The Cripps proposals
Contents:
Draft minutes of the Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting
Appendix 1 to the Minutes (comments raised in Public Forum)
Appendix 2 - Background Information for use in Evaluating Planning Applications
Ampney Crucis Parish Council’s response to the CDC
Detailed Rationale for Ampney Crucis Parish Council decisions
*********************************
AMPNEY CRUCIS PARISH COUNCIL
Present: Councillors Peter Kelly, Gerald Gaden, Fran Huckle, David Vessey, Adrian Grazebrook, Sally Hebbs and John Dear.
District Councillor Bruce Evans
County Councillor Raymond Theodoulou
Presiding: Councillor Peter Kelly
Clerk: Mrs H Tonks
The meeting commenced at 7.30pm. There were 61members of the public present.
1. Apologies for Absence
None
2. Public Forum
Councillor Vessey expressed an interest in the applications before the Council, and therefore debarred himself from participating in the meeting as a Councillor.
The Chairman gave the following introduction to the Meeting and the Public Forum.
Good Evening Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am very pleased to see so many of you here this evening for this Extraordinary Parish Council meeting. You will all have seen the Agenda which was on the calling Notice or the flyer delivered throughout the village. The only subject to be dealt with by the Council this evening is Planning and specifically five planning applications and a supporting document, Ampney Crucis Village Proposals.
The five applications are as follows:
CT 7365/A: Location is land west of Allotments Lane
Proposed development is provision of a village recreation field including a football field with parking, landscaping and space for other recreation facilities
CT8194: Location is land off the Pleydells
Proposed development is erection of new village shop with associated parking and landscaping
CT 8195: Location land to the west of School Lane
Proposed development creation of a Wetland Nature Reserve
CT 2872/F: Location is the land opposite the former Butcher’s Arms Public House
Proposed development is Erection of a dwelling with access, garage and stables with landscaping
CT 8196: Location is land North of London Road and East of School Lane
Proposed development erection of 4 detached dwellings with associated garages, parking and landscaping.
The supporting Document is titled Ampney Crucis Village Proposals October 2001 which asks that the Applications be taken as a whole and gives additional information in support of the applications.
The applicants are Park Farm Limited and The Ampney Crucis Village Trust (Ampney Crucis Association)
Handling of Planning Applications. Planning Applications have in the first instance to be considered in terms of land use planning matters, councils and individuals might also like to comment on other matters such as access, layout, design, type of building materials, privacy and the effect of the proposed land use on the appearance or character of the neighbourhood.
Financial loss or alleged property devaluation are not land use planning matters.
In Land Use we are guided by planning legislation, the particular documents affecting Ampney Crucis being the CDC Local Plan Adopted Version District Wide Policies and Proposals- August 1999 and the CDC Local Plan Adopted Version Thames Valley Area 8 – August 1999. These give rise to the planning status of Ampney Crucis and in particular how the village is affected by Planning Policy 1 and Planning Policy 2.
Policy 1 covers development which would be permissible within the village settlement and
Policy 2 covers development outside this area and which is defined as open countryside.
Other factors to be taken into account are the conservation area as well as the planning history relative to the various sites.
All planning decisions are taken primarily on policy grounds. To this end a briefing note has been circulated to Councillors with the applications which contains some of the relevant factors from various documents which they might wish to consider in their deliberations. The list of references are at the end of the document, copies of which are available in the hall.
After the end of the Public Forum the council will then take Item 3 and deal with each of the applications in turn, coming if possible to a decision on whether they should be supported or objected to. Once all applications have been considered the council will then take into account and discuss the supporting paper on Village Proposals which contains details of material considerations the applicants wish to be considered in asking for the package to be reviewed as a whole. After which if the council reaches a decision their views will be forwarded to the CDC to be taken into consideration by CDC who are the responsible decision making body in respect of planning applications. I must stress that during item 3 the only participation allowed is that of the Parish Councillors.
As indicated on the calling notice the Forum will run for an hour, people will be able to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes, repetition of information will not be allowed (discouraged) and people will be able to speak for a second time if intervening information they hear changes what they had previously said. The reason for this is to enable as many people as possible to give their comments.
If you wish to speak, I would ask you to wait to be called and then to give your name, it would help if you also indicated whether your comments were general or specific to a particular application, this will help the Parish Clerk to keep individual records appropriate to each application.
I thank you for your forbearance through this introduction and I now open the floor to the first questioner.
A number of issues were raised in the forum, these are attached to the minutes as Appendix 1.
3. Discussion of planning applications
CT 7365/A, CT8194, CT 8195, CT 2872/F and CT 8196, and response to be made by Ampney Crucis Parish Council.
The Chairman had previously circulated a briefing paper, attached to these minutes as Appendix 2, to provide information and facts on the CDC Local Plan, and planning history in the village. All references and the original sources are listed on the final page. The Councillors had the information available to help them with their decisions and recommendations.
A document entitled Ampney Crucis Village Proposals, circulated by the agents, Whitton Associates, was also enclosed with the applications, and Councillors used this during discussions.
3.1 CT 7365/A Provision of village recreational field, with parking and landscaping, on land west of Allotment Lane.
It was agreed, unanimously, that the Parish Council had no objections to this application, as the change of use from agricultural land to recreational use, would be similar to the recreational area on the other side of Allotment Lane. A change of use would also be allowed under Policy 2 of the Local Plan. However, Councillors wished that a condition is imposed that ensures that all works as specified for the recreation field in the Ampney Crucis Village Proposals document are carried out, that the area be fenced
3.2 CT 8194 Erection of a new Village Shop, with parking and landscaping, on land at The Pleydells.
Note 12 of Policy 2 of the Local Plan allows for the provision of small-scale community structures. If there was a need for a shop, then it could be built in that area.
