CLOSING
SUBMISSION OF THE MUCH DEWCHURCH SOCIETY
The
Much Dewchurch Society's case is that the appeal should be dismissed for the
following 8 reasons:
(i) The proposal is to develop in the
countryside, contrary to the unequivocal presumption against such development in
the UDP (Section 2 below);
(ii) The
proposal will cause harm to the countryside, which should be protected for its
own sake (Section 3 below);
(iii) The
proposal is likely to lead to an increase in private car trips and also to be
inaccessible to (the great majority of) those who do not own a car. In the
absence of evidence that a more suitable location to accommodate such expansion
cannot be found, it would be contrary to Central Government policy (Section 4
below);
(iv) The
proposal will cause harm to the character and setting of Much Dewchurch (Section
5 below);
(v) The
proposal will cause harm to the setting of important listed buildings (Section 6
below)
(vi) The
proposal will not be served by a safe and convenient public access (Section 7
below);
(vii) The
application has not been made duly in accordance with Article 3 (4) of the 1995
GDPO (Section 8 below).
(viii) No
plausible justification has been given for the development which will outweigh
the harm caused (Section 9 below).
2. The proposal is to develop in the countryside,
contrary to the unequivocal presumption against such development in the UDP
2.1 The
UDP contains a presumption against development outside settlement boundaries
(p19 pr 3.5.13).
2.2 The
only UDP “exception” policy relied upon is CF5
2.3 Policy
CF5 does not apply to the appeal proposals, because
(i) What
amounts to a “local community” will be a matter of fact and degree for the
decision taker in each case. However, that freedom to exercise judgment is
subject to certain constraints, namely that the “local community”
contemplated within the UDP cannot be a countywide community. This is for two
reasons:
(a) The
UDP is a county wide document. At Section 13, it contemplates the County be
subdivided into smaller geographical areas to be served by local facilities. The
local areas must therefore be smaller than the County itself.
A
facility which serves the whole County cannot therefore be a facility serving
the local community as contemplated by Section 13 of the UDP.
(b) If
the term “local community” as contemplated by CF 5, amounted to a countywide
community, then CF5 2 would support the provision of countywide facilities
anywhere in rural
(ii)
Nor
can it be a community with a large catchment area. If policy CF 5 is not to be
interpreted as a charter for sporadic development throughout the countryside,
the term “local community” must be construed narrowly and in a manner which
does not undermine the UDP when read as a whole.
(iii) The
size of the catchment areas contemplated is indicated by the examples given at
paragraph 13.5.1 youth centres, doctors surgeries, educational accommodation [it
does not say, but could have said “schools”] village halls, libraries,
places of worship, graveyards. The essence of a local community facility (the
concept deriving from “location”) is the close geographical nexus between
the facility and its users.
(iv) Facilities
that serve users within a wide catchment area do not serve “local”
communities for the purposes of CF 5 because (a) the word “local” means what
it says (b) that would be inconsistent with the examples given at paragraph
13.5.1 (c) a “local” community must be small subdivided area of the county
and not the whole county, or a large portion of it, because the plan at pr
13.1.1 contemplates the county as being divided up into smaller areas, to be
treated as local communities and (d) the underlying purposes of the plan would
be harmed by such an interpretation which would actively encourage sporadic
development in the countryside, greater reliance on the car and the exclusion of
those who do not own a car.
2.4 Planning
decisions should be based on evidence, not speculation. There is no evidence
from which the inference may safely be drawn that the proposed Academy’s
catchment area will be any smaller than it is now.
2.5 No
evidence has been produced of the per capita propensity of any given population,
still less Herefordshire’s population, to accept what put forward as the
advantages of a Steiner education. Without such evidence it is impossible to
know the size of population that will be needed to support the school and thus
the size of the area that will be needed to form its catchment
2.6 The
Appellant’s point to the admissions policy, but the “proximity” criterion
is the fourth in a descending order of four criteria and in any event it does
not become relevant unless the school is oversubscribed. That begs the question,
how widespread is the population that is needed to fill it in the first place.
