RESIDENTS AGAINST INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT
Keith & Rebecca Farwell
7 Cecil Road
NORWICH
NR1 2QL
Mark Boulton
Special Appeals and Call-Ins
The Planning Inspectorate
3/17 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol, BS1 6PN
Friday 28th January 2004
Your Ref: APP/G2625/V/04/1168745
By Recorded Delivery
Dear Mr Boulton,
Re: The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77
Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000
Land at Hewett School, Hall Road/Lakenham Road, Norwich, Norfolk
Planning Application 04/00254/F by Norfolk County Council
Thank you for your letters of 18th January 2005 enclosing a copy of the other parties’ statements and copies of third party representations.
Thank you also for your email of 20th January 2005 confirming that the deadline for submitting comments on the other parties’ statements is extended to 4th February 2005.
We write now with our comments on the Statement of Case for the applicants and our comments on the Statement of Case of Norwich City Council. These are the comments requested within 9 weeks of the date of the call-in letter as referred to in Debbie Smith’s letter of 29th November 2004.
Comments in respect of the Statement of Case filed by the applicants Norfolk County Council, Wrenbridge, Norfolk and David Lloyd Leisure Limited
For convenience, the numbering that now follows refers to the paragraph numbering scheme used in the above Statement of Case.
[Para. 1.3]
It is denied that the school playing field is “redundant” as stated by the developers. Far from being redundant, RAID has already submitted outline evidence in its Statement of Case that the land in question is actively used by the local community. In particular, the land that is subject of the present proposal contains one full good quality football pitch as well as parts of other football pitches. These football pitches are very extensively used by local teams, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays, such that there is a waiting list for availability to play. Furthermore, as referred to in RAID’s main submissions, there is a deficit of football pitches in this area. The letter dated 5th April 2004 from Sport England attached to the third party representations states that the community teams consider this pitch to be in the best condition of all the schools’ pitches. Furthermore it states that the loss of this pitch would therefore be detrimental to sporting interests.
As stated in RAID’s Statement of Case, we have, and will produce evidence that, far from being “redundant”, the school playing fields that are the subject of this planning application have been deliberately allowed to become derelict in order to facilitate their sale. We will produce evidence that until recently the fields were used for community events such as horse shows, but recently the promoter of the said horse shows was denied the opportunity to lease the fields by the school. All of this points to a deliberate policy of mothballing. It will be noted that the letter from Lois Hill forwarded in the comments states that until as recently as six years ago, the small pavilion on this part of the site was used for dance classes and her daughter attended these.
[Para. 2.1]
It is not admitted that “the scheme is based upon the need to raise funds to provide a new sports hall for the school”. RAID refers in its main Statement of Case to ambiguities and discrepancies in the statement put forward by the Hewett School in its literature promoting the sale in respect of funding. In particular, RAID has established that there is no direct and unambiguous correlation between the sale of the playing fields to a consortium of private developers and the building of a new sports hall for the school. RAID has established that monies raised from the sale of the school playing fields will go to Norfolk County Council’s education budget. It has been stated that from these funds, some will be made available to the Hewett School for the building of a sports hall. But in view of the fact that the Hewett School is now officially on “special measures” in the light of its recent unsatisfactory OFSTED report, it must be questionable whether the monies raised from the sale of the playing fields will revert to the school. Furthermore, the Planning Inspectorate should be aware that Norfolk County Council has been having very considerable funding problems with its school programme in recent months due to the collapse of a private finance initiative. According to press reports, a substantial amount of money is being made available from central government funds to bail out the failed PFI initiative. It is in the context of the failed PFI initiative and the rolling programme for refurbishment of the County’s schools that the sale of a major asset like a part of the Hewett School playing fields should properly be viewed.
RAID has sought details of the total funding package from Norfolk County Council but has been informed that the information required is subject to commercial confidentiality. Since the developers and Norwich City Council both refer extensively to the funding package in their respective Statements of Case, we request that the information on the entire funding package and proposed allocation of all monies resulting from this proposed sale are made available to the Rule 6 Parties as soon as possible.
The statement that “the school was originally 2 schools and a third might have been accommodated on site” is misleading. Older residents confirm that the Hewett School was indeed originally two schools, a middle school and a high school. It is now one large school. A separate school (the Harford Manor Special Needs School) occupies land that was originally part of the Hewett School playing fields. Therefore the site already holds two schools, and in addition the playing fields are used by Notre Dame School, which is a school in the centre of Norwich that does not have its own playing fields.