There were concerns from the Councillors that once planning approval is given for a retail property in that area, it would not necessarily be a village shop. Other retail outlets could operate in the unit. There were other concerns that the proposed site was away from ‘through traffic’ and was not in an obvious position. It was also explained in the Public Forum that the Parish Council had undertaken some research, and found that a shop without a post office was unlikely to be viable. (See Appendix 1, paragraph 22)
It was agreed, by a majority, that the Council would object to the proposal. Councillors Gaden and Grazebrook had no objections to the proposal, Councillors Huckle, Hebbs, Dear and Kelly objected to the proposal.
3.3 CT 8195 Creation of a wetland nature reserve on land west of School Lane.
Councillor Gaden raised concerns that once the nature reserve is established, it could, if not correctly managed, become an area of thistles and scrub.
It was agreed, unanimously, that the Parish Council had no objections to this application. However, Councillors wished that a condition is imposed that ensures that all works as specified for the nature reserve in the Ampney Crucis Village Proposals document are carried out by the developer.
3.4 CT 2872/F Erection of dwelling, access, stables and landscaping on land opposite Gorston House
The land is currently vacant, and being used as agricultural land.
Planning history in this area suggested that this plot of land would be covered by Policy 2 of the CDC Local Plan. (Appendix 2, paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) There was some discussion however, concentrating on whether the piece of land could be regarded as ‘infill’, and if so, housing could then be considered.
Previous applications, dating from 1964, for housing in this area, had been either refused or withdrawn suggesting that the area was outside the village settlement.
A majority of the Council (four members to two) felt that the site was inappropriate for housing, and that the planning history of the site supported this.
Councillor Grazebrook had no objections to the proposal, and felt that the proposed house was suitable for the site. Councillor Gaden had no objections. Councillors Huckle, Hebbs, Dear and Kelly objected as they felt that the site was not suitable for the proposed housing, and was against planning policy.
3.5 CT 8196 Erection of four detached dwellings with garages, parking and landscaping on land north of London Road, and east of School Lane.
It was agreed that the site was clearly agricultural land, and as such Policy 2 of the Local Plan would refer to this area.
Councillor Gaden had no objections to the proposal, as the extra houses could lead to extra children for the school.
Councillors Grazebrook, Huckle, Hebbs, Dear and Kelly objected to the proposal, as it would be against planning policy. Councillor Hebbs also expressed concern that the rural nature of that part of the village would be irrevocably changed, and that increased traffic from the development would endanger children outside the school or walking to school.
The Council (five members to one) objected to the proposal
Village Scheme. Response to be made by Ampney Crucis Parish Council to the scheme.
It was agreed that the Clerk would write to the Planning Officer with the Council’s comments on the above proposals. However, the proposals, taken as a whole, required comment.
The developers propose that should the proposals be accepted, then further land to the east and west of School Lane would be donated to a village trust. The details of this are explained in the document ‘Ampney Crucis Village Proposals’. The trustees of this trust would then be responsible for the management of this land in the future. Given the facilities offered to the village, Councillors were urged to discuss whether the totality of the package should be supported.
At present, the area of land being offered is protected by a miscellany of policies.
Councillor Gaden supported the whole scheme.
Councillors Grazebrook, Huckle, Hebbs, Dear and Kelly objected to the whole scheme for the following reasons:
q concern about the viability of land and a village shop.
q overriding consideration of planning policies should not be put to one side
q the benefits would be marginal
q long term implications for the village
q concerns over future maintenance of the wetland and recreation field
q the trustees, as yet not in place, could in future years, make the wrong decision about the land given to the village.
q the village would receive little in return for the new houses.
q as the Council was against certain elements, it would be difficult to agree to the whole scheme.
q the land being donated to the village was covered by policies within the Local Plan, and Planning Inspector’s comments.
q although the development would give more housing to the village, it was difficult to speculate whether more people would mean increased participation in the village.
q the developers had agreed to pay £8,000 towards developing the recreational field and nature reserve, however the costs of providing all the sports facilities and for the future maintenance of the schemes would require significant additional funding.
q of particular importance was that the proposal for a shop was not seen to be viable on economic grounds and the Post office was most unlikely to agree to reopen a sub unit because of the nearness of Poulton.
q Councillors believed that very little was offered from the developers,
q there was concern about precedents being set for developers to use for future applications in respect of agricultural land currently protected by Policy 2.
The Council agreed by a majority of five Councillors to one, that the Clerk writes to CDC objecting to the scheme.
The meeting closed at 10.25pm.
************************************
23 November, 2001
The following comments were raised in the Public Forum:
1 It was explained that the Village Trust would be given 47 acres of farmland in the centre of the Village. The Chairman explained that the Council were aware of this fact, and this would be taken into account. Should this application fail, it was possible that the landowner would put in other applications in the future.
2 Were the Council aware of current planning guidelines and how the boundaries of the village had to be taken into consideration? The Chairman explained that the Councillors brief contained information on references containing the Local Plan guidelines.
3 The block of land offered to the village would be offered as a safeguard to restrict future development in the village. Previous applications e.g. the crematorium had not been successful. The land would remain agricultural, and monies raised from this would be used to maintain other parts of the scheme. The trust deed allowed disposal. The land would not be held in perpetuity, therefore the use of it could change. The land is outside the village boundaries, therefore the Secretary of State would have to make a positive decision to allow the scheme.
4 What are the powers of the trustees? As time passes, the trustees of the Village Trust would change, and the character of the trust would alter. As the use of the land could change, future trustees may feel it beneficial to sell the land.
