QEB Appeal Diary

Part of our presentation of Proof of Evidence (on SPA & Farnborough) which was delivered at the Inquiry on Wednesday (28th November) is now available for download.

Day 16 (29th Nov)

The day started with James finishing off the delivery of his proof of evidence to the Inquiry on behalf of the QEB Campaign. This was followed by a detailed cross examination by TW's QC, Mr Keith Lindblom. Mr Lindblom wanted to know what qualifications James had to make statements on ecology. James patiently explained that he was a qualified Engineer and argued although he was not qualified to generate any new ecological science he was able to understand how to adapt his knowledge of the underlying science into an understanding of eco-systems and appreciate the importance of feedback and the disrupting affects of external events.

There were quite a few other tense stand offs including an argument of if you needed to be certain of something would this not require you to also have some form of supporting evidence. The cross examination was certainly vigorous & testing, lasting over 2 hours but we believe that the QEB Campaign's evidence stood up to the test.

[Actually Mr Lindblom is a very charming gentleman 'out of school' and is only doing his job, so we bare no grudges. In fact quite the opposite, it's very gratifying to be challenged strongly on something that you have spent years working towards - the worst he could have done was to dismiss us without any questioning at all - James].

Philip Todd of CPRE countered one of Mr Lindblom's implied assertions against James that evidence wasn't important if Natural England were convinced that the SPA 'mitigation' measures would be effective, by simply pointing out that Natural England were not infallible.

Jenny Radley introduced evidence on behalf of David Jackson (a Crookham Village Parish Councillor) of flooding in Zebon Copse resulting from water run off from Ewshot Marsh.

Jerry Hyman of Farnham played a blinder from left field by giving a detailed walk through of the European Laws which underpin the need for certainty over the protection of the SPA and then followed up with a memo which had originated within Natural England that actually explained why such measures as those proposed for the QEB would not work.

Bob Schofield, a resident of Pondtail discussed the impacts of the QEB in the wider context of the needs of the area.

One angle of attack from Mr Lindblom to both James & Jerry Hyman was the insistence that they were not ecologists and could therefore not really speak about the importance of arson on the SPA!!! However the next speaker was local ornithologist, John Eyre, who stated that his 25 years of field observations on the SPA probably meant that he knew more than TW's experts on the ecology of this part of the Thames Basin Heaths and he could confidently point out that fires were a real risk to the SPA, [QED].

We closed at around 4:00pm although we suspect that the legal teams had been expecting this part of the Inquiry to finish around lunchtime. Coupled with Wednesday's PoE's and the successful evening meeting this had been the most significant 48 hours for the public's case.

The appeal resumes on Tuesday at 10:00 in Hart's civic offices, when Hampshire Education Authority is going to make the case that TW are not offering anywhere enough provision for the educational needs arising from the development. This is expected to take all day as it is going to be a hotly contested aspect.

Day 15 (28th Nov)

Firstly a very big thank you to everyone who turned out this evening in the Prince's Hall. It was great that we filled the venue it really sent out a very strong message about how our Community feels about this development. Our community will have made a very good impression by the dignified way that we conducted ourselves - we can and should all be proud of ourselves tonight.

The quality of the speeches was extremely high despite being made doubly difficult because people did not want to repeat things, at the Inspector's request. What was said has certainly added a lot of weight to the argument's we have been putting before the Inspector this week - and for that another thank you.

Today was the 15th day of the appeal and even without the evening meeting was our biggest day so far. The appeal started later than usual at 1:00pm because of the extended evening session. Colin Gray opened with a brief statement for the Fleet & Crookham Civic Society made on behalf of the late Dr Fearn.

This was followed by Andrew Macallan delivering his speech of nearly an hour which covered the most important aspects of his main PoE on transport, planning policy and site design issues. We were then taken aback by the intensity and relentless questioning that he was given by Taylor Wimpey's legal team in cross examination. Andrew gave a resolute performance against a level of questioning that we had frankly not anticipated.

