Author Topic: Reasons for refusing the Coate development planning application (Read 2667 times)

Jean · « **on:** June 28, 2011, 07:18:37 PM »

The reasons for refusing the Coate development planning application have gone up at

http://194.73.99.13:8080/WAM/doc/Decision-332027.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=332027&location=VOLUME5&contentType=&pageCount=1

Quote

1. The proposed development by reason of its substantial scale and location is
considered to be so significant to the future growth of the Borough of Swindon
when considered against other suitable locations that it will be premature in
advance of the examination and adoption of the Swindon Core Strategy Revised
Proposed Submission Document. This document is still under review and neither
public consultation nor examination of the issues has yet been completed. The
Council considers that if planning permission were to be granted it would
prejudice the outcome of the plan process by predetermining decisions about the
appropriateness of the location, the scale and phasing of new development that
should properly to be taken in the development plan context. The proposal
therefore does not comply with national planning policies PPS1 and PPS3; is
contrary to policies DS1, H4 and ENV9 of the Swindon Local Plan 2011 (2006)
and policy DP3 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 (2006).

2. The proposed development by virtue of the increased levels of traffic
associated with this mixed use development will have an unacceptable impact on
traffic flows on Marlborough Road and Day House Lane compromising highway
safety. Furthermore the location of the employment land, its sole vehicular
access via the spine road/boulevard and expected weight of traffic within the site
will result in a car dominated development and unacceptable level of severance
to the detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to
national guidance in Manual for Streets 1 and 2 and policies DS6 and DS7 of the
Swindon Borough Local Plan 2011 (2006).

3. The proposed development by virtue of its scale and location will have an
unacceptable impact on the setting and intrinsic qualities of part of the adjacent
North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in that the proposed
mixed use development, some of which may be up to four storeys in height will
fail to maintain an attractive and sympathetic vista from the Downs and a
foreground that softens the urban edge of Swindon, or demonstrate that the
intrinsic qualities of the AONB can be sufficiently protected. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7, and fails to comply with
policies DS6 and ENV10 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2011(2006)

4. The proposal by virtue of its scale and setting fails to satisfactorily consider in
any detail the importance of the surrounding landscape as a heritage asset. The
literary work of Richard Jefferies as a nature writer is significant in understanding
the landscape of the Coate and Badbury Wick areas together with their
relationship with the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and conversely the appreciation of his own work. If approved, this development
will have a detrimental effect on this intrinsic historic value and importance, and
would in this respect be harmful to the visual amenity of the area as a whole. The
proposal fails to comply with policies HE6, HE7, HE9, HE10, and of PPS5 and
policies DS6 and ENV10, of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2011 (2006) .

The developers have still got 6 months to appeal and we still have an emerging policy in the Swindon Core Strategy for "Commonhead" to chuck out.

Drone · « **Reply #1 on:** June 29, 2011, 06:49:20 AM »

The objections at 3 and 4 should have given you particular satisfaction. How long have you been raising those issues?

Quote

The
literary work of Richard Jefferies as a nature writer is significant in understanding
the landscape of the Coate and Badbury Wick areas together with their
relationship with the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and conversely the appreciation of his own work.

About time!

MsD Meanor · « **Reply #2 on:** June 29, 2011, 07:11:29 AM »

Good to see this, the effort of all has been worthwhile.

Jean · « **Reply #3 on:** June 29, 2011, 07:57:14 AM »

Quote from: Drone on June 29, 2011, 06:49:20 AM

The objections at 3 and 4 should have given you particular satisfaction. How long have you been raising those issues?

Quote
The
literary work of Richard Jefferies as a nature writer is significant in understanding
the landscape of the Coate and Badbury Wick areas together with their
relationship with the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and conversely the appreciation of his own work.

About time!

Don't ask! My hair was black at the beginning and not grey ...

We have also seen English Heritage's response to the emerging Swindon Core Strategy policy for Coate and they have also raised concerns that the literary and heritage value of the landscape has not been adequately addressed.

There is still a glimmer of hope that Coate will be saved after all.

Muggins · « **Reply #4 on:** June 29, 2011, 09:55:08 AM »

Jean: My hair was black at the beginning and not grey ...

Seems to be a badge of honour amongst activists in Swindon! Grey hair that is.

swindoncentric · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2011, 10:28:52 PM »

Should Swindon be taking preventative, permanent action to safeguard some of it's land from building? How about 'common land' designation?

Blogged here : http://swindoncentric.blogspot.com/2011/08/does-swindon-need-fanfare-for-common.html

I Could Do That · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2011, 11:29:46 PM »

I politely suggested to Peter Greenhole, ages ago, that Coate (Commonhead) shouldn't be in the core strategy.

He gave me a stream of grillocks as to how keeping it in would save the area from future development (duh!)