5 In response to para 3 it was pointed out that the application to build a crematorium on land in the village was withdrawn before it reached planning committee.
6 In relation to the concerns raised in point 4, it was explained that restrictions would be placed on the trustees, on what they can or cannot do. Any major changes must be discussed at a public meeting, and any decisions taken should reflect the decisions taken at the public meeting. The trust will be supervised, at a distance, by the Charity Commissioners.
7 It was asked when the Trust Deed was published. It was stated that it was first made public before the referendum, and few changes have been made since.
8 It was asked what implications these plans would have on the rest of the village, for instance on Berry’s Yard. The Chairman responded by explaining that previous applications on this land had been refused. Should the current applications be approved, it could set a precedent for further applications on agricultural land.
9 It was confirmed that although the introduction to ‘Ampney Crucis Village Proposals’ suggested that the Parish Council had been fully involved in consultation, the Parish Council had not had any previous discussions on the scheme prior to receipt of the applications and until this meeting.
10 The Proposals contravene the Local plan. All proposals would involve the change of use of agricultural land. It was asked that if 4 of the 5 proposals were agreed, would the rest of the scheme go ahead? The developer has offered £8,000. However enormous costs will be required to provide more than a level playing surface for the recreation field. The demand for tennis courts does not exist. Following advice from a leading botanist, a wetland nature reserve would require 10 years of hard work to establish. Many volunteers and a lot of money would be required. There appear to be insufficient funds for this. Planning applications can change details after approval has been given, and it would be naïve to assume that theseapplications wouldn’t. There were concerns about the layer of rock on the London Road site, meaning that the houses may have to be taller than initially envisaged. The football field will require re-routing of the electrical cable. The wetland area will require the provision of water, and the re-routing of the land drain. It is unlikely that a village shop could be profitable. It could then be left vacant and derelict, or changed to another use. The proposed site for a shop was unlikely to attract custom.
11 In the Ampney Crucis Times, it had been pointed out that the Post Office would not support a sub post office. Without a post office, the shop could not be viable.
12 There were only objections to the shop from 3 residents in the Pleydells as a result of a recent canvass. Assumptions were made that the shop would not be a success. The previous shop closed because of an increase in rent.
13 In relation to concerns raised in point 6, any changes to design would have to be referred to the trustees, and if significant, be referred to the village. There would be no change to the design if residents do not agree. As a result of discussions with the Post Office in 1999, ACA were assured that the Post Office would support a post office in the village.The plans submitted were made by the Trust, therefore the trust is in existence.
14 When was the trust set up, and by whom?
15 It was confirmed by the ACA chairman that Mr Ducker, Harold Stevens, Nicholas Tanner and Colin Denham-Davies were the trustees. It was suggested that the trustees should stand down at the first annual meeting of the Trust. This could be discussed at the first meeting of the Trust. The Trust Deed had not yet been signed.
16 The Council Chairman explained that the applications were made in the names of Park Farms and the Ampney Crucis Association. (ACA) They were led to believe that the Park Farms and the Village Trust had made the application. If the Trust Deed had not yet been signed, how could the application come from the Trust?
17 Concern was expressed as to how a deficit would be repaid? The ACA chairman explained that income from the land and letting of the shop unit would cover most eventualities. The Trust would not allow itself to go into debt.
18 If the Trust were supposed to be looking after the interests of the village, when would the trust come into being?
19 Mr Ducker replied that the trust deed should have been signed by 23 November, but it is anticipated that it will be by 30 November. The ACA committee had suggested nominations for the trust at a public meeting held by the ACA, but no formal nomination or vote had taken place at the subsequent ACA AGMs.
20 The members of the ACA committee were not unanimous in their opinions. It was clarified that the application should have been made by the Village Trust, and how had the application been made if the Trust was not formally in being? In 1995, the planning inspector was not persuaded that the donationmay of land was satisfactory, to allow the building of a mixture of affordable housing and larger housing in the village. The speaker was uncomfortable with the Trust deed as the land would not be held in perpetuity, and that landis sold to ensurefinancial security.
21 There were also concerns that building of these houses could lead to ‘infill’ in the School Lane area. The Village was essentially of a linear nature, and that linear nature would be removed if the land opposite Gorston House were developed.
22 After the Village Appraisal, an informal working party was set up to look at the possibility of a village shop. Tim Nicholls, from Consignia, confirmed that it was unlikely that a post office would be reopened in the village, one of the reasons being that the village is only 3 – 4 miles away from Poulton. (Appendix 2, para 5.3.3) It would also cost around £9,000 to set up a new post office, if the buildings exist.
23 What is the relationship between the ACA and the Trust? If the trust has not been set up, would the planning applications be legal? Did the Committee vote for the applications to be made?
24 The Ward Councillor asked whether the planning officers are aware that the Trust deed has not yet been signed? The Councillor must make the planning officers aware. The Local Plan was completed in 1999, and is the statutory document with which planning authorities work. Planning authorities go against the Local Plan only in exceptional circumstances. These could include economic reasons. Recent examples include British Autoguard (approved) and Rothschild's (refused). If CDC go against the Local Plan, then it is likely it would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State. If the scheme was approved, a local resident could ask for a judicial review.
25 A resident of School Lane indicated he would strongly oppose the School Lane development as it was in the open countryside and agricultural land.
26 As the referendum showed a 2 to 1 majority in favour of the overall scheme, and the Village Appraisal showed a demand for a playing field and a shop, how far have the Parish Council got in terms of identifying land or developers for these facilities?