The last section of the day was taken up by James Radley covering the SPA and Bourley Road issues, James will be continuing with his proof of evidence tomorrow morning, this time in relation to Farnborough flights and noise annoyance. We have to now anticipate that the level of cross examination that will follow is going to be brutal.

Later tomorrow the inspector will be asking for any further submissions from members of the public.

Once more a very big thank you for everyone who turned out this evening and especially those brave enough to come forward and speak in such heartfelt ways, the whole event can only have done the cause a lot of good.

Day 14 (27th Nov)

The QEB appeal resumed today in the Council Chamber in Hart's Civic Offices. It was all rather tightly squeezed in as one of the side committee rooms were being used as a base for Taylor Wimpey's [nee Woodrow] appeal team and could not be opened up.

It was well attended as Natural England in the guise of one of their legal team, Mr David Harrison, had been ordered by the Planning Inspector at the end of the summer term to present themselves to be cross examined. Natural England take the rather unreasonable stance that if they say that the SPA would be adequately protected by a package of measures then no one should really be questioning this because they are infallible. These measures are centred around; the reduction of the Bourley Road car park and 'new' Suitable Alternate Natural Greenspace (SANGs) - think nearby areas of dark sinister woods that you could already walk in anyway.

Hart's QC, Mr Neil King along with Colin Gray of Fleet & Crookham Civic Society and James for the QEB Campaign all tried to get Natural England to accept that there may be one or more flaws in this overall plan. However Natural England still seem to think that they could walk through a burning gorse bush unscathed and the Dartford Warblers would also survive if NE decreed they where made of asbestos. OK, that's not exactly what they were insisting on claiming but it might as well have been.

Natural England took up till 3:00pm, when we switched to the remaining rule '6' parties; Farnborough Aerodrome Residents Association (FARA), Fleet & Crookham Civic Society (FCCS) and us the QEB Campaign.

Geoff Marks from FARA gave a brief overview of his Proof of Evidence (PoE). Geoff's PoE is very complex and although it does it an injustice to try to simplify it we will have to here; basically it states that the QEB development needs to be considered in terms of the level of third party risk (of being the victim of a crashing plane) experienced by residents living on the estate. Third party population risk is a complex mathematical modelling exercise that draws in a number of often conflicting safety policies. Geoff's argument is that a "constrained cost benefit analysis" of the QEB development against Farnborough Aerodrome needs to be conducted in line with Health & Safety acceptable risk criteria.

To our surprise Geoff was subjected to nearly 2 hours of detailed cross examination - we'd really thought that TW would take the usual approach of; "although we don't accept what Mr X is saying we do feel that there would be no benefit to this Inquiry in considering the matter any further and hence we have no questions." So clearly this time TW felt that they needed to deal with Geoff's PoE. First they tried to undermine Geoff as a credible witness, to which Geoff gave a robust and staunch defence of his credentials and knowledge.

The bulk of their questions were an attempt to unpick Geoff's arguments - where again we think they failed. Geoff's argument is so complex that picking holes in bits of it does not start to address the whole. If anything the 2 hour cross examination brought home just how much detailed attention the Inspector will have to give to Geoff's evidence.

Tomorrow (Wednesday) the appeal starts later, at 1:00pm, in the Civic Offices (because we also have the evening session in the Princes Hall - see you all there). FCCS and the QEB Campaign are both expecting to deliver our PoE's and the QEB Campaign especially are expecting a heavy cross examination during the daytime session. Hopefully the public turnout at the evening session at 7:00pm in the Princes Hall, Aldershot will show the true extent of local concern.

Day 13 (12th July)

Thursday saw Lance Flannigan once more take the witness stand, this time for Hart's QC, Mr King to conduct his closing examination.