I'm designing thumbscrews now

Muggins · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2011, 08:22:23 AM »

Trouble is with things like "green belts" is that they just move the belt when necessary. The whole piece of land and Coate Water itself needs some better designation. Even then, they've built motorways through Sites of Special Scientific interest.

ICDT It's better I think to have a bit of land mnetioned in the Core Strategy with a "We will not build on this now or ever" than not have it in there. If changes to personell in SBC are maintained, there will be no living memory of why it would be left out and say in 5-10-20 some developer will point to the wadge of apparently unclaimed land and say AGAIN, this would be nice to built on. By that time we could have moved on - probably to those green pastures in the sky - who then might say and have the time to say, Do not build here! I'm sure someone will, but we cannot be 100% sure of that.

Too much is left out of documents - I understand the need for meticulous records.

itspavagain · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2011, 01:52:03 PM »

Does anyone have a map of what they were planning to build?

How many storeys is the hospital?

I Could Do That · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2011, 04:40:23 PM »

"ICDT It's better I think to have a bit of land mentioned in the Core Strategy with a "We will not build on this now or ever........"

Is that what it says now?

Muggins · « **Reply #10 on:** August 10, 2011, 06:38:16 PM »

Don't know, but it should.

I Could Do That · « **Reply #11 on:** August 10, 2011, 09:57:00 PM »

Quote from: Muggins on August 10, 2011, 06:38:16 PM

Don't know, but it should.

Last I heard (though I admit I haven't listened much lately) it still contained approval for a housing development east of Dayhouse Lane.

Anyone got the latest details?

Jean · « **Reply #12 on:** August 11, 2011, 07:27:25 AM »

Quote from: I Could Do That on August 10, 2011, 09:57:00 PM

Quote from: Muggins on August 10, 2011, 06:38:16 PM
Don't know, but it should.

Last I heard (though I admit I haven't listened much lately) it still contained approval for a housing development east of Dayhouse Lane.

Anyone got the latest details?

The consultation draft policy for Commonhead provided for 900 houses east of Day House Lane (along with hospital extension, school, shop etc) plus 15 ha employment land at the southern end of Day House Lane mainly to the west (ie Coate Water side). The planning application that was recently thrown out covered the same area with the same land-use.

In the light of objections to the draft policy, the Council can make changes before it goes to a planning inspector. So we have two planning inquiries to look forward to. One for the planning application, that is in keeping with the draft policy, and one for the draft policy itself! There are no dates for the inquiries yet, but it will be a lot of work for everyone.

I Could Do That · « **Reply #13 on:** August 11, 2011, 06:12:52 PM »

Would it be much simpler if SBC just took it out of the draft policy?
Am I misinterpreting this?
Shall I start them thumbscrews again?

Dale Heenan · « **Reply #14 on:** August 11, 2011, 06:24:45 PM »

Its for the Planning Inspector to decide now and the hearing is October/November. If permission is granted against the Committees decision then this is all academic.

Prematurity of the application is one of the reasons for refusal because the Core Strategy hasn't been adopted!

There were over 1000 comments about the Core Strategy Consultation and it'll take time to go through. The Core Strategy inquiry is 6 months plus away.

Muggins · « **Reply #15 on:** August 11, 2011, 06:52:23 PM »

"If permission is granted against the Committees decision then this is all academic"

And a matter of historical record! Forever embedded in the archives.

Dale Heenan · « **Reply #16 on:** August 11, 2011, 07:14:27 PM »

It's true though so I'm not going to say anything else.

If the Planning Inspector overturns the Planning Committee's decision to refuse permission, and gives the developer permission to build, then the development will go ahead regardless of what happens to the Core Strategy.

Jean · « **Reply #17 on:** August 11, 2011, 07:43:04 PM »

Quote from: Dale Heenan on August 11, 2011, 06:24:45 PM

Its for the Planning Inspector to decide now and the hearing is October/November. If permission is granted against the Committees decision then this is all academic.

Prematurity of the application is one of the reasons for refusal because the Core Strategy hasn't been adopted!

There were over 1000 comments about the Core Strategy Consultation and it'll take time to go through. The Core Strategy inquiry is 6 months plus away.

It is useful to know that the planning application inquiry will take place in October/November. Is that just a good guess, Dale, or have you been told of something that we haven't? Do you know if a planning inspector has been appointed yet and when we might be informed about the time-table?

Many thanks

Jean

Jean · « **Reply #18 on:** August 12, 2011, 10:39:39 AM »

It seems that November 15th is the likely date for the start of the planning inquiry and the Inpector might sit for 6 days. Swindon Council is appointing consultants from Halcrow to produce and present evidence on their behalf.

Dale Heenan · « **Reply #19 on:** August 12, 2011, 07:00:29 PM »

Yep letter received from the Inspectorate this morning as I mentioned to Jean...

I asked for the letter to be circulated to all planning members, and the officer email notes that Timothy Jones from Number 5 chambers will be providing the advocacy for the Council.