27 The Chairman responded:
1 Viability of a shop had been investigated, and it was realised that 3 components are required:
i. The Post Office function A Post Office would not be approved by Consignia (see paragraph 36 above)
ii. Newspapers. These were already provided by another source in the village.
iii. General store. After discussions with Poulton Village Store, it would appear that a shop would not be profitable without the Post Office.
Possible premises could have been the vacant area in Charlie Jeffrey’s building. However there were problems of security.
2. The possibility of recreational facilities was discussed:
i. To provide tennis courts the village would need have a tennis club, of at least 50 members, with grounds. Costs would be £40,000 to put 2 courts on prepared ground, and a grant of 60% would be available from the LTA. A maintenance fund would be required, and the courts would require repair after 10 years. A clubhouse, fencing and nets would also be required.
ii. Football is currently played on land near the cricket pavilion, using the cricket pavilion and parking. The new proposals are for a level field.
iii. Provision of a playground has problems of security, insurance and health and safety. Discussions continue with the school on this matter. After which facilities would need to be provided at a substantial cost.
3. Although the Village Appraisal identified a need, money is still required for all the ideas.
28 Football is currently played on private land, on a yearly contract. 50% of the team were said to be from the village but it was thought to be considerably less.
29 The referendum explained that a vote not made would be a ‘no’ vote. Therefore those against the scheme were 48.5%
30 Many present were in favour of the countryside.
The Chairman thanked all those who took part and closed the forum.
************************************
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This note has been prepared by the Council Chairman in preparation for the review and subsequent discussion of the Cripps Proposals planning applications. It is intended purely to ensure therefore, that some of the relevant factors from the various documents which apply to planning applications are readily identifiable. The detail contained merely indicates the type of matters the local authority will take into account when it studies representations. It is attached to the planning applications as it may be of help to Councillors in studying them. It should remain with the package.
1.2. All planning decisions are taken primarily on policy grounds, the basis of which is the Local Plan so the note contains information on how the Local Plan operates and the specific sections of the Local Plan which will be involved in these applications. The position is slightly complicated by the fact that the planning status of the village changed from H4 to H5, when the shop went so the effect of this is also covered.
1.3. The Butcher’s Arms Lane site is also in the conservation area, so the history of that site is also covered.
1.4. It is not the first time that plans have been submitted for some of these areas, there have been a number of previous applications, particularly on the Butcher’s Arms Lane site. Extracts from documents outlining the planning history are included.
1.5. An item of particular significance is the possible impact of the “additional benefits” covered in the document ‘Ampney Crucis Village Proposals’ submitted with the application. This highlights some aspects of the Referendum document, which is included in more detail, so that specific points can be addressed.
2. PLANNING LEGISLATION
2.1.2. The Local Plan has to conform to national planning policy. It is also an integral part of the County Structure Plan, which sets out strategic planning policies for Gloucestershire. One of the tasks of the Local Plan is to apply that strategy at local level. Ref. 1# 1.8
2.1.3. Each village settlement is considered separately within the Plan and there may be specific policies relating to individual villages.
2.2.1. The Local Plan goes through several stages. First, there is a consultation draft, which is sent out for comment followed by a deposit draft, which sets out the broad proposals to be followed. These is itself subject to appeal by the D of E, the County Council, organisations and even individuals. All the objections will be heard before an Inspector at a public meeting after which the final version will be published and adopted.
2.2.2. Each Local Plan is designed to last ten years but can take many years to evolve. The current Local Plan was initiated in 1990 but was not formally adopted until 1999. The next version is now being worked on so we will find ourselves debating planning applications under a Local Plan which is being amended (and minor amendments are often acted on because they are likely to be part of the next adopted version) Ref. 1 # 1.13
2.3.1. The District Council is legally required to have regard to the Local Plan, and any other material considerations, when determining planning applications. From time to time, such material considerations will merit a departure from the Plan, in which case, the application may be referred to the Secretary of State to give him the opportunity to ‘call in’ the application. Ref. 1 # 1.23 & 1.25
2.3.2. The District Council is also required to look at general planning principles as these could rule out an application which otherwise conformed with the requirements of the Local Plan. Such considerations would be traffic movements, road safety, drainage etc etc. Ref. 1 # 1.26 & 1.27
2.3.3. The Cotswold District has the largest percentage of its area classified as an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) of which Ampney Crucis is not part and the greatest number of Conservation Areas of any other local authority of which Ampney Crucis is one. It has over 6,000 listed buildings, second only to the City of Westminster. Such a heritage underlines the reason why the Local Plan emphasises a sympathetic approach towards conservation and enhancement.
2.4.1. The position for the village has been complicated by the loss of the shop. When the shop was up and running, the village was described as having a primary level of facilities with planning status H4 (Ref. 1 # 3.66) and, as such, had a Development Boundary within which a certain degree of development could take place. Consequently, a lot of the planning discussions in those days referred to the Development Boundary. Ref. 2
The village settlement itself is broadly defined by the area of the village from the War Memorial to Dudley Farm. The development area follows the same curve but runs from the Old House to Dudley Farm i.e. it did not include the arable area in the centre of the village and it didn’t include the areas outside the village e.g. the farmland belonging to Crucis Park Farm. This means for example, that Ampney Brook House (previously Ford Farm) has an Ampney Crucis address but is outside the village settlement. Ref. 3 # 1.6
2.4.2. When we lost the shop, the village was downgraded to one not having a primary level of facilities H5 and, as such, the Development Boundary disappeared. This was taken by some people to believe that development had been freed up. In fact, it was the reverse as there was no defined area of the village within which development could take place. Discussion now relates to the “settlement” or the “linear village” as far as Ampney Crucis is concerned but, it would seem to all intents and purposes, the area within which development may take place still means the area covered by the old Development Boundary.