Furthermore, the changes to school organization in the central area of Norfolk proposed by Norfolk County Council envisage a change to 11+ transfer to high schools across the region, including to the Hewett School. The Hewett School is expected to grow as a result of the reorganization. Norfolk County Council referred specifically in its “Consultation” in the Autumn of 2003 on these changes to the large playing fields at the Hewett School!
[Para. 3.1]
The figures provided by the developers in this section are misleading as giving the impression that a smaller percentage of protected urban green space would be lost than is actually the case. RAID has established that the total area of the Hewett School including playing fields, buildings etc. is 21.6 hectares. However, the area of playing fields (defined as urban green space on the Replacement Local Plan Proposals Map) is only 18.1 hectares. This does not include playground. The planning application site area is 3.6 hectares. Therefore a more proper assessment of the loss of protected urban green space would be 3.6 hectares from an area of 18.1 hectares.
[Para. 3.2]
It is not an accurate description that “the site is laid to grass and some trees”. More accurately, the site contains a good quality football pitch, a cinder track and athletics facilities that until at least year 2000 as referred to in the RAID Statement of Case were used by local primary schools, facilities for athletics such as a long jump and shot-put circle, and a pavilion which as well as being used as a changing room was used for dance classes and similar.
[Para. 4.1]
The statement that “a very generous package of access for the school and local community has been offered and will be secured by Section 106 Agreement” is misleading. According to discussion at the Norwich City Council Planning Committee Meeting in September 2004, access will be permitted to certain designated local community groups at specified times when the proposed David Lloyd development is not required by its members. This is far from being access for the local community as such. Furthermore it is likely that local community groups will still have to pay for use of the David Lloyd facilities and we note that the Section 106 Agreement has not yet been disclosed in its entirety.
Further information is requested on the figures provided for provision of “2000 tennis court hours of access” and “3000 multi-use games area court time”. It is noted that these figures are composite as being both for the school or the local community. If these figures are per annum, as is likely, this equates to approximately 38 hours per week only. It is not clear how much is split between the school or the community, nor is it clear whether the 38 hours refer to use of the whole of the site or use of only individual courts. Since one game of tennis, involving two people only, and may take two hours, it is questionable whether this package is “very generous”.
[Para. 4.2]
RAID has studied the “Needs Assessment” provided by the developers during the planning process and has commented in detail in its Statement of Case. RAID cannot comment on the national need for more tennis facilities, but on a local basis RAID has pointed out in its Statement of Case that both the immediate area of the Hewett School playing fields and the wider tennis community in Norwich and surrounding travel-to- work area are very well served by tennis facilities and are in particular very well served by private sector clubs providing tennis and other facilities.
[Para. 4.3]
It is noted that Teddies Day Nurseries have withdrawn. It is not clear to us how the planning application can proceed when one of the three parties to the application has decided that it does not wish to be any longer involved in the scheme. Furthermore, RAID doubts that a new operator will require exactly the same buildings, car parking facilities etc. as the Teddies Day Nurseries. Therefore RAID questions the validity and intellectual coherence of the current set of plans.
[Para. 4.4]
RAID notes that Westminster Healthcare has now withdrawn. RAID doubts that BUPA will want exactly the same facilities and exactly the same car parking as Westminster Homes. For reasons stated above, RAID questions the validity and intellectual coherence of the planning application in view of the fact that Westminster Healthcare has also withdrawn. RAID draws attention in particular to the letter dated 5th January 2005 from the Castle Partnership of Medical Practitioners operating from Tuckswood Surgery which voices a number of concerns at the proposed Nursing Home including lack of consultation with the practice about the development and the potential demand of medical services, the fact that this is already a built up area with little in the way of “greenfield” sites, and the lack of information on the numbers of additional patients who will be based in the residential home and how their medical needs will be met on a daily basis. These seem to us to be critical concerns.
RAID draws attention to the danger posed to any residents of the proposed Nursing Home who wish to go out from it on foot. In particular, attention is drawn to the traffic hazards that frail elderly residents would encounter if trying to cross the busy Hall Road. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the proposed shared pedestrian and cycle access routes to the site. Such shared routes pose a particular hazard to the frail elderly.
[Para. 4.5]
It is categorically denied that “there is no other source of funding available” for the Hewett School sports hall. In fact RAID has established that substantial amounts of money have been received by the Norfolk Education Authority from the Big Lottery Fund (which is now called the New Opportunities Fund) that would have been available for an application by the Hewett School to fund a sports hall. In particular, RAID has established that £5,493,051 was made available under the “PE and Sports Programme” to Norfolk Education Authority and £2.2M received under the “Space for Sports and Arts” allocation.