The remainder of the morning was taken up in discussion over what can be best described as 'terms and conditions'. It is normal practice in an Inquiry for the Inspector to consider such matters as 'planning gain' in case the SoS grants permission. These agreements often look generous at first sight, but often the small print gives the developer clauses by which they can back out of commitments or set a high bar to the delivery of such 'benefits'. We are unhappy about some of these conditions and did not hold back from telling the Inquiry exactly what we thought about some of the proposed clauses. Dr Fearn for Fleet & Crookham Civic Society also expressed similar reservations and Philip Crane made representations about the terms and conditions which related to the provision of a church.

The Inquiry adjourned at lunchtime for the summer recess and shall reconvene in November, when the daytime meetings will be held in Hart's Council Chamber. There will be the evening meeting in Prince's Hall on 28th November - more details to follow.


Day 12 (11th July)

Wednesday saw Lance Flannigan take the witness stand to present evidence on a wide range of planning related matters on behalf of Hart District Council. His evidence in chief and his long and gruelling cross examination took up the whole of Wednesday's proceedings.

Taylor Woodrow's QC (Mr Lindblom) adopted the intense cross examination style with which he had questioned Hart's ecology expert, Dr Wray. There were clearly issues that Mr Lindblom wanted to hunt down and harry to death. The main issue was once again the principle of being able (or not) to develop on the southern tip of the site which falls outside of the defined settlement boundary and hence lies in the 'local gap'.

Another (related) line of attack was on the status of the Development Brief. This is a document which was written by Taylor Woodrow's consultants Terrance O'Rourke but which was intended to be adopted by Hart as its own supplemental planning guidance. The draft brief was never adopted and therefore Hart & the QEB Campaign assert the brief has little weight. The document having been drafted by Taylor Woodrow's paid consultants describes a development very similar to the plans that they had already submitted, which is a dubious reordering of the prescribed process. However, as the Development Brief condones the development as planned Taylor Woodrow would very much like the document to have 'status'. You might be forgiven for having a feeling of "deja  vu", we have been over much of this ground already in this Inquiry.
Day 11 (10th July)

The main development of the day was an agreement that evidence from the public would be taken in November when the Inquiry resumes and not towards the end of this week as had been previously floated. This is because most people will be expecting to present their evidence at the end of the process which is the normal way that Inquiries are conducted. It was thought that it would be too confusing to have two rounds of the public giving evidence.

The sessions towards the end of this week will be about 'conditions' and anybody who has something to input into the conditions debate should try to attend these sessions. We will try to give more exact timing details as the week progresses.

Today saw Mr Nigel Evers giving evidence on landscape issues on behalf of Hart. He explained how the disputed "area C" had reestablished itself as scrubby woodland before Taylor Woodrow cut it back. He argued that scrubby woodland was still an example of the area returning to nature even if the area was not capable of sustaining specimen trees. TW had been fielding arguments to the effect that although recolonized by 'pioneer' species these were not quality trees and therefore this did not qualify as recolonization. Speciesisum amongst arboriculturalists is still rife in this country.

Much time was spent on how building in area 'C' which would involve building in the local gap would act to diminish the isolation of Ewshot from Church Crookham.

Also Mr Evers argued that the proposal to build a new roundabout & car park on Beacon Hill Road would have a detrimental affect on the rural setting of the area. Although the car park itself was not an issue the movement of cars would be. The roundabout would require the removal of trees which would 'open up' the wooded feel of the area and therefore was a detrimental impact on the landscape.

Mr Lindblom's cross examination (which took up most of the day) failed to deliver the tense atmosphere that had been generated on Friday when he had been cross examining Dr Wray. The issues of landscape although important do not carry the far ranging implications that SPA issues do and so the stakes for other developments do not hang in the balance as they did on Friday.

The next expert witness for Hart is Mr Lance Flannigan, with whom we have struck up a great rapport over the last few weeks. He is in the hot seat tomorrow to discuss 'Planning Matters'. He is going to get a very tough ride from TW's QC who has clearly been saving up many so far unanswered questions for him. Our best wishes are with Lance for tomorrow, go get em.

