Land at Greenberfield

[PanBiker]

25 years ago when Sally was a Labour Party councillor for Pendle she was instrumental in campaigning to save the greenfield status of the two fields on the right as you turn onto Greenberfield Lane. Over the years the fields have been used for grazing. It came to her notice that the Tory led Borough Council was considering selling the land on recommendation from the council officers. The fear was that this would be sold on for more housing development on green field land.

The Policy and Resources Committee were meeting last night to decide on the matter. Sally put a request in to speak on the issue. The item was number 9 on the agenda but was brought forward for discussion, Sally was called first to speak and made an eloquent appeal for common sense to sign the land over to the Town Council as part of it's holdings at Victory Park and the allotment portions abutting behind the park. Glad to say the committee took her advice on board and voted unanimously to make that the case. The land will be passed to the Town Council in due course. One usage mooted along with maintaining the status quo on the majority of the land would be to use a portion of it to create more allotment parcels, directly opposite the existing ones. The infrastructure support for such use is already in place and there is a massive waiting list for allotments in the town as we have lost so many to development.

[Tizer]

Marvellous! Good for Sally, well done.

[Stanley]

Well done Sally. Allotments sound like a bloody good idea in view of the way Brexit is going!

[Whyperion]

25 years ago when Sally was a Labour Party councillor for Pendle she was instrumental in campaigning to save the greenfield status of the two fields on the right as you turn onto Greenberfield Lane. Over the years the fields have been used for grazing. It came to her notice that the Tory led Borough Council was considering selling the land on recommendation from the council officers. The fear was that this would be sold on for more housing development on green field land.

The Policy and Resources Committee were meeting last night to decide on the matter. Sally put a request in to speak on the issue. The item was number 9 on the agenda but was brought forward for discussion, Sally was called first to speak and made an eloquent appeal for common sense to sign the land over to the Town Council as part of it's holdings at Victory Park and the allotment portions abutting behind the park. Glad to say the committee took her advice on board and voted unanimously to make that the case. The land will be passed to the Town Council in due course. One usage mooted along with maintaining the status quo on the majority of the land would be to use a portion of it to create more allotment parcels, directly opposite the existing ones. The infrastructure support for such use is already in place and there is a massive waiting list for allotments in the town as we have lost so many to development.

Although the outcome looks good, the process is a problem for councillors, where officers 'forget' the past history of a site , and the reasons for it being that way, and do not make clear those, or produce alternatives to what they (the officers) start out desiring to do. I think all decisions a council committe, cabinet or meeting are called to make must be furnished with full facts , reasoning and background history (and executive summaries should be banned as they often mis-lead or mis-represent main documentary analysis).

[PanBiker]

A new application has gone in for housing at the Coates Lane end of Greenberfield. Not directly overlooking the locks this time but abutting the existing housing off Coates Lane, in the field that floods badly before the bridge. It's basically more creeping development on green belt. If passed it will almost certainly lead to further applications that would effectively match the application overlooking the locks already turned down on appeal.

[Stanley]

They don't give up easily do they!

[PanBiker]

No, the application is just a portion of the previous two that have failed. They even refer to each of the former applications in the application and use a lot of the original data. To me that says that this is not a new application but a resubmission of parts of two that have already failed on appeal.

[Big Kev]

From Facebook this morning...

Greenberfield.JPG

[Stanley]

They don't give up do they.....

[PanBiker]

The original application that has been turned down twice, paired back to get a foot in the door. If this works they will do it again and again until the field is full. Same result, just takes a bit longer.

[Big Kev]

The application was refused by the Local Area Committee, the objections can be heard at the link below

https://youtu.be/qj3feQg2vG0

[Stanley]

Look for another appeal!

[PanBiker]

With reference to my opening post. Government inspectors have overturned the councils refusal for housing on the field at the Gisburn Road end of Greenberfield. The council (taxpayer), will have to pay £10,000 for losing the appeal. Contractors previously removed some sound but "diseased" trees from the site despite them all having TPO's on them, (they were in the way). The field which regularly floods will shortly have 17 houses on it. Lets hope those that buy don't complain about the Agricultural Plant Contractor that operates 24/7 in summer from next door.

[Whyperion]

What was the grounds of appeal granted (while there is normally a presumption to allow 'sustainable development') and NPPF can over-ride a local plan generalisations, the implication is that the refusal was wrong on the facts presented, which should be verifiable. Or are govt making up rules as they go along?

Other inspectors have made clear that applications (unless there has been a change in law) that are of essence the same as one that has been previously submitted and dismissed can be rejected by the planning authority ( an applicant cannot have a second bite of the cherry) . this may be a useful backstop against further applications then end up looking like the original rejected proposals.

[PanBiker]

Here is the planning Inspectorates website with the results of the appeal:

Land at the junction with Greenberfield Lane & Gisburn Road

[Tripps]

Interesting documents. I have had some dealings with a planning dispute, and the style and wording bring back some unpleasant memories- and we won ! I get the feeling he could have returned the opposite decision, and given convincing reasons.

If the site is so unsuitable - they may have trouble selling them - the flooding checks are quite sharp at the moment- especially if someone hands out explanatory leaflets outside the sales office.

[Stanley]

There is going to be a lot of this. You can bet that the planning inspectorate have had the word from on high that we need investment to jack the economy up and the presumption must be that all plans are approved if at all possible. I hope the site floods while they are building!

[Tripps]

Start with the decision you want, or (more probably) have been told to achieve, then reverse engineer the proceedings to achieve it. A high level of English language skills are required.

[Stanley]

Quite right David. Hence the need for forensic textual analysis of the texts.
I had a lot of correspondence with the corridors of power and over the centuries they have refined letters to the Nth degree. You got used to 'reading between the lines'. I once asked a senior civil servant about it and he said it was regarded internally as a game.

[Whyperion]

Interesting documents. I have had some dealings with a planning dispute, and the style and wording bring back some unpleasant memories- and we won ! I get the feeling he could have returned the opposite decision, and given convincing reasons.

If the site is so unsuitable - they may have trouble selling them - the flooding checks are quite sharp at the moment- especially if someone hands out explanatory leaflets outside the sales office.

(A) Yep
(B) I suppose people are so desparate for housing and if there is mitigation (steps up to the front doors / raised foundations) an insurance company might grant cover. most modern properties have too small to be properly useful internal. I suppose they could be sold on for housing asylum seekers, or remote workers from places like manchester - if RRs market does long term diminish then the attraction of otherwise rural towns is going to fade - unless you managed to get a place as somewhere suitable for retirement.

[Whyperion]

I hear of reports that Cummins and Jenrick are getting together with views on further streamlining the planning processes.
number of contrary views that the excess of capital accumulation from profits from ventures is both bidding up land prices for building purposes and buildings for rent beyond what is both affordable, and actually , nice, livable accomodation suitably located.

[PanBiker]

Another application has gone in for housing on the field directly opposite the locks, this is the third time that the plan has been submitted.

[Whyperion]

If the plan is essentially the same it can be rejected (are they incanting different magic words this time ?) or you could fail to make a decision in time let it run to the inspectorate and submit the appeal rejection from last time as the reason.

[PanBiker]

Not seen the details of this submission but no doubt it will have been tweaked slightly. If not the local planning authority would just reject it. It's been turned down twice already on heritage grounds. Nothing has changed regarding that status of the area and features and structures, quite a few of which are listed.

[Stanley]

Ah, taking advantage of the search for 'shovel ready projects'!