CDRA Residents' Meeting, 20th October 2011

Three items from the Meeting are reproduced here.  The first is the Chairman's address.  This is followed by two documents that Dominic Raab MP quoted from during his talk on Planning Legislation and the Green Belt.  He has let us have the following items to reproduce here:

• A parliamentary question about the Green Belt that he submitted and the answer he received.
• A letter he wrote to the Department of Communities and Local Government commenting on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.

(Note:  These items have been slightly reformatted for display purposes).

Welcome to our Half-Yearly meeting, to our members, other residents, other community organisations, Councillors and in particular Dominic Raab, our MP, and Dorothy Mitchell, Elmbridge Portfolio Holder for Highways, both of whom will be talking to us a little later.

It seems to have been a very eventful year so far and we have been busy trying to deal with the many issues which concern Cobham & Downside residents.

The Government's proposals to change the Planning Laws have been the cause of considerable concern and this is the topic for Dominic Raab's address. There are considerable worries that the new legislation, if it goes ahead, will compromise the ability to protect the Green Belt and that developers will see this new legislation as carte blanche to push through whatever plans they wish. We are told that the fact that our Core Strategy has been completed and approved by Government will protect us from such excesses but would this Core Strategy carry more weight than the proposed new planning legislation. Perhaps Dominic will throw some light on this for us.

The Motorway Service Area on the M25 at Downside. When we were involved in the Public Inquiry, questions were raised by our side about how the services would reach the site, since we were assured that all building would be from the M25 itself after the initial cut-through. We were informed that this issue was not part of the planning inquiry. In our view, it should have been. Look what has happened now. Work on the site itself, has caused considerable problems for some Downside residents. Quite apart from it being a complete eyesore, trees have been cut down, water supplies have been cut off etc.

And now, dare I say it - Road works. The disruption to our local roads in order to get services to the site - water, gas, electricity etc has and will cause unbelievable and possibly lasting damage to some of our businesses, not to mention the horrendous inconvenience to those who work, live or travel through Cobham & Downside. Perhaps the worst aspect was the announcement that part of Downside Bridge Road, from Church Street to the other side of the River Bridge would be closed, starting towards the end of October and lasting for some four weeks. We only learnt about the whole road closure programme on about 12 August. Immediately the Residents' Association, along with the Heritage Trust, our Borough Councillor and others, informed residents and businesses, mounting a campaign to stop this nonsense. It has taken many hours by many people in many forms of protest to try and reverse this disastrous situation. St Andrew's Church, amongst many who would be affected, joined the campaign and has been extremely helpful.

The works all over Cobham have taken less time, in some cases, than was anticipated but, nonetheless, our small town has been affected adversely in many ways. So far as the closure of Downside Bridge road is concerned, the latest information I have from Surrey County Council is that the potential closure of Downside Bridge Road is dependant on the outcome of an easement agreement application with Elmbridge Borough Council. Should closure prove unavoidable, this will be planned for spring school half-term week. As I understand it, Elmbridge Borough Council are being most helpful and thus it is possible it will not be necessary to actually close the road but to do the necessary works by the use of traffic lights. Thanks are due to the many people who made their feelings known and actually did something about it.

We have been pressing Surrey County Council for information about the next stage in the process with regard to the Cedar Road site. Although outline planning permission has been granted by Elmbridge Borough Council, detailed planning application has yet to be submitted. Your local organisations are pressing Surrey County Council and the developers to make sure we are involved so that we can obtain the very best outcome for the use of the site.

A planning application to put flats on the site behind the High Street and that end of Church Street was turned down by Elmbridge BC. The Residents' Association, the Heritage Trust and many others objected to the proposal. What was proposed was simply not right for this part of Cobham, situated as it is adjacent to an important Conservation Area and partly within that area. What a pity it would be if we ended up with an entirely unsuitable development. It should be possible to design something which will enhance the area and of which all of us who live and visit Cobham can be proud for many, many years to come. Let us hope the developers understand this and will not pursue this to the Planning Inspectorate. If they do, then let us hope the Planning Inspectorate will understand and respect the views of local people.