Day 10 (6th July)

Friday saw a change in the nature of the proceedings as it is now Hart's turn to present their evidence and the developer's barrister Mr Keith Lindblom QC has opportunity to cross examine. What was immediately apparent was that Mr Lindblom was going to adopt a confrontational style and was going to be very persistent in trying to get the answers he wanted out of witnesses.

He was up against Hart's ecology expert Dr Stephanie Wray. Dr Wray was outstanding; she knew her stuff, she was well briefed and was very professional in holding her ground. Rather than debating ecological issues with Dr Wray, Mr Lindblom wanted to direct most of his questions to the way that Hart had handled the application and assessing the grounds on which it had been refused. Which are not the sort of questions that an eminent ecologist is really there to answer. However, Dr Wray had studied the background to the case and stood her ground exceptionally well under what was a very intense cross examination.

The atmosphere in the appeal has certainly ratcheted up a notch from the slow pace of previous sessions. The was a real tension in the air, it was clear that Mr Lindblom wanted his questions to lead to what he believed to be some damaging conclusion. However, sure of her ground Dr Wray had the confidence to know that her position was strong and that she was not going to be trapped by some convoluted complicated & spurious argument.

Next week; Tuesday & Wednesday Hart will continue to give evidence on affordable housing requirements and planning related issues. It is expected that Thursday & Friday will be used to cover issues relating to suitable 'Terms & Conditions' should the appeal be allowed. This is of critical importance because the way that these conditions get drafted determines if developers can wheedle their way out of commitments or not; how many housing estates in the past of got away without a school or other such promised provision? As an example the land for a Doctor's surgery is only going to be marketed for 6 months and if there are no takers the land reverts back to the developer. Vigilance will be needed in these sessions.

The Inspector has also suggested that he intends to hear statements from the public during Thursday or Friday, more details to follow.

Day 9 (5th July)

Today (Thursday) was devoted to the cross examination of Mr Goodwin, Taylor Woodrow's ecology specialist. Hart's QC (Neil King) cross examined him for a further 5 hours today (following on from the 2 hours the previous day).  As Neil King had covered most of the same ground as we had also planned to cover, James for the QEB Campaign followed up with what remained of our own questions for a further hour plus.

There was much made of trying to establish that  the decision maker (the Secretary of State) would need to conduct an Appropriate Assessment into the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. This is important as Taylor Woodrow wish to convince the SoS that their measures avoid any impact on the SPA so that their 'package of measures' can avoid the close scrutiny of an Appropriate Assessment.

Taylor Woodrow introduced a surprise new twist which was very disturbing. They have until today always suggested that the land they were "graciously" giving the general public accessible off of Beacon Hill Road was in compensation for the amenity lost to the Bourley Road car park reduction proposal. Today they were putting it forward as being equivalent to over 100 Ha of what is known as "Suitable Alternate Natural Green Space" (SANGS). This would allow them (within the terms of Natural England's draft delivery plan) to potentially claim at some future date that this was "new" amenity space for the public and they could hence try to argue that this would be enough SPA mitigation for them to build an additional 4,000 homes in the area !!!

The QEB Campaign argued very hard that this was land that local people could already access today if they wanted and that it was a small parcel of land when compared to the vast area of land that was going to be lost as an amenity if the Bourley Road car park was to be reduced. Clearly Taylor Woodrow appear to hold the recreational needs of local people in contempt. They have never consulted local people on what they would value and appreciate in terms of open space access. They certainly have not given any consideration to the relative amenity values of the two sites, especially in terms of visual security and ease of access for the elderly, people in wheelchairs or young families with prams.

Mr Goodwin also passed a rather sneering remark about how few people had turned up to witness the proceedings and suggested that this was probably because people didn't really care about these proposals and the loss of access to the Bourley Road area. I told him that local people would be out in force for the evening session on 28th November, it is critical that anyone who cares about having access to the Bourley Road turns up on that evening because it is very difficult to argue that it is a much loved amenity otherwise.