2.4.3. All planning discussions now revolve around Policy 1 and Policy 2 of the Local Plan. Policy 1 covers development, which would be permissible within the village settlement and Policy 2 covers development outside this area and which is defined as open countryside. Ref. 1 # 3.73 &3.74
2.4.4. The Local Plan was amended in 1998 as the Planning Inspector felt that the planning policies followed by CDC were too rigorous in considering development outside Development Boundaries or within settlements without Development Boundaries. The amended Local Plan (which is now the Adopted Version) now provides that applications for “infill or similar small scale developments” may be permitted in certain such settlements (of which Ampney Crucis is one). Ref. 1 #App A & Ref. 3 # 3.1 Ampney Crucis page 16
2.4.5. ‘Infill’ is defined as the development of an under/undeveloped plot to provide one or two dwellings in an otherwise built-up frontage with non-estate residential development. ‘Similar small scale’ refers to small groups of houses, developed in a non-estate style, on sites within the framework of the settlement. The number of dwellings will depend on such factors as site conditions, the character of the surrounding area, access, privacy, landscaping, environmental impact and so on. Ref. 1 # Pol 1.2 Note 3
2.4.6. Within Policy 1, the criteria against which proposed development will be judged are as follows:
- The number of dwellings proposed is commensurate with the level of community facilities, infrastructure and services available within the settlement and the existence of employment opportunities within a reasonable distance. [The fewer facilities a village has, the less residential development is likely be acceptable. By the same token, groups of dwellings are more likely to be acceptable in larger settlements that do have a primary level of facilities.] Ref. 1 # 1.2 Note 4
- The siting, appearance and scale of the development respects the surrounding countryside, topography, the traditional form, character and setting of the settlement, and has no adverse environmental or visual impact on the site or its surroundings. [A setting’s historic, incremental pattern of development must not be compromised by incongruous, out-of-scale development.] Note 6
- The development would not have a significant adverse impact on the tranquillity of the area.
- The development would not adversely affect the openness or rural character of a settlement by infilling key gaps, spaces or other breaks in development which, individually or collectively, make a positive contribution to the settlements overall character (irrespective of whether or not such sites are protected by specific policies indicated on the Proposals Map insets).
- Safe access can be provided and the development would not result in unacceptable levels of traffic using the local highway network.
- The development plan satisfactorily meets the criteria set out in other relevant policies in the Local Plan.
From the foregoing, it can be seen that even development under Policy 1 is tightly controlled.
2.4.7. To all extents and purposes, developments in all other rural areas are looked upon as developments in open countryside and fall under Policy 2. Developments, which would be permissible in open countryside, include low-key recreation facilities (e.g. playing fields) and community facilities (e.g. a shop or a playing field with a pavilion). New residential development is only permissible if there is a proven agricultural or forestry justification. Other permitted development would include buildings, other than residential dwellings, shown to be essential for agriculture or forestry. Ref. 1 Pol 2 # (a), r , (s) and Note 12
3.1. The first moves to establish a Conservation Area in the village were taken in 1978. The Parish Council was invited to define the areas of the village that it wished to be designated as Conservation Areas and, after some debate, the Area was finally agreed in 1980. In the course of the debate, CDC were not keen to include the area to the north of the Pound Tree (i.e. including the Butcher’s Arms Lane site) but the Parish Council view prevailed to some extent (the CDC view was that this area as a whole was not particularly outstanding).
The Parish Council also wished to include the whole of the central area of the village but this was rejected by CDC in February 1980 (Ref. 4) on the grounds that the area was adequately protected “from undesirable development” by policy 6 of the Statement of Policy on Conservation Areas as it applied to the village. This reads as follows:
‘Proposals to develop open areas and significant natural features forming an essential part of the character of the area will not normally be permitted. This policy applies equally to those areas of open land within and around the village but outside the Conservation Area but which are considered to be of importance to the village character. In particular, this applies to the open farmland enclosed by the village of Ampney Crucis, to the north of Ampney Brook and on either side of School Lane.’ Ref. 5
This statement would seem to give the central area of the village rather more protection than a ‘standard’ Conservation Area.
3.2. In 1990, CDC proposed amendments to the Conservation Area. These amendments included the deletion of the land to the north of the Pound Tree. The proposals raised considerable disquiet and the Parish Council arranged a public meeting on 17 September 1990 which resulted in a sub-committee being set up to prepare a report for submission to CDC. The Ampney Crucis Association also called a public meeting on 2 October 1990 and this meeting also requested no deletions from the Conservation Area.