Even in 2005, when the school’s population was 227, 50% less than now proposed
it needed to look as far as
2.7 There
is no evidence to suggest that the transfer to maintained status will decrease
the catchment area – that factor alone may have the reverse effect. For all we
know, some Steiner parents may prefer the essence of a private education or be
unable to accept the constraints to the school’s freedoms that are likely to
accompany participation in the state sector. If that were the case, the untested
combination of state control and Steiner ethos, might be a cocktail to suit the
appetite of sufficiently few, for the school to have to look further, perhaps
much further, than it does today, to find pupils to fill it.
2.8 Since
planning decisions must be taken on the basis of likelihoods rather than
speculation, the likelihood is that the school will continue to need to have a
wide catchment area, at least as wide as that needed to generate just 227 pupils
in 2005 – a point conceded, but later retracted, by Mr Evans. The point was
retracted on the basis that as an academy the population might be drawn from
closer by. No intelligible reason was given as to why that might make a
difference. A county wide catchment
(at least) is certainly envisaged by the school in statements made prior to the
formal preparation of evidence for this Inquiry:
“A
national centre for Steiner education” (EM2 p89)
“Local
hotels and B and B’s are likely to see a significant increase in demand” (EM
30 p1)
“residents
of Herefordshire will benefit from the additional provision” (EM 2 p85).
2.9 As
the Officer reported to Committee “the present school serves a wide catchment
and would not be a “local school” within the normal interpretation of CF
5” (EM2 p94 pr 6.8). The same applies to the proposed academy.
2.10 This
is not a CF 5 facility. CF 5 does not support countywide facilities in rural
locations. The Appellant’s case thus falls back upon an assertion that
(a) they will implement the 2004 scheme and (b) the benefits of the
appeal scheme over and above the 2004 scheme outweigh any harm that it may
cause.
3. The proposal will cause harm to the countryside,
which should be protected for its own sake
3.1 The
countryside should be protected as a natural resource, for the sake of its
intrinsic character.
3.2 The
appeal proposals involve the permanent, extensive, highly visible and
irrevocable subjugation of the existing character of the countryside to the use
and purposes of man at this sensitive edge of this rural village.
3.3 Such
a consumption of this precious natural resource could at best only be justified
on the basis of a powerful and unequivocal case of need. There is no such case.
It is admitted that the impact is justified merely on the basis of desire or
convenience, or to avoid disappointment.
3.4 That
is not good enough. The appeal should be dismissed.
4. The proposal would be likely to lead to an increase
in private car trips and also to be
inaccessible to (the great majority of) those who do not own a car. In the
absence of evidence that a more suitable location to accommodate such expansion
cannot be found, it would be contrary to Central Government policy
Implementation of the 2004 permission
4.1 No
formal decision has been made as to the implementation of the 2004 permission.
4.2 When
the Secretary of State comes to consider the matter, he will have to take all
material considerations into account.
4.3 These
include:
(i) That
the proposal is said to have shortcomings in respect of its integral energy
saving characteristics;
(ii) That
his own advisers believe it to cause visual harm in a sensitive area;
(iii) The
findings of this appeal. They may include
a finding that the school should not be allowed to expand from 220 (historic) to
330 i.e. by 50% in this location; and that there is real potential for further
expansion to 380 (i.e. expansion by 100% in this location), either at all, or at
least not without extensively researching whether other alternatives are
available which will not be so likely to increase reliance upon the private car
(iv) That
it is unthinkable that a school for 330 pupils located in a rural village, can
operate without a car park. The 2004 permission cannot in practice be
implemented because there are no car parking facilities. It would be foolhardy
to implement it with such uncertainty. The parents currently find the car
parking unacceptable (GPA 5 p144); and the school considers the provision of 63
new spaces the “minimum necessary” (GPA1 p21). If the school were to open
without a car park, it would open without a facility necessary to its proper
functioning.
4.4 We
think it highly unlikely that the 2004 permission will be implemented. The
implementation was not raised other than as a response to formulation of a case
on this appeal. It simply won’t happen. Certainly, in
no sense has a case been made that its implementation is likely, still
less inevitable.
Growth
if appeal allowed and 2004 not implemented
4.5 Now
that the figures for the last 5 years have been disclosed, it is apparent not
only that the “270” figure, should actually be 265, but also that it is an
unusually high figure in the context of the school’s general level of
performance, which appeared to have stabilised in the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and
2006 at about 220-230.
4.6 The
proposed increase to 330, is thus, in truth an increase of 50% above the
school’s general level of performance, but for the academy proposal.