RAID has established by enquiry with Norfolk County Council that the Hewett School did not apply for lottery funding for its proposed sports hall, despite monies being available. (The Hewett School did apply for an unrelated grant of £31,285.61 for Study Support, including music, poetry, dance etc.) RAID makes further detailed comments in its Statement of Case in respect of the apparent failure on the part of the Hewett School to investigate all available sources of funding, as is of course a government requirement, before embarking on the sale of its playing fields.
The new school sports hall is the subject of a separate planning application before Norfolk County Council, and RAID has indicated its support for the principle of a new school sports hall provided that it is not at the cost of detriment to the local area and loss of protected urban green space. RAID has consulted the separate plans for the new school sports hall and there is indeed provision for some community use when not required by the school. But this is not relevant to the present planning application.
[Para. 5.1]
As further stated in detail in RAID’s Statement of Case, it is not admitted that the proposal meets policy laid down in the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan, and RAID reserves the right to further comment once the applicants have provided the analysis referred to in this paragraph.
[Para. 5.2]
It is denied that the proposals are appropriate to the character of the area. As stated in RAID’s Statement of Case, the area at the top of the Ipswich Road and junction with Cecil Road is a conservation area, and it should be noted that the Norwich Society were amongst the original objectors to the proposal at the planning application stage. RAID reserves the right to comment further once the applicants have provided a more detailed visual impact and design statement as referred to in this paragraph.
[Para. 5.3]
As argued in detail in RAID’s Statement of Case, the overriding presumption of PPG6 and as reflected by the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan is that there must be a “need” for the development. It is denied that the applicants have proven their need. In particular, it is denied that applicants have proven the need for a very “land hungry” concept in view of the existence of good quality tennis and leisure facilities referred to in RAID’s Statement of Case and as will be further evidenced.
It appears that the developers wish to amend the levels of car parking on the site (final part of Para. 5.3). In view of the fact, as stated below, that RAID believes that most users of the site will arrive by car, limiting available car parking will simply mean that illegal and nuisance parking in the adjoining streets and closes will become a further undesirable side effect of the development. RAID submits that this development is unnecessary as having no proven need and is over reliant on the car.
As stated below, it is not admitted that sustainable transport choices at the site are of any relevance in view of the fact that moneyed users of these expensive facilities will be arriving by car from outside the area.
[Para. 5.4]
RAID has drawn attention to the existence of other available sites where the sequential tests are more appropriately met. Furthermore, RAID draws attention to the Statement of Case presented by the Norwich Over the Water Party which refers to two City Centre sites in particular that on a purely objective basis appear to us to far better meet the sequential tests as well as having other benefits for the City Centre of Norwich as stated in the Norwich Over the Water Party’s Statement of Case.
As referred to in more detail in RAID’s Statement of Case, it is not admitted that most users of an expensive David Lloyd Leisure Centre, private residential facility for old people and private children’s nursery are likely to, or will use, bicycles to access the site or arrive on foot. Therefore it is submitted that comments by the developers about the contribution towards more sustainable transportation options are a smokescreen. It is clear that this development is not intended to benefit local people, particularly poorer people on the Tuckswood and Lakenham estates and nor will it be used to any great extent by local people at all in view of the high costs of membership of the David Lloyd Leisure Centre and very high costs of private childcare provision and residential care. Users of the site will arrive by car and will have a very seriously detrimental effect on the already congested traffic in the immediate area. Therefore it is not admitted that sustainable motor transport will help reduce reliance upon the car.
[Para. 5.5]
The statement that “Sport England have raised no objection to the DLL aspect of the proposal, their concerns relate only to the Nursery and Nursing Home” is selective and misleading. What Sport England actually said on page 4, paragraph 2, of their letter of 5th April 2004 is as follows:
“On balance, when considering just the David Lloyd Leisure Complex part of the proposed development against Section E5 of the Sport England’s policy, I am of the view that the sporting benefits of the proposed development will outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing fields. The Section E5 of our policy would therefore be satisfied if the development only comprised the David Lloyd Leisure Complex.
