Shipston on Stour Blog

What grounds can you use object to a planning application

All,

I’ve had a look at the objections to the Hornsby Close development posted on the Stratford District Council website. Many of the reasons given for objection to the development will not be taken into consideration by planning officers (or the planning committee) because they are not ‘material considerations.’

I’ve done a quick google search (although I’ve sat on planning committee I’m NOT an expert) and there is a useful list of real grounds on the Government’s planning portal website which I reproduce here:

“Overlooking/loss of privacy
Loss of light or overshadowing
Parking
Highway safety
Traffic
Noise
Effect on listed building and conservation area
Layout and density of building
Design, appearance and materials
Government policy
Disabled persons’ access
Proposals in the Development Plan
Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)
Nature conservation”

However, issues such as loss of view, or negative effect on the value of properties are not material considerations.

Unfortunately it gets a bit more complex because the District Council has a Local Plan and because of the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework – which if you have a serious objection not included above its worth having a look at.

Put simply – if you’re complaining about property values or just the view from your house your objection may not carry that much weight – its best to find a reason from the list above. You can always speak to your local District Councillor, Richard Cheney or Jonathan Gullis, to get more detailed advice – they will be happy to help.

As an example, many of the arguments used in current objections were used in the objection to the development next to River Way – and the objectors lost.

I hope this helps and remember – I am not an expert, get some better qualified advice if you need it! One other thing – I haven’t made my mind up whether to support or oppose this on the Town Council yet.

Philip

Mark Wildish’s guest post

All – another in a series of guest posts. Today we have Mark Wildish – with a reasoned argument for development. If you’d like to have a guest editor spot here please get in touch.

Rally Call for a Vision of Shipston

As a lifelong resident who worked for a local architectural practice for 17 years before starting my own practice 4 years ago, I have seen Shipston grow at the fastest rate of any town in the district and whilst I am naturally pro-development because of my career, unfortunately in Shipston’s case its development has not always been to the benefit of its long term residents.

We have seen large industrial employers up sticks and leave town, leaving behind houses instead of employment land, our consumer choice has diminished (anyone remember Greenway Stores or the shop on the corner of Watery Lane) and our schools are oversubscribed with people who have grown up here not even sure if their children will get a place in their local school.

In light of the current substantial proposals pushed at our town I say enough is enough and I’m drawing a line in the sand, Shipston has severe problems that need fixing and whilst I appreciate that there is a large amount of support for a new supermarket that would go some way towards solving our lack of consumer choice, we should not just accept what is being pushed at us as from these developments and I believe that Shipston can get a much better deal that will make serious inroads to fixing Shipston’s underlying problems.

I appreciate that there is also a large anti-supermarket movement and we cannot ignore people’s opinions, however what is quite clear is that the developers are not going to go away and Shipston will have to take its share of new housing for the district and my intensions are to find the common ground and evolve plans for Shipston that are acceptable to residents, councillors, planners and the developers.

Cala Homes and Ainscough Strategic Land have both told me that they are not liaising with one another, I personally suspect that they are in cahoots, but if they are not we certainly need to get them talking as the Norgren site and the ASL land should be developed in unison not as 2 separate sites, so that they have cohesion and form.
With local elections due in May there is little point in our current Town Council engaging with developers, but I implore the new Council to enter into immediate discussions with all developers to establish their intensions and mediate between developers and residents to steer these applications for the good of the town.
Fellow Shipston’ers we have the power! These current planning applications will not succeed at local level and will be refused, but similarly they will not just go away and we should all unite to constructively combine our passions and send a clear and concise message to developers, councillors and planners as to what it is Shipston wants and needs!
My vision of Shipston resulting from these developments is strictly personal to me and I unlike the developers am not dictating what should happen, but for what it brings to the debate (you may/may not agree with all of my points) I have listed what I consider are achievable goals derived from these developments and what we should all attempt to steer the developers towards:

• A sixth form for the High School, built where the old Swimming Pool stood.

• A supermarket, to be built on the Norgren site or ASL land.

• It should be made clear to ASL that the density of development on the land they have an interest in should be much lower than currently proposed, but in appreciation of their efforts and for working with the town (provided they do?) a proportion of the site (to make the development worthwhile) should be permitted, provided they are committed to contributing towards the other points listed herein. The remainder of the site should be landscaped. Potentially the site could have larger (more expensive) homes to lessen their number and whilst I appreciate that “Social” housing is normally priority these days (but this would be on adjoining Norgren site) equally Shipston has not had any substantial executive homes built and it is the occupants of such houses who are industry leaders and employers and I think Shipston would benefit from encouraging such people to make Shipston their home.

• There should be no industrial units built this end of town just housing (there is currently proposed 10,000sq ft on the Cala Homes, Norgren site application). Instead the developers will have to pay contributory funds to an account that can be drawn upon by companies who want to build on the existing industrial estate at Tilemans Lane. This could potentially half the cost of building units (for example) for start up companies who would be attracted to the town by low cost industrial units, injecting a badly needed boost to our towns sorry looking industrial estate.

• A riverside footpath, Park with communal recreation space. For a town the size of Shipston not to have such a space is in my opinion fundamentally one of the main reasons we suffer from a lack of drawing people in from surrounding larger towns and with this facility so close to the town I truly believe that this would go some way to negating any potential negative effect resulting from an out of town supermarket. The river is a vastly underappreciated and untapped potential for the town, it is after all Shipston “ON” Stour.

I sincerely hope that the above is a call to action and makes people on both sides appreciate where we stand as a town and what potential we can squeeze out of this and that we should be working together instead of against one another, which is exactly what the developers want. If however we stand together they know they will have to work much harder and give up more to get the developments they want and this will benefit us all.

I’d like to thank Philip for the kind open invitation to post my thoughts on this matter.

Mark Stephen Wildish March 2012

20 Ashgrove, Shipston on Stour