4.7 CG
policy is unequivocal, that trips by private car should
be reduced (e.g. PPS 1 pr 13) and that this approach is as important in
rural areas as elsewhere (PPG 13 pr 40)).
4.8 The
expansion of a countywide facility, with a wide catchment area, that already
generates more than 80% of its trips by car, will have a tendency to increase
trips by private car and to exclude potential users who do not have a car.
4.9 Major
generators of travel demand (including schools – PPG 13 pr 38) should be
focused in city town and district centres and near to major public transport
interchanges – PPG 13 pr 20.
4.10 When
a school is in a non-conforming location by reference to this guidance wishes to
expand, the guidance in PPG 13 is clear: “development
comprising services [pr 18 which includes education] should not be located on
the assumption that the car will represent the only realistic means of access
for the vast majority of people.”
4.11 It
is contrary to CG advice to permit expansion of such a facility in a location
which is likely to mean that the vast majority of trips to it will be made by
car.
4.12 For
the reasons which I have given, this countywide facility is not at present
located in an identified preferred location within the local plan. As the
officer noted at para 6.8 of his report to committee (EM 2 p94) this “would
not be a “local school” in the normal interpretation of Policy CF 5”.
4.13 Where
a development proposal is put forward which “involve” major generators of
travel (the word “involve” showing that proposal for expansion of existing
facilities are included) there is a need “to be flexible in terms of tailoring
, reducing or splitting projects”; and in particular, where they are not
located in identified preferred locations, “the onus will be on the developer
to demonstrate why it cannot fit into the preferred locations and to illustrate
how the accessibility of the proposed development by all modes compares with
other possible sites” (PPG 13 pr 27).
4.14 This
guidance applies equally in rural areas, the concept of preferred locations
being carried through in paragraphs 40-44 of PPG 13. Much Dewchurch is not
identified as a preferred location to accommodate a countywide school. The onus
is on the developer to demonstrate how the accessibility of the proposed
development compares with other
possible sites – and this guidance applies in rural areas as it does
elsewhere.
4.15 That
has not been done in this case. To allow the appeal would also be contrary to
this part of Central Government advice. The appeal should be dismissed.
Impact
of allowing the appeal assuming that the 2004 appeal would otherwise have been
implemented
4.16 In
these circumstances, the allowing of the appeal would still be likely to lead to
more traffic generation than it the appeal were to be dismissed.
4.17 The
4.18 Little
secret is made, of what is likely to come next:
“Also,
at present, no post 16 education is proposed, although it is fair to observe
that that may be revisited in the longer term”
(Mr
Evans 1st proof p7)
“Upper
school are, however, looking at the “14-19 Agenda” relating to the education
of all children to age 19”
(School
Newsletter @ Mr Oram’s new doc C)
“It
is possible that pupil numbers could in the future grow to 380, with an intake
of pupils in the 16-18 year range, although this would require further
development and is not a scenario feasible under the terms of the current
planning permission.”
(Transport
Assessment, April 2007, Mr Prodohl’s ax A4 p109)
4.19 This
ambitious institution already has expansion in mind; and no reason has been
given as to why it might be unlikely that such further future expansion will
take place.
4.20 In
considering whether or not to allow this appeal, it is material to take into
account doing so would be the first step in a chain of events that could, indeed
is likely to, lead to further significant expansion.
4.21 That
is because allowing this appeal would make future applications for expansion
more difficult to resist. Much more so, than merely if the 2004 proposal were
implemented. A breach of the settlement boundary of a wholly different order
would have been sanctioned and not only that, but on the basis of the weakest of
arguments, that a school which only needed 1800 sq m, found it more convenient
to operate with double that amount, and should therefore be allowed to do so.
4.22 It
must also be remembered that the easiest way for a developer to achieve
significant growth, is to make a series of smaller incremental applications,
arguing at each stage that the growth is immaterial. It is for this reason, that
decision takers faced with the prospect that their decision may prove the key to
significant growth in the future, must take that into account even if the
developer has only chosen to propose a small amount of it at the first stage. If
decision takers were not allowed to take into account the later growth to which
their decision was the key, the planning system would be unable to control the
impacts of organic, incremental growth.