Tomorrow Hart start to present their evidence with ecology expert Dr Stephanie Wray.

Day 8 (4th July)

Transport which had been held over from yesterday for closing statements was dispatched in 2 mins. The developer's QC did not want to deal with the letter from the Highways Agency without first doing detailed research into its implications and so will issue a written response instead.

Dr Eddowes (Taylor Woodrow's aviation expert witness) then started earlier than expected. Geoff Marks for Farnborough Aerodrome Residents Association gave Dr Eddowes a very detailed cross-examination on the implications of third party and societal risk as well as the true interpretation of PSZ policy. James Radley cross examined Dr Eddowes on the implications for residents of noise annoyance and also the prospects and implication of growth at Farnborough. We were through by lunch time.

The afternoon saw Mr Goodwin step into the witness 'box' to defend Taylor Woodrow's measures to protect the SPA, including the controversial proposal to reduce the capacity of Bourley Road car park. It very quickly became apparent that this was going to be an important and very complex engagement. Many people from the ecology community (mainly those working with the developer community) were in the audience to see if Natural England's delivery plan was going to survive its first real test. The QEB Campaign have been refining and researching our own cross examination for tomorrow based upon the issues which have been brought forward but not resolved today. This is why we don't have time to write up a detailed account.

If you can only make one day of the appeal in its summer sitting then tomorrow (Thursday) is probably going to be the most interesting session to witness.

Day 7 (3rd July)

Today's session started at 14:00 to allow Andrew Macallan who has been preparing our traffic arguments to be present to hear the evidence being put forward by Taylor Woodrow's traffic expert (Mr Hutchings) and to cross examine him on this. It had not been the best of days for Andrew as earlier in the day a deer had run into the path of his car, which had been a very unsettling experience.

Mr Hutchings took a simple stance which is that Hampshire Highways are happy with the proposals in terms of the impact of traffic and that Taylor Woodrow have done all the traffic analysis that Hampshire have asked them to do.

This is a very difficult argument to deal with, as to a question such as "Isn't it the case that Reading Road South is already running at capacity?" you get given a response such as "Hampshire Highways have agreed that the development is acceptable in terms of traffic impact". Despite this Andrew made a very determined attempt to question Mr Hutchings about errors which the QEB Campaign believe are in the underlying; traffic data, growth assumptions and application of computer models.

The best way of summing up the engagement is that we got some clarification from Mr Hutchings about how he derived his traffic assessment. However we made very little progress in getting him to acknowledge that the traffic generated from the site was going to have an adverse impact on our community. Not surprising really when you consider that he is a paid consultant, employed to defend the development specifically in terms of its traffic impact. We will revisit this important topic when we present our own "Evidence in Chief" in November.

Mr Hutchings confirmed that they have only considered how best to mitigate the traffic problems raised by QEB and had not considered how much traffic it is sensible to add to our roads. He was also taken aback by the 'news' that the Kennel Lane link is not to be completed. Mr Hutchings was relying on this in his proof of evidence to relieve Reading Road South. Mr Hutchings also confirmed that he had not included traffic from the Hitches Lane development, Pyestock, Cody Park and other sites which are allocated or coming forward.

We did manage to land another surprise in that Andrew presented a letter from the Highways Agency which claimed that the QEB would introduce sufficient traffic that the M3 junction 4A would be at over its peak hour capacity. It appeared to be a bit of a bomb shell to all concerned; the developer, Hart, the Inspector & not least us. This is surprising as the letter was written by the Highway's Agency to the Planning Inspectorate and that James had apparently been the one to give a copy to Andrew. Key members of SPLAT (objectors to the Pyestock application) got really excited by it and I suspect thought it a little strange that no one had thought to share it with them. In the QEB Campaign's defence most of us were not aware that we had such a letter. Andrew would have naturally assumed that we knew all about it. It must have come in when we were working on getting the Proof of Evidence together and while the election was on and we must have just thrown it at Andrew saying "look at this it is something to do with traffic and it might be important you never know", but were too busy ourselves to actually read it. Sometimes we are not the tight knit unit that people like to think that we are.

