QEB
UPDATE
We are sure that you will already be aware that the appeal process into
the QEB planning application has resulted in the plans being thrown
out. This is a great result for those of us who have expended a huge
amount of personal time and effort to fight these applications. As has
been reported in the press the Inquiry process came in reality to
conclude that on the whole the applications were acceptable but that
there were a number of issues that warranted these particular plans
being thrown out.
We'd like to give you our personal analysis of what has been
decided and our thoughts on where things may move forward from here.
The application was thrown out primarily because Taylor Wimpey
wanted to build on too much of the site and were proposing to develop
too far out into the surrounding countryside. They had also offered an
insufficient sum of money for education, particularly in respect of
secondary school provision. They had tried to renege on an obligation
to provide an adequate number of purpose built live/work units by
suggesting that as people can now work from home on a laptop then
conventional home designs fall into this category. There was also a
concern about the staging of affordable housing provision.
The Secretary of
State (SoS) therefore believed that the whole scheme should be thrown
out so that it could be fully reconsidered; leaving room for a new and
better application to be potentially submitted in the future.
The issue of the over extension of the development site and
the inadequate provision for education funding were issues that had
been first raised and pursued by the QEB & Community Campaign
groups. Therefore it is gratifying that these issues should have been
the prime reasons for refusal. At the appeal these issues had been
followed through by Hart and Hampshire authorities and we are are
grateful for their professional support in fighting these important
points.
The QEB & Community Campaign groups are disappointed that
the Inquiry did not support our arguments in relation to the
unnecessary and unfair proposal to restrict the Bourley Road car park.
Natural England,
who have been supportive of reducing the Bourley Road car park, have
not presented any evidence to demonstrate that this measure would be
effective.
However, the SoS did throw this application out - on the basis that it
needed to be considered in terms of any new substantive development
application. As imposing restrictions on access to the SPA runs
counter to the policies being adopted to protect the SPA elsewhere
across the region and in light of the changes which are required in
relation to the proportion of the site that can be built upon it may be
hoped that any potential future application would not need to
reintroduce this draconian measure. It could be
argued that by giving the public full access to the area (known as area
'C') which fell outside of the settlement boundary that there would
then be no need to restrict access to the car park.
It should be a matter of local concern that the appeal found
that the proposals would not have a significant impact on the local
roads. We have Hampshire Highways to thank for rolling over and
accepting Taylor Wimpey's analysis (& offer of money and associated
works totalling about £5million) for our being unable to succeed
in making
this argument hit home. You can't win when the experts who are meant to
be on the side of the community are supporting the developer.
Our Farnborough aerodrome arguments (and those of the
Farnborough Aerodrome Residents Association) also did not succeed.
However, the Inspector's clear misunderstanding of Public Safety Zones
(as outlined in his report) and his apparent reluctance to consider the
possibility that TAG are likely to want to expand Farnborough means
that our arguments are probably not exhausted and could be
legitimately used in other contexts. It will be interesting to see if
Taylor Wimpey (or any other future potential developer of the site)
will want to resist attempts by TAG to dramatically increase the number
of flights using Farnborough Aerodrome.
Overall where do we go from here? It is firmly in Taylor
Wimpey's court to decide if/how they want to pursue the development of
the site. They have been given the clear message that their view as to
the extent of the site that they could build upon was unacceptably too
ambitious, that they need to play fair with regards to provision of
live/work units and provide adequate funding for education. There is
room to argue that any future application should not propose to
restrict access to the Bourley Road so we should be hopeful (but ever
vigilant) that this amenity can be left open to the public.
Taylor Wimpey can choose to increase the density of
development or
they can decide to reduce the number of units that they build to better
fit in with the usable size of the site. They may also in current
circumstances decide to shelve plans for the site for an indefinite
period due to economic constraints.We will find out in good time.
In conclusion the plans for the QEB have been thrown out, and
that is a magnificent victory. We have always maintained that something
should go on the QEB site but that it needed to be in balance with the
infrastructure and nature of our community. The opportunity to see such
a suitable development is now open.