4.23
The
appeal proposals represent the key to further growth. It is a proposal
acknowledged to be “beyond an acceptable standard” (Mr Evans prf p5 pr 3.7)
4.24 The
allowing of the appeal would be the starting point, both in terms of the
availability of buildings and outdoor space; and in terms of the strength of the
planning arguments that would be available in future (precedent as to the extent
of the breach of the settlement boundary and justification based on convenience)
, from which further expansion would be much more difficult to resist.
4.25 The
potential impact of trips generated in this non-conforming location as a result
of such expansion is a material consideration at this stage. It is an additional
reason to resist a proposal to expand and consolidate the activities of a major
traffic generator, in a rural village. The potential is for trips almost to
double from the historic levels i.e. from serving 220 pupils to 380. That is
wholly unacceptable and for this reason also, the appeal should be dismissed.
5. The proposal will cause harm to the character and
setting of Much Dewchurch
5.1 The
character of the village, presently one of principally small domestic dwelling
houses interspersed with one or two large buildings, will change to one that is
dominated by the sheer mass of the new built forms proposed, which greatly
exceed that of anything that currently exists in the village.
5.2
Not
only will the character of the village change in terms of built forms, with the
dwellings becoming subservient, or at least no longer dominant, but also in
terms of uses. The institutional use will be the predominant characteristic of
the village. This will be a the Waldorf Steiner school village. For the great
majority of the day, the great majority of its occupants will be school’s
occupants. The existing character of
the village will be significantly, harmfully and permanently altered.
5.3 Further,
significant, permanent and harmful impacts will result from:
(i) The
“important visual approach to the settlement, views of key buildings and open
areas into development”, which should be protected (LA3 – UDP p158) and
which currently has the Church at its focal point, will cease to be available
and will be substituted by views of whatever attempts are made to disguise a 63
space car park;
(ii) Views
travelling northwards on the footpath between the Herefordshire Trail and the
bridge
· Looking
east, the present setting of an open field, will be substituted with views of
cars, possibly through trees, possibly not, and of whatever interference is
necessary in the form of bunded contours, themselves alien features, to make
some attempt to address the harm. Added to that, as one approaches the bridge,
the footpath, another wholly alien feature, will be seen twisting and winding
its way down the slope, its presence (as that of the car park) being emphasised
by whatever lighting scheme is imposed
· Looking
west, filtered views of open countryside through trees will be substituted with
those of solid built forms, of a mass of a completely different order to
anything else in the village.
(iii) Views
travelling southwards on that same footpath
· To
the east – as above, but the winding lit footpath would be all the more
apparent being aligned with, rather than perpendicular to, the direction of
travel.
(iv) Views
as the bridge is crossed heading north – of the extensive new footpath imposed
upon the presently naturally surfaced southern field. This footpath is described
by Mr Horridge as having a hard surface in the order of 300 sq m.
5.4 Many
other harmful visual impacts have been identified in the evidence and not all
can be dealt with here. Taken as a whole the character and landscape setting of
the village will be very seriously harmed. That is harm in addition to the harm
to the intrinsic character of the countryside to which reference has already
been made. The harm to the character of the village and to its setting could
only be justified on the basis of an unequivocal and powerful case of need.
Certainly not, as here, on the basis of a case of preference or convenience, or
to avoid disappointment.
6. The proposal will cause harm to the setting of
important listed buildings
6.1 The
setting of the Church will be harmed, as contained within the important views of
it on approaching the village on the B3438 from the south. Those views, which go
to the heart of the character of the village forming as they do an immediate
visual nexus with its most prominent feature, as well as to the setting of the
building itself, will, it appears be obliterated, or substituted by, however it
is treated, views through a car park.
6.2 The
setting of the Church will be further harmed in terms of the views enjoyed to
the south. Obviously there will be a significant infringement of the sight line
identified by the 1996 Inspector and by English Heritage.
6.3
That
sight line is only the starting point of the measurement of this impact. If one
step forward is taken from the Church, the impact of the conifer on limiting
views of the new built structures, disappears. From most viewpoints in the
churchyard, the present sense of openness will be replaced by the solid and
enclosing impact of the two storey elevation of by far the largest building in
the village.
6.4 In
addition, the setting of the Mynde, a Grade 1 listed building, as seen from the
B3438, an important public view, will be obliterated.