With respect to the proposed children’s Nursery and Nursing Home, whilst they are not the main elements of the development, the loss of the playing fields associated with them is not insignificant (0.67 hectares). Section E5 of the Sport England’s policy on playing fields does not permit non sporting facilities on playing fields and, as set out above, none of the other exceptions to the policy are applicable in this case. Furthermore, these aspects of the proposal would be contrary to government policy advice, as set out in paragraph 15 of PPG17 (July 2002) and Policy SR3 of the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan. I would therefore disagree with the applicant’s conclusion (paragraph 7.6 of the Planning Statement prepared by Cliff Walsingham & Company) that the proposal in its entirety complies with government and local plan policy”.
Sport England’s judgment was finely balanced. What Sport England actually said, and we quote as follows from paragraph 5 of page 4 of Sport England’s letter of 5th April 2004 is as follows:
“Sport England’s above conclusion that the David Lloyd Leisure Complex aspect of the proposed development would accord with Section E5 of our policy was a finely balanced decision. When the development is assessed as a whole, due to the inclusion of the non sporting uses, I have therefore come to the view that the detriment caused by the loss of the playing fields would not be outweighed by the sports development benefits. Furthermore, when considered in isolation, the proposed Nursery and Nursing Home would not accord with Sections E1 to E4 of our policy.”
Furthermore, Sport England gave this limited and provisional approval to the David Lloyd Leisure Complex aspect of the proposal only on the basis that (paragraph 1, page 4 of Sport England’s letter) the athletics track, cricket nets and pavilion will be satisfactorily replaced elsewhere on the school’s playing fields. RAID has not seen any evidence from the developers that the athletics track, cricket nets and pavilions will indeed be replaced. RAID seeks further information from the developers in this regard.
If in fact the athletics track, cricket nets and pavilions are not going to be satisfactorily replaced, then this loss must cause Sport England to review even its provisional approval of the David Lloyd Leisure Centre element of the proposal. If the athletics track, cricket nets and pavilions are to be built elsewhere on the site, RAID wishes to know whether this will result in further loss of the football pitches that are of such considerable benefit to the local community.
It is not admitted (final paragraph of 5.5) that there is any “need for the new facilities in their own right”. Please refer to RAID’s Statement of Case in particular Section 8, headed “Failure to prove ‘need’ for Development”.
Comments in respect of the Statement of Case filed by Norwich City Council
There now follows RAID’s comments on the Statement of Case of Norwich City Council. These are the comments submitted within nine weeks of the date of the call-in letter, extended by two weeks with the permission of the Planning Inspectorate in view of the two week extension requested by the applicants to file their Statement of Case.
As above, the numbering scheme of our comments follows the numbering scheme of the Statement of Case of Norwich City Council.
Where essentially the same comments apply to sections of the Statement of Case of Norwich City Council as have already been made in respect of comments in respect of the Statement of Case filed by the applicants Norfolk County Council, Wrenbridge, Norfolk and David Lloyd Leisure Limited, we request that such comments are brought in mutatis mutandis to our comments below.
[Para. 1.2]
The reference to “a derelict pavilion” is challenged as misleading. The pavilion was used for sports facilities as well as dance classes until recently. RAID has evidence that the pavilion has been permitted to become in a poor state of repair as a matter of deliberate policy by the Hewett School in furtherance of the school’s desire to sell this area of its playing fields.
[Para. 1.3]
This statement of fact is largely admitted. But RAID wishes to note that the area on the north and west side of the site is a conservation area according to the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan.
[Para. 2.4]
RAID challenges the City Council’s interpretation of Policy SR3 of the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan and in particular challenges the statement that “the loss of urban green space is acceptable as the new proposal will provide ‘an alternative facility of the equivalent sporting value’”. RAID challenges the assumption that the provision of expensive private sporting facilities through the David Lloyd Leisure Centre outweighs the loss of a valuable football pitch in the centre of the area proposed to be sold. Furthermore, the proposal in its totality is for a David Lloyd Leisure Centre, a residential home, and a children’s day care nursery. It is not clear how the provision of a residential home and a children’s day care nursery provides any sporting value.
RAID challenges the statement that “the overall scheme provides a ‘contribution to the amenity of the local community and to the biodiversity of the site’. It is not clear how the loss of playing fields that are very widely used by local football clubs will benefit the local community. Furthermore, it is not clear how the loss of protected urban green space will benefit the biodiversity of the area. As stated in the letter of 10th January 2005 from Lois Hill, the sports fields are used by large flocks of birds being one of the few large open areas in this part of Norwich and forms part of a green corridor that is vital for wildlife. Further comments on the biodiversity of the proposed site are provided in the Statement of Case of Gardens for Wildlife and indeed by the RAID Statement of Case.