Mr Hutchings will be giving his closing statements tomorrow morning and then we are onto Farnborough Aerodrome related issues. We might get to the SPA late tomorrow afternoon - but somehow I think that Farnborough is going to take up most of the day.

Day 6 (28th June)

Today was a short day, we finished at 12:35. This was useful as it gave the QEB Campaign's core team the afternoon to discuss tactics for next week, which is certainly going to be a pivotal part of the entire proceedings as we tackle Taylor Woodrow's evidence on traffic impacts, Farnborough Aerodrome & ecology issues (including the plan to reduce capacity of the Bourley Road car park).

The day started with Andrew Macallan finishing his detailed questioning of TW's Master Planner (Mr Rand). The questioning included challenging the impact of the scale of buildings (3-4 storey) in relation to existing housing in the vicinity of the site. Mr Rand also agreed that given the site layout and build phasing that it was "a fair and reasonable assessment" to consider that the entrance towards the western end of Sandy Lane would be the most heavily used access for the site. In the QEB Campaign's opinion this will mean that most traffic will be spilling onto Aldershot Rd and then dissipating across Church Crookham from there. Mr Rand gave some useful answers that we can use to help progress the cases that we will want to develop next week however we want to keep these under wraps for now.

The remainder of the morning was taken up by the witness for affordable housing. The argument with Hart being that if the development is to go ahead what will the mix of social housing be, (ie the ratio of social rental versus shared equity). The QEB Campaign did not feel that we had anything to contribute to this debate.

Next week is certainly when the danger and excitement is going to happen. Do please come along if you possibly can, this will be one of the most critical weeks of the entire appeal. The projected agenda for the rest of Taylor Woodrow's evidence next week is provisionally scheduled as below;

Date of sitting
 Topic
3rd July (Tues)
 Transport (2:00pm start)
4th July (Wed)
 Impact of Aircraft
5th July (Thurs)
 SPA (inc. Bourley Road)

Day 5 (27th June)

The day started with a surprising (but very honest) announcement by Taylor Woodrow's QC, Mr Lindblom. Apparently the Secretary of State's decision on an appeal relating to a proposed development at Filton Airport had clarified the requirements for the level of detail now required for Design Statements (new planning rules came into effect a year ago and applications submitted since the change are now comming to appeal). The implication of this would be that Taylor Woodrow's "Design and Access Statement" would need to be revised and would have to be resubmitted. We spent most of the rest of the day discussing the existing version (appeals are strange).

The cross examination of Mr Coulson by Neil King (Hart's QC), Colin Gray (Fleet & Crookham Civic Society - FCCS) and James Radley (QEB Campaign) took up the morning session and part of the early afternoon as well. Our questioning related to issues such as; The visability of the development from the wider countryside, particularly from Crondall & Caesar's Camp, the affect of the new Leipzig Road roundabout on the countryside and as a gateway into Church Crookham, the impact of the development on the amenities of nearby housing and the negative effects of building in the local gap.

The second part of the afternoon was taken up by Mr Rand, the person responsible for Taylor Woodrow's site master plan. His presentation of evidence and cross examination by Hart was very quick, compared with the time taken over previous witnesses. Geoff Marks (Farnborough Aerodrome Residents Association - FARA) questioned Mr Rand about if he had made any consideration when laying out the site of the impact of aircraft from Farnborough; he had not.

A more detailed questioning of Mr Rand was commenced by Andrew Macallan for the QEB Campaign. His intensive questioning session led up to the adjournment of the meeting (at 17:50) and will continue when the Inquiry resumes at 10:00 tomorrow (Thursday). Thursday should also see the issue of affordable housing being addressed by the Inquiry.