6.5 These
are significant impacts, again, which could only be justified on the basis of a
powerful and unequivocal case of need. No such case has been presented.
7. The proposal will not be served by a safe and
convenient public access
7.1 We
are not impressed by the “exercise” argument. The modus operandi of the
school has been presented in any event as being that the formal school day
commences with class exercises. There are plenty of opportunities in the school
grounds for children to get as much exercise as they need.
7.2 It
would be hard to contemplate a less convenient access to the school. That is not
only because of the sheer distance, not only because of the tortuous nature of
the route, but also because of the gradients that have to be traversed and the
obstacles that have to be negotiated (e.g. the bridge).
7.3 Added
to that, the nature of the users are likely to be parents with other, possibly
younger infant siblings, who have to negotiate that route twice on delivery
(there and back) and again, twice on the collection of the Steiner pupil. When
one adds push chairs into the equation, the true absurdity of the claim that
this is a convenient access, becomes plain.
7.4 It
is not, and to grant a permission which would subject its users to such a low
level facility, would not only be explicitly contrary to CF5:4, but also to the
public interest. The appeal should be dismissed.
8. The application has not been made duly in accordance
with Article 3 (4) of the 1995 GDPO.
8.1 The
upper and lower limits for the height, width and length of each building have
not been given.
8.2
It
is no excuse that some sketches have been put in, which give artist’s
impressions of the proposed buildings in the context of their surroundings. The
true impact of the buildings should be able to be assessed other than from the
positions selected by the artist; and other than in the relationship of
perspective between the two that the artist believes he/she has properly
represented.
8.3 That
is why the upper and lower limits for the height, width and length of each
building must be given in order for a proper assessment to be made of an outline
proposal.
8.4 To
allow this appeal without this information, would be to allow it without having
the opportunity for an assessment to be made of it, in the way that Central
Government has decreed that an assessment must be made. For this reason also,
the appeal should be dismissed.
9. No plausible justification has been given for the
development which will outweigh the harm caused
9.1 It
is acknowledged that the facilities, based upon an 1800 sq m provision, would be
satisfactory to serve the needs of the academy.
9.2 The
social benefit put to Mr Prodohl, by Mr Jones, of an academy proposal per se,
namely that existing parents who can afford fees will in future be subsidised by
the state, is not put forward as a benefit of the appeal proposal, because
according to the Appellant’s case, that will come about in any event. As Mr
Evans explained in re-examination, there could be a Steiner academy without
either the appeal scheme or the 2004 scheme.
9.3 No
intelligible justification has been given as to why a proposal is made for
double the amount (3700 sq m) of built space, than is needed for the school to
operate to a sufficiently high standard for it to be a fully fledged participant
in the academy programme.
9.4 It
would be hard to contemplate a worse example of the profligate use of land,
which as an “irreplaceable asset” should especially be protected (policy S1,
UDP p22). The waste of public funding is of course, not a matter for this
Inquiry.
9.5 But
to propose to engage of profligacy to this extent, at a time when policy is so
unequivocally focussed upon the need to protect our natural resources, or when
we have to consume them, to do so efficiently, is a bold stance indeed. Excuses
such as, with the 2004 scheme, the school would have to “double up” the use
of its hall, show a clear and serious misunderstanding of the direction of
contemporary planning.
9.6 I
suspect that no one in this room will have come across a case in which such a
massive environmental impact has purported to have been justified on such a
tenuous basis. The Appellant has not begun to make a case that has the potential
to outweigh the significant and harmful impacts to the public interest that they
propose should be meted out on the basis that it would be desirable or
convenient for the operation of their enterprise.
10. The school has gone on the record (EM 32) that the site
was selected for the Steiner academy project, because site issues in a rural
location were considered easier to resolve. Having canvassed possible reasons
why this site was being promoted by the Department, you, Sir, asked Mr Evans
whether it was the fact that the site comes free of charge. To which he replied
“yes”.
11. This is an audacious proposal, representing as it does a major
assault on the intrinsic character of the countryside, on the character and
setting of the village, on long established principles concerning the need to
restrain the use of the private motor car and not least, on the constraints that
have been clearly and unequivocally defined in a recently adopted UDP.
12. We
hope that you have little hesitation in dismissing these appeals.
Copyright © 2009 [Much Dewchurch Society]. All rights reserved.
Revised: April 10, 2009.