East of england
Local campaigners have triumphed over the might of a supermarket giant. On 22 November last year, North Norfolk District Council voted unanimously to turn down Tesco’s application to build a supermarket in Sheringham.
This is a real victory for local shops and the independent high street. It is a decision for which CPRE and others have been campaigning for more than 10 years. The saga has even seen recent revelations of secret negotiations between Tesco and the council’s previous chief executive. Sheringham is the only settlement of its size in Norfolk that still has none of the big four supermarkets. According to the local chamber of commerce, Tesco’s arrival would have forced over 10% of local businesses to close within a year of the store opening.
Local opposition groups, including CPRE Norfolk, have led a longstanding, well-organised and very persistent campaign. CPRE was particularly involved in tracking the various planning applications and making a reasoned case to planning officers. Giving evidence to councillors, CPRE showed that the evidence presented by Tesco’s retail consultants could not be relied upon. Large stores are the main customers of retail consultants, who therefore cannot afford to come down heavily against their clients’ plans.
Tesco is now appealing against the decision, so the fight is not yet over.
CPRE’s report The Real Choice, published in 2006, shows how damaging supermarkets can be to local economies and how market towns and their surrounding villages benefit from a wider range of smaller retail outlets.
Green Belt saved (Essex)
In 2003, a major football club with close links to Epping Forest submitted a planning application to build 20 football pitches and one covered pitch, plus a pavilion, on land designated as Green Belt near Theydon Garnon, a rural site that had remained unchanged for generations.
As the local CPRE district group, we were aware that development in any area needs to conform with the policies outlined in the local development plan, Our plan does not allow covered pitches to be built on Green Belt, so we had good ammunition with which to fight the intended development. In addition, since the site was surrounded by a network of country lanes, the traffic density would have been a recurring problem.
To gain support for our view, we met with local parish councils, and with the local planning officer to remind him of the relevant point in the plan. The planning officer recommended to councillors that the application be refused. Councillors accepted his recommendation and planning permission was denied.
We weren't the only people concerned about the damage the pitches would do to the Green Belt - 450 letters were written to the council opposing the application.
- Terry Callaghan, chairman, Epping Forest District, CPRE Essex
Starry skies given help (Cambridge)
When the first draft of Cambridge City Council's revised local plan was published in the summer of 2003, our local CPRE groupnoted there was no mention of light pollution. We objected to the omission of a light pollution policy because Cambridgeshire has no truly dark skies left.Light pollution in the county has increased at one of the highest rates in the country, at around 30% between 1993 and 2000.
In May 2004, the council responded by saying that it will include a new section in the updated local plan called 'Conserving Cambridge', which will include additional policy on lighting, and that they will also ensure that light pollution is properly categorised so that it will be clear what constitutes a violation in the future. The second draft plan is due to be published in mid-September 2004, when we shall check that these amendments have been made. We are pleased to say Cambridge City's example has been followed by South Cambridge District Council.
- Shirley Fieldhouse, secretary, CPRE Cambridgeshire
Village character preserved (Norfolk)
In June 2003, our local group learnt of a planning application to build two detached houses and two double garages after demolition of a bungalow and garage in a village near Downham Market.
Local plan policy allows for the development of one to five new dwellings within the confines of the village, and demolition of a 1930s bungalow to make room for two houses seemed a good use of the site, allowing more people to live on the same piece of land (in line with the criteria for higher density and re-use of brownfield land in the Government planning guidance on housing (PPG 3)).
However, a site visit revealed not only that the bungalow was built on the edge of the common in the older part of the village but that, set back on the same stretch of common, with open countryside beyond, was a Grade ll listed 16th-century manor farm house with adjoining farm buildings.
The visit made us look at the application in an entirely different way. We now had to consider how the development would affect the setting of a listed building, albeit one that is not in a conservation area. Considering the setting, the proposed development would clearly look too urban, and PPG3 density requirements were inappropriate.
We objected to the proposals on these grounds, quoting local county and national planning policies regarding development affecting the setting of listed buildings (PPG 15). We also supported the parish council and many residents in their objections to the application.
However, the borough council's officers recommended approval, so we lobbied borough councillors on the development control board. When the application came before the board, the councillors refused permission, having made a site visit, at our suggestion.
The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision, and we wrote to the inspector, reiterating that we believed the proposals would adversely affect the setting of a listed building, quoting all the local policies and planning guidance and stating that PPG3 guidance was not appropriate in this setting.
The Inspector dismissed the application. Much to our gratification, we note that his reasons for dismissal are based on all the same planning reasons we put forward in our objection to the proposals.
- Rosemary Bryan, casework secretary, CPRE West Norfolk
Green Belt protected (Hertfordshire)
A proposal was made in 2001 by Hertfordshire County Council to sell off a school playing field of 2 hectares for housing (60 dwellings) to help finance the school expansion programme. The site is in the Metropolitan Green Belt. CPRE Hertfordshire sent an objection letter to the County Schools Committee, and followed this up with a letter to Broxbourne Borough Council as the local planning authority.
A local action group, the Goff's Oak Campaign Against Rural Development (GOCARD), formed to fight the proposal. This group became affiliated to CPRE and was given support and advice. Conclusion: The proposal was dropped by the County Council. GOCARD later applied successfully to have the site registered as a village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965.
- Rick Sanderson, CPRE Hertfordshire
Public pressure pays off (Bedfordshire)
Faced with a packed public gallery, Mid Beds District Council voted to keep fields lying between the town and Flitwick Moor SSSI in the Green Belt, overruling the local plan inspector's recommendation.
Public interest at the June meeting was so great that the discussion even had to be relayed to a neighbouring room. The interest clearly paid off.
This battle has been fought since 1997. A developer's objection triggered a public inquiry, and the fields were removed from the Green Belt, making their future development probable. After much lobbying the council has reconsidered. But it's not over yet: June's decision has started a statutory public consultation period. The campaign is requiring considerable persistence.
The fields in question lie next to Flitwick Moor, an area of rare wetland likely to be compromised by development so close. This is not grounds for putting the land in the Green Belt, but CPRE Bedfordshire, working with the Greensand Trust, the local Wildlife Trust, and Flitwick Town Council, argued that its inclusion would serve to restrict sprawl, and the council agreed.
The same group of organisations called a public meeting in May to encourage the public to lobby, and this clearly affected the council. Its decision declares that 'the land is greatly valued by the local population', and that 'the council attaches significant weight to the desirability of safeguarding it'. CPRE Bedfordshire is encouraging public pressure in the current consultation and is working hard for a positive outcome.