This is the second reply I have had to my email, just Donna Jones to go and I will have the full set. Is this the same standard reply everyone else is getting? Thanks for the e-mail. I really don’t disagree with the points that you make. However there are two important counter considerations that need to be borne in mind. The first is that the National Planning Policy Framework and all its predecessors back to 1947 support the redevelopment of otherwise unprotected brownfield land for housing. In planning terms the entire hospital site counts as brownfield and only the cricket field and some of the Furze Lane land is protected as open space; the remainder has the same planning status as an old factory. The council does not have the power to rescind this in-principle use for housing that all land of this type enjoys. Frankly the council cannot overrule government policy and any attempt to do so will be immediately overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. At this time there has been no planning application: the council is simply being asked to agree an allocation. Issues of schools and roads will be dealt with later. I should also note that I am considering spending council money on an independent traffic assessment – normally these are only provided by the developer. The need for infrastructure is really my second point. With no allocation, any planning consent will only have to consider the impact it has on its own. This means a developer could salami slice the site by asking for say 50 units at a time. As no other land would be allocated, it may well be that no infrastructure would be required. By making an allocation, the whole site will have to be looked at. Issues of wildlife will also be dealt with later. This is potentially the strongest card, but it will have to be evidence based. If rare animal or bird life can be found then this could affect a planning application (although not the allocation). I hope this helps Luke
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:42:27 +0000