[Para. 2.4]
RAID has stated in its Statement of Case that the proposed development is in breach of the City Council’s own policy SR13 (SR15 under the equivalent replacement of Local Plan second deposit version). In particular, RAID’s Statement of Case challenges that there is a “need” for the development. RAID’s Statement of Case, and also the Statement of Case of the Norwich Over the Water Party clearly shows that there are other sites that meet these sequential tests available in more accessible locations.
[Para. 3.2.1]
It is denied that the open space is “surplus to requirements”. As stated in detail in RAID’s Statement of Case, and as further referred to above, the area being sold is used by local football teams. This is also referred to by Sport England.
It is not admitted that there has been “full consideration to the potential alternative uses for [the] open space”. Indeed, various proposals have been made, for example by the Gardens for Wildlife Group, relating to the open space. As stated in RAID’s Statement of Case, there is an acute shortage of urban green space in the immediate area of the Hewett School. In particular, the community would greatly benefit from the establishment of a park or area for unofficial recreational activity. Therefore it is denied that “if the development did not proceed the site is likely to remain in its current unused state”.
As stated above, it is challenged that the site offers little in terms of its biodiversity value. RAID will be submitting evidence of the wildlife, in particular large flocks of birds, that regularly use the Hewett School playing fields.
It is denied that the site is surplus to the urban green space requirement of the City. As identified by Sport England, and as stated in detail in the RAID Statement of Case, there is a deficiency in the area of local football facilities as also evidenced by the City Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Guidelines of April 2004 at page 26.
[Para. 3.2.2]
PPG17, Section 18 (i) and (ii) refer to the obligation of the local authority to enhance existing open space. RAID submits that the local authority has an obligation to remedy the currently deficient state of the athletics track. Furthermore, as stated above, RAID has evidenced that far from passively “falling into disuse because of its state of repair” the Hewett School has pursued an active policy of mothballing this area of its playing fields, in order to facilitate their eventual sale. In particular, the Hewett School has refused permission for one local promoter of well regarded horse shows to use the Hewett fields in recent years, as will be evidenced. RAID notes that the Hewett School has recently taken to preventing local children from playing informally on the Hewett playing fields, despite the fact that for many years local children have had the benefit of the urban green space for informal ball games and running around. All of this taken together shows a deliberate policy on the part of the Hewett School to mothball the area now being sold.
The school may be satisfied that the requirements of its curriculum can be met on the remaining playing fields, but this is not the case for the wider community in particular, the local football playing community who make an extensive use of the football pitches on Saturdays and Sundays. RAID has consulted with the football playing community who are very concerned at the loss in absolute terms of football pitches. The football playing community are also very concerned that the realignment of the football pitches that are shown on the planning application will result in football pitches that are far to close together to the detriment of the games being played and in breach of National guidelines in this matter, as will be further evidenced. Sport England, in the letter dated 5th April 2004 referred to above has clearly stated that the football pitch being lost has, due to its quality, the potential to address deficiencies in football pitch provision in the catchment area, concluding that the loss of this pitch would therefore be detrimental to sporting interests.
The Norfolk County Football Association objected to the Planning Application and is referred to in Sport England’s letter of 5 April 2004. At the time of writing, the Chief Executive of Norfolk County FA advised that there are eight football teams currently using the Hewett School playing fields. Demand however fluctuates and can be greater than the available provision of playing fields in this area can support. Further evidence in respect of use of the playing fields by the local community will be led as available.
Furthermore, RAID challenges the assumption that the present and future curriculum needs of the Hewett School will be met by the reduced area of playing fields. In particular, RAID notes that there are county-wide plans to reorganise education at a secondary level, leading to an increase in the number of pupils attending the Hewett School.
As evidenced in RAID’s Statement of Case, these playing fields are used not only by the Hewett School, but also by Notre Dame school which being a City Centre school does not have its own playing fields. In view of the reorganisation of secondary school provision within the County, Norwich City Council is requested to revisit the assumptions it had previously made in respect of requirements for playing field provision.
[Para. 3.2.3]
We refer to PPG17 Section 18. We find it extraordinary that although the Hewett School has athletics provision that at least until the year 2000 were being used by schools in the area, as evidenced by RAID, and up until the late 1980’s were the main countywide athletics sports facility, nevertheless, the Hewett School pupils use the athletics facility at the UEA Sports Park. This puts additional strain on the facilities at the UEA Sports Park, as well as leading to an unnecessary increase in traffic and pollution while pupils are bused from the Hewett School to the UEA Sports Park. Such a situation is extraordinary in itself and can only lead to the further marginalisation of athletics within the school curriculum.