The final report was produced on 18 October 1990 and sent to CDC under cover of a separate letter, which specifically commented on the Butcher’s Arms Lane site. The final decision of CDC was to leave this site within the Conservation Area and there was a request from CDC that this decision should be given wide publicity locally in view of the level of public interest. Ref. 6
3.3. In conclusion, the house proposed for Butcher’s Arms Lane is within the Conservation Area and the site was the topic of much public discussion in 1990. The land on either side of School Lane is not in the Conservation Area but gets a special level of protection within the Statement, a point which was specifically made by CDC and which emphasises its definition as open countryside.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1. There is a wealth of detail in the planning files covering past attempts to build houses in the village. Park Farms have attempted to build houses on the Butcher’s Arms Lane site, the School Lane site and Allotment Lane. There have been attempts to build houses up by the grain drier, repeated attempts to build houses on the Builder’s Yard site and an application to lift planning restrictions on the Vineyard (this site is immediately adjacent to the School Lane site and has an agricultural restriction on it). Ref. 7
A specific application CT 3842/B was made in 1992 to build a substantial number of houses on the Butcher’s Arms Lane site. This resulted in a high level of protest and active work by the Parish Council and specifically the Association to have the proposals rejected. During the discussions, CDC was obliged to state formally that the site had not been specified as a development site. The developers withdrew after promising that the site would be protected from all further development under a Section 106 agreement. (Section 106 agreements are dealt with in part 5 of this note). Ref. 8
4.2. In all previous cases, the proposals have been rejected by CDC with the active backing of both the Parish Council and the Ampney Crucis Association. In every case, the decision to decline has been based on the fact that the land is essentially outside the village settlement and is therefore regarded as open countryside. Ref. 9
4.3. Of most significance, perhaps, are the comments of the Inspector hearing objections into the Local Plan. This review was carried out in 1996 and took evidence from interested parties amongst which were Park Farms. They requested among other things that the Local Plan be modified as follows (and bear in mind that the village had a Development Boundary at the time): Ref. 10
- That the Development Boundary should be extended to include the Butcher’s Arms Lane site
- That provision should be made for two houses either side of School Lane by moving the Development Boundary. The remaining land would then be covered by a Section 106 agreement which would protect the land ‘in perpetuity’
4.4. The Inspector rejected these requests on the following grounds:
- Extending the Development Boundary to include the Butcher’s Arms Lane site ‘would fail to reflect and consolidate the essentially linear form of Ampney Crucis’. Such residential development ‘would be perceived as an unsympathetic and intrusive extension of the village into the adjoining countryside’ Ref. 10 # 8.8.7
- The Inspector could see no case for market housing on the School Lane sites on the grounds that there was no strategic case for such housing. Ampney Crucis already offered the prospect of some additional residential development within the existing Development Boundary and there was no case for moving it to include adjoining countryside. He concluded:
‘While the offer to preserve the adjoining 10ha or so in perpetuity could benefit the whole community…it is relevant that a miscellany of national, strategic and local policies are available to protect areas of countryside.’
Ref. 10 # 8.8.12
4.5. The planning application submitted for light industrial use and residential accommodation at the Builder’s Yard demonstrates what the Inspector meant. The Parish Council objected on two grounds, first, that the industrial use was restricted to use by the previous occupiers and second, that the residential use was contrary to Policy 2 (i.e. that the land was in open countryside and outside the village settlement and the accommodation was not for essential agricultural or forestry use).
The position on residential use was endorsed by CDC in refusing the application. CDC not only quoted Policy 2 but also Government guidelines in PPG7 (Planning Policy Guidance 7) and also Gloucestershire County Council Structure Plan policies S4, H6 and NHE1. Ref. 11
PPG7 gives guidance on the need to protect the countryside (regional policy guidance describes the Government aim of protecting the countryside for its own sake), Policy S4 states that development in the countryside will be strictly controlled, Policy H6 states that isolated dwellings in open countryside must fulfil essential agricultural or forestry needs and policy NHE1 states that the countryside will be protected from harmful development unless the economic benefits outweigh the harm.
All of these reinforce the use of the word ‘miscellany’ though it is useful to note the use of the word ‘isolated’ in Policy S4 (which is not repeated in Local Plan Policy 2).
4.6. The Builder’s Yard application went to appeal and the Inspector reiterated the point that there were a number of national, regional, county and local policies, which had a bearing on his decision. The use of the land for light industrial use was not felt to be grounds for dismissing the appeal but he was unable to accept the case for residential development on the following grounds:
- The land lay outside the linear framework of the village and, as such, was covered by Policy 2 of the Local Plan and, as the accommodation was not to meet a “proven agricultural or forestry need”, did not meet the conditions of Policy 2.
- If the appeal were to be allowed, “the inclusion of a residential element without compliance with the normal criteria for housing in rural areas, would make it more difficult to refuse other, similar residential proposals. In my opinion, this would add to the harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, which I have already identified”
Within the context of his letter, “area” refers to the area in and around Back Lane.
This last point is of relevance in connection with the Butcher’s Arms Lane site as, during the appeal into the Local Plan in 1996, Bellway Housing, acting for Crucis Park Farm, revived an application to build seven houses on the grain drier site. The original application had been turned down by CDC (supported by the Parish Council) on the grounds that the land lay outside the Development Boundary This view was upheld at a subsequent appeal and also at the Local Plan appeal (when Bellway Housing followed the route laid down by Park Farms Ltd and tried to get the Development Boundary extended). Ref. 10 # 8.8.2
4.7. In conclusion, it has been clearly stated as a result of a number of planning applications and as part of the appeal process regarding the Local Plan that the areas in which it is proposed to build the houses are within Policy 2 i.e. are regarded as open countryside. Recent planning decisions have upheld the decision to protect such areas and noted that precedents could cause pressure on other parts of the village.
5. THE REFERENDUM
5.1. The proposals presented to the village in 1999 were essentially that in return for getting planning permission for the houses, shop unit and sports area, certain parcels of land, plus the shop unit and sports area would be gifted to a village trust and run for the benefit of the village. A referendum was held to get village approval to the overall scheme in the hope that a positive decision would increase the chances of a successful application.
5.2. Section 106 agreements
5.2.1. There are references to “Section 106 agreements” as these have come up several times with past planning applications. In very simple terms, these are obligations over and above the object of a planning application. They can either be offered by the developer or requested by the planning authority. During the course of the appeal against the Local Plan, Park Farms offered to make land over to the village “in perpetuity” under the terms of a Section 106 agreement.