There is no sitting scheduled for Friday. So the appeal will meet again on Tuesday to discuss Transport. The cross examination regarding transport (impact of traffic) will be led by the QEB Campaign because Hart have not contested any transport issues. Unfortunately Andrew Macallan who is our lead on transport has a conflicting and very important meeting on Tuesday. The main parties in the appeal have very graciously agreed to delay the start until 2:00pm on Tuesday so that Andrew can be present.

Day 4 (26th June)

Day 4 started with a very important announcement. The meeting dedicated to hearing the public's concerns on the reduction in capacity of Bourley Road car park will be on the evening of Wednesday 28th November in the Prince's Hall, Aldershot. More details on this will be sent out over the coming months.

Taylor Woodrow's witnesses today addressed trees (Mr Bashford) and landscape (Mr Coulson). To cut a day of intense 'evidence in chief' and cross examination down to a simple synopsis; Taylor Woodrow are arguing that you can hardly see the development from Ewshot so therefore it must be OK. The issue of building outside of the settlement boundary thus eroding the local gap was also once again a major theme.

Remember this is Taylor Woodrow's main part of 'the show' and they get to discuss the topics that they want to pick-up on. Building outside of the settlement boundary is very important to TW as it enables them to build more houses and so make more money. Given that building outside of settlement boundaries and in a local gap is not normally allowed TW are prepared to spend days trying to present their case in as much detail as they can.

Day 3 (20th June)

The second day of the Inquiry proper opened with the continued cross examination of Mr Capner (Taylor Woodrow's planning policy witness) by Hart's QC Mr Neil King.

Questions were asked about Taylor Woodrow's interpretation of what a "live work" unit was. Hart were arguing that a "live work" unit should be more like a flat built on top of a 'studio' (or perhaps a workshop?). Taylor Woodrow were basically arguing that a house with an arbitrary room 'classified as office space' with an Internet link counted as 'live work' accommodation.  Hart was not convinced that people would not simply see the working room as more living space and it was really just a house with another room. Taylor Woodrow's witness suggested that Hart could 'check up' on these 'live work' units and use planning enforcement to get the occupier to use the room as an office and to stop using it for domestic use !!!!

There was a very long discussion on Hart's 5 year rolling housing supply. This was very technical and relates to the Government forcing local planning authorities to demonstrate that they always have 5 years supply of building land, either allocated or with already granted planning permission. The problem is that once permission is granted the land is built upon and so the land is no longer available for development. It is a new rule recently introduced in PPS3 and does appear to be grossly unfair as it does not recognise the potential of 'windfall sites' or what has already been built.

Taylor Woodrow's witness pointed to the long waiting list on Hart's housing register as an indication of the need for affordable housing in Hart. Hart's QC pointed out that anyone living anywhere in the Country could apply to be on Hart's housing register and that expressing a desire to live in Hart does not necessarily indicate a real need.

After lunch the rule 6 parties had opportunity to ask Mr Capner questions. Dr David Fearn asked questions on behalf of the Fleet & Crookham Civic Society (FCCS). James Radley asked questions on behalf of the QEB Campaign.

Taylor Woodrow had been anxious to try and establish some credibility for the status of the "Development Brief" which had never been adopted by Hart District Council. Their argument was that Hart would have adopted it if it had not been for a technicality (in that it came back to the Council within the 6 month guillotine rule having been first sent back for revisions). James was patiently attempting to get Mr Capner to acknowledge that if the Council had wanted to adopt the brief they could have 'suspended' the standing order that forbid the return of an item within 6 months or just waited for 6 months to elapse and then bring it back. Mr Capner was having none of it. Eventually the Inspector snapped and asserted that he accepted that the Development Brief had never been adopted.

This point is critical because in his closing questions directed to his witness, Mr Lindblom (QC for Taylor Woodrow) was at pains to point out that there were many agreements in the brief that supported TW's case. However the brief has no status because it was never adopted and clearly the failure to attain 'status; for the development brief was very frustrating to TW's case.

The meeting closed with two jaw dropping announcements.