RAID challenges the statement that there is a deficiency in multi-use surfaces and indoor tennis provision in the City. Although RAID has read the Norwich Policy Area Playing Pitch assessment of February 2003, RAID will argue that the figures on which this assessment was based dates from 2002 or earlier. They do not take into account the considerable number of good quality leisure facilities built in recent years as well as the provision of facilities in country and leisure clubs within the Norwich drive to work area as will be evidenced.
The statement by the City Council in 3.2.3 that the David Lloyd Leisure Centre is “an alternative facility of equivalent sporting value which contributes to the amenity of the community” is challenged above and we note and challenge this assumption again now.
RAID challenges the statement that the proposed new development will not have a detrimental impact on existing facilities. In this context RAID notes that the Lakenham Sports and Leisure Centre, which is the closest to the redevelopment, was one of the objectors at the planning application stage, stating that the new development would seriously impact upon its viability. RAID also notes that one of the sports and leisure facilities on Queens Road, close to the site, appears to have gone out of business recently indicating that there is more than sufficient provision in the area for sports and leisure facilities, as stated in more detail in RAID’s Statement of Case. It is not clear that the assessment of need for new facilities complies with the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan policies SR1, 2 or 3.
[Para. 3.3.2]
The Council’s reliance on the developers’ sequential analysis assessment is challenged. As stated above, RAID has drawn attention in its Statement of Case, as has the Norwich Over the Water Party in its Statement of Case, to viable and appropriate development sites which far better meet the sequential tests.
[Para. 3.3.3]
As stated above, and as stated in detail in RAID’s Statement of Case, it is denied that there is any need for the present development, and it is not admitted that the developers have proved any need. Therefore the City Council’s support for the developers is challenged.
[Para. 3.4.1]
As stated in the same context at page 7 above, the quotation from Sport England’s letter of 5th April 2004 is at best misleading and at worst a selective quotation. The full quotation in this context from the above letter of Sport England is quoted at page 7 above.
Furthermore, this development package comprises three elements, namely the David Lloyd Leisure Centre, the residential home and the children’s day care nursery. RAID once again draws attention to the fact that Sport England, which is a statutory party, has rejected the development proposal. Therefore it is misleading for the City Council to cherry-pick part of the planning development and say that it is approved by Sport England when clearly it is not.
[Para. 3.4.2]
RAID’s comments at pages 3-4 above refer equally to the City Council’s statement that the S106 Agreement will benefit organised community groups. RAID submits that informal recreation and play are greatly to the benefit of both children and adults. This proposal does nothing for the provision of informal play and recreation. Furthermore it will actively disadvantage the community groups who use the football pitches on Saturdays and Sundays as stated above.
[Para 3.5.1]
It is denied that building a residential Nursing home on designated urban green space is in compliance with the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan. RAID again draws attention to the objections to the proposed Nursing Home from the Castle Partnership and Medical Practitioners by their letter of 5th January 2005.
[Para. 3.6.1]
At present the Teddies Day Nurseries has pulled out from the development altogether and no other provider of expensive private nursery provision has been identified. Nevertheless, as stated in RAID’s Statement of Case, the costs of private nursery care are very high indeed. Certainly they are outside the range or expectation of the local area, in particular people living on the Tuckswood and Lakenham estates. It is denied that the nursery will provide a service for the employees of the development. Such employees are likely to be low wage (cleaners, care assistants, security staff etc.) who are very unlikely to be able to afford expensive nursery facilities. Furthermore, there is already a good and valued children’s nursery on the Hewett School site. It celebrated its 30 year anniversary last year. There is no proven need for the nursery development. RAID is not aware that either the developers or Norwich City Council have canvassed local residents or conducted any survey in the area to ascertain the need for expensive private nursery facilities of this nature.
[Para. 3.6.2]
It is denied that the size and site of the nursery and nursing home “will form only a small part of the application site”. This point is dealt with in more detail by the letter from Sport England of 5th April 2004. In particular we draw attention to paragraph 3 of page 4 of the Sport England letter, where it is stated that the loss of playing fields associated with the proposed nursery and nursing home is not insignificant (0.67 hectares). In terms of area of urban green space lost, the children’s nursery and nursing home represents just under one fifth of the total area of the development site (3.6 hectares).