5.2.2. The problem with such agreements is they can be reviewed after 5 years and can be modified. In a letter from CDC to the Parish Council relating to the 1992 Butcher’s Arms Lane application, the point was made that such agreements are of limited value and that ‘the only absolute safeguard is for the land to be dedicated to the parish’. Consequently, the current proposals are much stronger and give that absolute safeguard. Ref. 14
5.2.3. However, another point about Section 106 agreements is that they must not be seen as a lever to sway decisions. Planning decisions are always taken on the basis of planning criteria alone; additional considerations are not necessarily of any value.
5.2.4. This point is relevant with respect to the referendum document as it claims that the proposals ‘as they contain substantial community benefits are unlikely to create a precedent for further development elsewhere’. Planning applications are not judged on the absence of community facilities any more than they are judged on the presence of such facilities. A realistic view is that success with this application could mean that other applications for development on Policy 2 land could be submitted. Ref. 15 Page 6 para 4
This view is supported by the appeal into the refusal to allow residential accommodation at the Builder’s Yard.
5.3. Will the planning committee take note of the referendum results?
5.3.1. The first point to note is that the referendum was extremely successful in attracting such a high turn out (the Electoral Reform Society made a point of congratulating the ACA for achieving a 70% figure). Within that, just over 50% of eligible voters (229 in total) said “yes”, 100 said “no” whilst over 100 abstained. It is possible that the committee may take note of the result, as part of the Local Plan states that they will take note of public opinion.
5.3.2. Another aspect to bear in mind is the changing nature of the village. The referendum was held on 30 November 1999 and in the following two years over 70 people have come off the electoral roll to be replaced by new names. Consequently, there must be some concern that the results are not reflective of current village opinion.
5.3.3. There have also been other changes. The claims that a village shop could re-open are not fully substantiated and it seems unlikely that the post office will ever re-open. Consequently, the benefits to the village have reduced. Ref. 16
5.3.4. The Referendum document also states quite clearly that the proposals would be withdrawn if planning permission had not been granted by June 2001.
5.4. Conclusion
The planning committee will see details of the referendum result. The offer of community benefits should not have any impact on the consideration of the planning application as such, but can be taken into consideration by members of the committee.
6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
6.1. If the policy on previous planning decisions is followed this time, the land on which the houses are to be built is within Policy 2 of the Local Plan and the houses do not meet the very tight criteria for building residential property in the countryside. The shop unit, sports facilities and Wetlands would be acceptable under Policy 2.
6.2. The fact that the Butcher’s Arms Lane site is within a Conservation Area does not affect Policy 2 considerations but the special status given to the land in the central area of the village will further support Policy 2.
6.3. Previous applications for residential properties on these sites have been opposed by CDC with the strong support of the Parish Council and also the Ampney Crucis Association on the grounds that the land is open countryside, an opinion which is strengthened by the views of the Inspector in 1996.
6.4. There has to be a risk that a decision to allow the residential development will create pressure for development on other parcels of land in the village currently safeguarded within Policy 2 but not owned by the applicants.
6.5. The only basis for a change of heart would be to argue that the community facilities on offer were a ‘clear and over-riding material consideration’. This area will need to be discussed after the council has handled the planning applications and before the final decisions are made. These factors will need to be quantified and have been considered before the meeting.
References.
1. Cotswold District Local Plan Adopted Version District Wide Policy and Proposals – August 1999.
2. Map of Area from Deposit draft showing old development boundary.
3. Cotswold District Council Local Plan Adopted Version Thames Valley Area 8 – August 1999.
4. CDC Letter ARJ/MAT dated 15 February 1980.
5. Town & Country Planning Act 1971, Ampney Crucis Conservation Area - Statement of Policy.
6. CDC Letter CJV/PGD/Ampney Crucis C.A. dated 21 November 1990.
7. CDC Decision Notice2240/J dated 18 November 1994.
8. CDC Letter ARJ dated 4 June 1991.
9. ACPC Letter dated 23 August 1993.
10. Inspector’s Report following Objections to the local plan October 1996.
11. CDC Decision Notice CT 2905/X dated 17 August 2000.
12. Appeal Decision Ref. APP/F1610/A/00/1050617 (Berry’s Yard) dated 1 February 2001
13. ACA Letter dated 10 January 2001.
14. CDC Letter JL/DG/LP dated 4 September 1992
15. ACA Referendum 99 dated 29 October 1999
16. Post Office Network Planning Dept e-mail dated 20 August 2000.
*********************************
Director of Development and Heritage
Cotswold District Council
Trinity Road
Cirencester
Glos. GL7 1PX
29 November 2001
Attention: Mr M. Kitchen – Principal Planner
Dear Sir,
Reference Applications: CT/8196, CT/2872/F, CT/8194, CT/8195, and CT/7365A
The Ampney Crucis Parish Council met in extraordinary session on 23 November 2001 to discuss the above referenced planning applications. The results of the Council’s deliberations were as follows:
· The Council objects to the application to build four houses in School Lane (ref. CT/8196) as being residential housing not essential for the needs of agriculture or forestry as required under Policy 2 of the Local Plan.
· The Council objects to the application to build a single dwelling in Butcher’s Arms Lane (ref. CT 2872/F) on the same grounds.
· The Council objects in principle to the application to construct a unit for community purposes on land behind the Pleydells (ref. CT 8194).
· The Council does not object in principle to the application to provide sports facilities in Allotment Lane (ref. CT 7365/A).
· The Council does not object in principle to the application to create a wetland area (ref. CT 8195).
· The Council objects to the overall scheme proposed to the village in the document “Ampney Crucis Village Proposals” which proposed benefits for the village for support with the building applications.
The Council’s principal reasons in relation to the residential building are: the failure to meet the necessary criteria laid down in the Local Plan for residential buildings in open countryside; the long term opposition to such development by Cotswold District Council, supported by both the Parish Council and the Ampney Crucis Association; and the danger of setting undesirable precedents.