Firstly; the appeal is scheduled to run for only 11 more days (last day is 13th July). This will just be enough time for Taylor Woodrow and Hart to present their cases. The appeal would still need to hear the cases for the rule 6 parties and to discuss legal agreements in case the appeal is allowed. This is estimated to be about two weeks worth of further work. Due to summer holidays and other prearranged case work for the QC's the resumption day will be ............ 27th November 2007.

The second bit of news is very welcome. The Inspector has agreed to an evening session to discuss the Bourley Road car park. This will be arranged to be held in a large venue (probably Prince's Hall if it is available). It is intended that it will be in the week of 27th November when the appeal resumes after its summer/autumn recess.

We will be back in the Prince's Hall on 26th June when the appeal next sits. Please, if you can spare the time do drop in to witness the proceedings and support the cause over the next few weeks. The current schedule is still at our best guess to be as detailed in yesterday's e-mail update.

Day 2 (19th June)

This was the day that it all started in earnest. There was a relatively good public turnout today. Although the first topic "Planning Policy" as presented by Taylor Woodrow was rather less than enthralling and most people left at lunch time. More interesting topics will be coming up at future sessions.

However the afternoon session when Hart's QC started to cross examine Mr Capner was a little bit more interesting. It was quite clear that Mr Capner (Taylor Woodrow's Planning Policy expert) did not want to answer some of the questions that he was being asked. The majority of these related to a technicality about how much of the site that Taylor Woodrow should be allowed to build on. This is important as the fall back position is to reduce the number of houses that get built, hence reducing the adverse impact on our local area.

Mr Capner did confess that he had not considered the loss of amenity that would occur if the Bourley Road was reduced to just 5 spaces. He rather suggested that it was not an important consideration.

Mr Neil King (Hart's QC) looks set to keep questioning Mr Capner for at least the first couple of hours tomorrow morning. Then the rule 6 parties (including us) will have the opportunity to cross examine Mr Capner. We (Ken & James) have both noticed that he appears to keep glaring back at us across the room, which we take as an encouraging sign.

The appeal is currently scheduled to sit on the following days;

Date of sittings each week
 Number of days each week
19th June (Tues) & 20th (Wed)
 2
26th June (Tues) to 28th (Thurs)
 3
3rd July (Tues) to 6th (Fri)
 4
10th July (Tues) to 13th (Fri)
 4
Total days scheduled (so far)
 13

After 13th July there shall be at least a 3 week break what happens next with regards to scheduling has yet to be determined.

We expect that Taylor Woodrow will be presenting evidence up to 6th July (given the speed across the ground today). Here is our best guess as to which topics they will tackle and when (this list will get refined each day as we see how much real progress is being made);

Date of sittings each week
 Topic
20th June (Wed)
 Planning Policy
26th June (Tues)
 Trees & Landscape
27th June (Wed)
 Site layout
28th June (Thurs)
 Transport (road chaos)
3rd July (Tues)
 Impact of Aircraft
4th July (Wed)
 Affordable Housing
5th & 6th July (Thurs, Fri)
 SPA (inc. Bourley Road)


If you are planning to turn up on a particular day please let us know (by e-mail) as we are trying to maintain a rota so that we can cover most days with members of the public being present, thank you.

There is as yet no date designated for members of the public to come in and show solidarity against the Bourley Road car park reduction. This is a must do event and we will have to pick an arbitrary date if the Planning Inspector is not willing to offer a dedicated session.


After months of painstaking research the QEB Campaign have produced the Proof of Evidence (PoE) which will under pin the Community's case at the appeal into Taylor Woodrow's request to restrict the capacity of the Bourley Road car park and to build 1,100 new dwellings in Church Crookham WITHOUT making any improvements to our infrastructure.

Please see the summary of our case (29k bytes) and the full PoE (944k bytes).


The appeal will run from 19th June until who knows when on Tuesdays to Fridays in Princes Hall, Aldershot.