We put Norwich City Council on notice that we require to have full sight in good time before the hearing of the documentation from the applicants where it is concluded that the whole development package is essential to fund a new sports hall on another part of the Hewett School site. As stated in the RAID Statement of Case, and as further referred at page 3 above, we have tried to obtain this critical funding information from Norfolk County Council, but have been told it is commercially confidential and therefore excluded from the minutes of the applicable Norfolk County Council meeting. It seems to us quite wrong, and contrary to the Freedom of Information Act 2005 that this critical information is not in the public domain. We can only assume that it has not been made public because by doing so publication will reveal that the sale of protected urban green space to a consortium of private developers goes far wider than simply making funds available for a school sports hall.
[Para. 3.6.3]
We remind the parties that the proposed new school sports hall in the matter of an entirely separate planning application currently before Norfolk County Council.
Furthermore, we do not accept that (in so far as it is relevant for the present application at all) the new sports hall will benefit existing users and community groups of the Hewett School playing fields in a way that will compensate for the loss of football pitches and the realignment of such pitches as remain. The concerns of the community football players and clubs are referred to above and will be further evidenced. There will clearly be fewer football pitches for the community to use and therefore more pressure on the use of remaining space.
[Para. 3.7.2]
RAID refers to the fact that The Norwich Society has objected to the development, and it will undoubtedly impact upon the conservation area in the Ipswich Road/Cecil Road end of the site. The Norwich Society has objected to loss of views from houses on the Tuckswood estate over the current urban green space, which will clearly be blocked by a large metal shed which in essence is what the plan envisages.
[Para. 3.7.3]
We refer to the proposed reduction in car parking at page 6 above. We refer again to the that the majority of the users of this expensive private development will arrive by car. If car parking is restricted then the users will simply nuisance park in the residential roads surrounding the site. In any event, parking for 240 cars cannot under any circumstances be said to promote a pedestrian cyclist friendly environment between the buildings. We have referred in detail in the RAID Statement of Case to the discrepancies and difficulties for pedestrian and cycle access to the site shown on the plans, indicating that the developers do not in fact expect people to use environmentally friendly transport forms.
[Para. 4.1]
RAID has mounted a detailed challenge to the transportation assessment in its Statement of Case. RAID vigorously denies that the City Council has ensured the provision of a proper transport assessment. In particular, it is very clear from the standard transport assessment carried out that the impact of the scheme has not been properly understood on the surrounding area and in particular on the residential roads comprising Cecil Road, Grove Walk and Trafford Road in particular. Residents’ requests for a proper transport assessment based upon work already done by Norfolk County Council as part of the Norwich City Council traffic calming strategy have been denied us. We will be submitting full traffic information showing that the transport assessment provided by the developers is misguided, misleading and simply wrong in practice. Its premises and proposed traffic flows pay no account to the actual practicalities of the local area, and therefore additional traffic generated by the scheme will have a very adverse impact.
[Para. 4.2]
As stated above, we challenge the statement that people will access this development on foot or by bicycle because the facilities on offer are outside the affordable range of the majority of people in this area. Therefore the statements and premises made in 4.2.1 are challenged in total.
[Para. 4.2.2]
We note that even the Norwich City Council Statement of Case agrees that the David Lloyd Leisure facility is likely to attract membership from a wide area that will encourage trips by car. We agree that some of these trips may have been made anyway, for example, dropping children off at the local private schools or driving into senior managerial or legal jobs in the City Centre.
But we submit that the City Council has paid no attention to the practicalities of use of the site and the effect additional traffic will have on the local area, in particular as stated the network of roads including Cecil Road, Grove Walk and Trafford Road that already suffer quite high levels of rat running. If it is indeed the City Council’s intention to take traffic off the Ipswich Road and Hall Road and have this traffic filtering through residential roads which are not equipped to deal with them in order to reach the David Lloyd Leisure Centre, then such an intention is in clear breach of the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan and in clear contravention of the local area traffic calming strategy adopted by Norwich City Council only in 2003. RAID and the associated individuals and groups concerned about this development absolutely deny that the local traffic impact “is within acceptable levels”. Traffic levels are not currently acceptable in this area; the building of an expensive private development of this nature can only further damage residents’ quality of life.
Furthermore, the City Council makes no mention in 4.2.2 of the very long hours that are proposed for the opening of the David Lloyd Leisure Centre. As commented in more detail in RAID’s Statement of Case, the additional traffic movements generated by this site in the quiet residential roads adjoining it will be very early in the morning and very late at night which will have a significant detrimental effect on local quality of life.
