been
done before the matter was considered or brought to a planning decision. The
planning process should, at the very least, be restarted so that the proper
procedures and be carried out.
| |
Links
YouTube videos
The evidence reviewed
A guided tour of the
battlefield
The tidal surge - riding
the river to Riccall
Battlefield Trust site This is a wonderful, new resource for those who want
to know about the battlefields of England and Wales.
|