The community unit would not be contrary to Policy 2 but the Council is concerned that its anticipated use (to replace the village shop, which closed in 1997) has not been justified in commercial terms. The Council feels there is a danger that the unit could be used for retail purposes for which there is no village demand or, if unused, could eventually become a drain on scarce financial resources because of the need to maintain it.
Although not against the community benefits in principle, the Council is sufficiently concerned about their long-term viability to regard them as not constituting good reason for setting aside the Local Plan in relation to the residential housing. In addition the costs to the village of implementing the additional facilities such as the shop, a children’s play area and tennis courts would be considerable and unlikely to be achieved given the small number of villagers and the financial amounts involved.
In the document relating to the Village “Scheme”, the statement is made that the process has involved “full consultation with all concerned including the Parish Council…”. This is not so, the council made it clear from the beginning that there would be no discussion until the planning applications were submitted and re-emphasised this at the council meeting held in January 2000. The extraordinary meeting held on 23 November 2001 was the first time the council had discussed the proposals.
The reasons for the council’s views are explained in greater detail in the appendix to this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Appendix 1 Detailed Rationale for Ampney Crucis Parish Council decisions
***************************
The results of the Parish Council’s deliberations on the above numbered planning applications are summarised in the covering letter. The applications were supported by an overall document entitled “Ampney Crucis Village Proposals- October 2001”. The majority of the arguments for the applications as well as the benefits being offered to the village for supporting the residential housing element are also outlined in the document. The detailed points considered are contained herein.
1. The Planning Applications – supporting documentation
In the document relating to the Village “Scheme”, there are a number of points with which the Parish Council disagrees.
1.1. In paragraph 1.2, it states that the process has involved “full consultation with all concerned including the Parish Council…” This is emphatically not the case as the Parish Council has quite deliberately stepped back from the process so as not to be compromised when considering the resulting planning applications.
The most recent expression of the Parish Council’s stance was made at a Parish Council meeting on 10 January 2000 when the minutes recorded the following:
“Mr Harold Stevens, on behalf of the Ampney Crucis Association reported that informal discussions would shortly begin with the planners and that the Parish Council and other interested organisations would be asked to comment on the draft plans. The Parish Council agreed however not to comment in advance on the proposals as this could jeopardise the Parish Council’s review when the planning applications are submitted to CDC”
1.2. In paragraph 3.1, the various elements of the “scheme” are described, starting with the recreation areas and ending with the construction of five houses. The point is made that the construction of the five houses is necessary to fund the other elements.
This is a complete reversal of the proposal put to the village in the referendum document where it says (on Page 1), about the landowner Mr Cripps, “it is apparent that Mr Cripps is actively looking for ways to realise his remaining assets in the village”. On page 2 of the document, where the proposals are described in outline, the starting point is “Park Farms Ltd wish to build five houses”.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Park Farms Ltd seeking to maximise the value of the land and to pursue the development of residential housing. However, for it to be suggested that the whole point of the proposals is a desire to provide benefits for the village which can only be funded by development is news to the Parish Council and, councillors suspect, to the rest of the village as well.
On a point of detail, reference is made in sub-para (h) of this section that the Butcher’s Arms Lane site development is in accordance with Policy 1.1 of the Local Plan as it lies within the Development Boundary. Ampney Crucis does not have a Development Boundary and, when it did, the Butcher’s Arms Lane site was not within it.
1.3. The committee of the Ampney Crucis Association has incorporated some notes in the document under the heading “The Ampney Crucis Land Transaction”. On page 2 of this note, attention is drawn to the referendum results and says that “of those eligible to vote, 23% voted against and 77% either voted in favour or abstained.” On page 5 of the Referendum Document, the point is made that “a vote not made is essentially a ‘no’ vote”. Thus, in the Associations original thinking as put to the village, just over 50% (53%) voted in favour and the remainder either voted against or abstained. This does not constitute a clear mandate.
1.4. In the final paragraph on the same page, the committee reports that they have had a favourable response from the Post Office. (1999) At the AGM of the Association in June of this year, the Chairman was informed that the informal working party set up by the Parish Council had received an unfavourable response from the Post Office. (2000/2001).
2. The Local Plan
2.1. With the loss of the village shop in the autumn of 1996, the village changed its planning status and moved from H4 to H5 (Local Plan para 3.66). Ampney Crucis does not have a ‘primary level of facilities’ and is listed as such in Appendix 5 of the Local Plan. In line with para 3.1 of the description of Ampney Crucis within Area 8 of the Local Plan, all land within the parish of Ampney Crucis now falls into either Policy 1.2 of the Local Plan or Policy 2.
Within Policy 1.2, infill or similar small-scale residential developments would be allowed whereas under Policy 2, the only residential development permissible would have to be essential for the purposes of forestry or agriculture. Consequently, for the applications for residential housing to succeed, the land would have to fall within the ambit of Policy 1.2. or the Local Plan would have to be disregarded
2.2. Over the years, there have been a number of attempts to build residential development in and around the main village settlement. During the discussion of these applications, the main settlement has often been defined along the lines of having a “more or less linear form, with minimal development in depth, centred on a horseshoe-shaped through road” (Inspector’s letter of 1 February 2001 dismissing the appeal on application reference CT.2905/X). This general definition of the village settlement is the area which the Parish Council regards as being covered by Policy 1.2 and regards areas of the parish outside the main village settlement as falling under Policy 2.
2.3. This position is supported by planning decisions taken by the CDC planning committee and others over a number of years and has been consistently