[Para. 4.2.3]
RAID comments in its Statement of Case on the existing poor provision of bus services in our area. RAID has commented on the fact that the transport assessment of the developers does not reflect the actual position of bus services. We will make further comments in this regard.
[Para. 5.1]
Residents have not been consulted about alternative open space uses. In fact, as stated in the Statement of Case of the Gardens for Wildlife group, various uses have been proposed. The local footballing community has not been consulted about the loss of football pitches.
RAID notes that “s.77 approval” by the DFES was granted well before the Government’s 10 August 2004 statement on tightened rules for disposal of school playing fields. RAID submits that such approval was improperly granted at the time, but should now be reviewed in the light of changes in Government policy.
[Para. 5.2]
RAID does not accept that there is no sequentially preferable site for this type of development elsewhere in the City. RAID draws attention to its own submissions in its Statement of Case and also to the submissions of the Norwich Over the Water Party, drawing attention in particular to a very large suitable site between St. Augustines and Anglia Square, and the available site on the Jarrolds Printworks.
[Para. 5.3]
It is denied that the proposal provides any substantial community benefits as further stated in detail above.
[Para. 5.4]
The Nursing Home and Nursery are not consistent with PPG17 and are not consistent the protection of urban green space in the City of Norwich Replacement Local Plan. Sport England has specifically rejected the building of the Nursing Home and nursery. We note that at present the company behind the original Nursing Home has pulled out, as has the company behind the proposed children’s nursery. Another commercial provider of expensive private nursing care now wishes to exploit this site, but no alterative provider of a children’s nursery has yet been identified.
[Para. 5.5]
As stated in greater detail above, this is a selective interpretation of Sport England’s detailed reservations about the entire development.
It is denied that there is a direct and clear hypothecation of funds raised from the sale of the site to provide a new school sports hall. Furthermore, it is denied that all other means of funding the new school sports hall have been explored and exhausted before sale of the playing fields is considered. RAID submits that the sale of the playing fields is in clear breach of the Government’s own guidelines in this matter which state that the sale of playing fields should only be an absolute last resort.
[Para. 5.8]
It is categorically denied that “there is clear and overriding community need for development in this location which would outweigh the loss of urban green space”. On the contrary, when the community was consulted on an earlier variation of this plan, it robustly turned down the proposals, as stated in RAID’s Statement of Case. Furthermore, the level of public concern and the number of local community groups opposing this scheme indicates beyond anything else the level of community concern. It is a plank of RAID’s submission that the “need” for this development has not been proven and we put the onus on Norwich City Council to show such need. Far from benefiting the local community, the loss of urban green space will mean that members of the community will be deprived of their football pitches and the benefit of urban green space and a local wildlife corridor.
[Para. 6]
In common with the other parties, RAID reserves the right to add to amend its Statement of Case, including list of documents, and its evidence in the light of further documentation and other information received from the applicants, Norwich City Council, other such parties or interested persons.
Statement of Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group
We do not understand why the statement of the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group is termed “a third party representation” rather than being granted the status of a Statement of Case as a Rule 6 Party.
The Statement of Case of the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group was submitted in good time by the original deadline of 30th December 2004. It states clearly (paragraph 2) that Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group would like to speak at the inquiry. This is a clear request to be a Rule 6 Party. Furthermore, the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group has made detailed points in its Statement of Case that it wishes to make at the inquiry.
The Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group is clearly seeking to comply with the rules relating to the provision of Statements of Case because it has provided three copies of its representation.
Therefore we respectfully request that the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group is named as a Rule 6 Party to the inquiry.
Statement of Case of the South Hertford Branch, Norfolk and Norwich Pensioners Association
For the same reasons, we do not understand why the Statement of Case of the South Harford Branch, Norfolk and Norwich Pensioners Association has been relegated to the status of a third party representation rather than a Statement of Case by a Rule 6 Party.
It is very clear that the South Harford Branch, Norfolk and Norwich Pensioners Association has gone to a great deal of trouble to prepare a proper referenced and headed Statement of Case which was submitted in good time by the original deadline and received by the Inspectorate on the 20th December 2004.
It is clear from the care of which the South Harford Branch, Norfolk and Norwich Pensioners Association has presented its Statement of Case that it does wish to be heard at the inquiry and we request that it is made a Rule 6 Party.
We are sending you seven copies of this letter as required by the Rules. We understand that you will send copies to the other Parties.
Kindly acknowledge safe receipt and issue directions on the further conduct of proceedings.
Yours sincerely,
KEITH FARWELL
On behalf of R.A.I.D.