On-street parking charges and the debates thereon have raged over many months. Quite frankly, the whole consultation process was a mess - some areas being treated one way and some another, only adding to the bad feeling all the way round. The proposals have now been dropped and Surrey County Council has left the decisions in the tender hands of Local Committees. I am not sure what this means but one hopes that whatever is proposed, or not proposed, will not harm local businesses and will not cause even more harm to the life of those who live and work in Cobham.

I have said more than enough. I hope you will find our two speakers interesting and of help to you and I hope you will stay after the meeting for some food and drink and a talk with each other.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
WRITTEN PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION

For answer on:              Tuesday 12 July 2011
Date answered:             Tuesday 12 July 2011
DCLG Ref:                   4214 & 4215 10/11 Party: CON

Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton)

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether the National Planning Policy Framework's proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development will permit development on the greenbelt, in respect of (a) community buildings including schools, (b) commercial development, (c) affordable housing and (d) any other type of development. [65798]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what arrangements are in place to protect greenbelt land from development as part of the National Planning Policy Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development. [65799]

Mr Bob Neill

The Coalition Agreement explicitly states that we will maintain Green Belt protection. The Green Belt has a valuable role in stopping urban sprawl and providing a green lung around towns and cities.

Indeed, our proposed abolition of the unpopular Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill will stop the top-down pressure to remove the Green Belt in thirty areas across England.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development requires councils to plan positively for the needs of each area, while safeguarding those things that require protection. Where plans are not in place or up-to-date, it makes clear that development should be allowed unless this would compromise the key principles for sustainability in the National Planning Policy Framework, including protection of the Green Belt.

From: Dominic Raab, MP, on 3 August 2011

To:  Alan C Scott
National Planning Policy Framework
Department for Communities and Local Government

Dear Mr Scott

RE: DRAFT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

I am writing to submit comments on the above consultation, as the MP for Esher and Walton. The borough of Elmbridge is 57% greenbelt, and there is strong local support for maintaining strong protections of the Green Belt, and checking the development of urban sprawl.

I welcome the abolition of the previous government's Regional Spatial Strategies with their centrally imposed targets for home building. I equally welcome the commitment in the draft National Planning Police Framework that:

"A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt ". (para. 144)

However, there is a list of exceptions set out at paragraph 144. It is submitted that only such exceptions that are explicitly set out in the local community's plan should be allowed, coupled with a further safeguard to prevent local authorities imposing such developments on wards where a majority of local councillors oppose the development.

The acknowledgment in the framework that Green Belts serve the purpose of preventing neighbouring towns from merging is also welcome.

Regarding Green Belt boundaries (paragraphs 137-9), above and beyond local plans, it is submitted that Green Belt boundaries should be enshrined in the local landscape and protected from being reduced over time. Local planning authorities' powers to review the boundary should not be used as a license to chip away at the borders.

I also believe that paragraph 122 should be strengthened. At present, it states:

"Developers will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve design proposals that take account of the views of  the community".

Whilst developers should certainly work closely with those affected, ultimately the views of the community should have priority over those of developers. The right for a developer to appeal against planning decisions taken by democratically-elected councillors should be limited, if not removed entirely. Local petitions should have a greater voice, and we should investigate how local referendums of parish councils or local communities could be used to decide where housing is built. Local people know what is best for their communities, particularly where the protection of the Green Belt is concerned.

Finally, pages 71-2 of the impact Assessment set out the proposed changes to Green Belt policy, including of particular relevance to Elmbridge:

"Community Right to Build will allow communities to come together to bring forward development or invest in the refurbishment of local facilities without the need for a traditional planning application from the local planning council (saving time). This aims to increase community engagement in local development and help deliver the homes required to meet local housing needs. Community Right to Build will apply in all areas, but is expected to be most relevant in rural areas; and expected to help tackle rural housing issues. They are envisaged to be small-scale, approximately 5 to 10 units per scheme. Without a specific policy in Green Belt, these schemes are likely to be considered inappropriate development."

I appreciate the objective of strengthening local democratic accountability. However, how would this operate in practice? A common local concern is that a local authority might be in a position to authorise development, which may nevertheless be opposed by a majority of local councillors representing the particular ward affected. The local democratic checks should be strengthened to prevent this from happening, in particular as policy or individual applications affect the Green Belt.

In addition to this submission, I may submit further views forthcoming from local councillors, residents and community groups in due course.

Yours sincerely,

CC: Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State, DCLG