|
Failure to Prove a "Need" for Development
What are the tests? The Government's own Planning Policy Guidance 6 (PPG6) states that the purpose of current planning law is to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and other existing centres by focusing retail, leisure and other key town centre uses which attract a lot of people within those centres. It sets out a number of tests that must be satisfied if applications to develop retail or leisure facilities are to be successful. In summary, applicants must: n demonstrate that there is a need for the development; n having established that such a need exists, adopt a sequential approach to site selection; n consider the impact on nearby centres; and n provide evidence on the site's accessibility by a choice of means of transport, as demonstrated by a transport assessment, the likely changes in travel patterns over the relevant catchment area, and any significant environmental impacts. These principles also apply to leisure uses. Link n Government information on PPG6
Were the tests applied here? We are concerned that the tests in PPG6 for sequential development, and adopted by the Local Plan, have not been properly applied. On the publicly available planning file from Cliff Walsingham & Company there is a statement that, in the developers’ view, the sequential planning tests must be adapted in view of the alleged aim of this development to raise money for the Hewett School sports hall. We argue that the sequential tests in PPG6 are not intended to be adapted or minimised in the manner envisaged by the developers. Instead, they are intended to be rigorous guidelines, and have been written into the Local Plan. It is clear that in reading the sequential tests in PPG6, it is first necessary to look at whether there is any “need” for development to take place at all. We understand that this need must be established before the sequential tests are carried out. We do not believe that the developers have proven an overriding need for this development at all in terms of raising money for the Hewett School sports hall.
Why don't we need this sports centre? We have good sports facilities in this area, and believe that the developers have not demonstrated an over-riding need for a David Lloyd Leisure Centre in the area. In particular, we will submit evidence that the developers substantially under-reported and understated the availability of high quality sport and leisure facilities within the catchment area. In addition, the developers have not taken into account the good quality public provision of sports and leisure facilities. n Click here to see a long list of the sports facilities we found in this area. It is clear that the proposed David Lloyd Leisure Centre cause existing leisure facilities in the immediate area to suffer. for example, we already have a local tennis "centre of excellence", and paragraph 10.55 of the Local Plan states, “for many activities, such as indoor tennis, it is likely that only one such facility, at most, will be economically viable in the Norwich area…”. n Click here to see more information about local tennis facilities. Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club was one of the objectors to the Planning Application at the consultation stage. The papers before the Planning Committee meeting of 16 September 2004 noted that a letter of objection had been received from Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club that the proposed development would be “severely detrimental to the viability of their sporting facilities”. Lakenham Academy is a leading “Accredited Performance Club”, and we feel that the Planning Committee were misdirected in over-riding the objections to the Planning Application from Lakenham Sports and Leisure Club.
Possible costs of the proposed sports centre With some difficulty, we found a list of fees for the comparable David Lloyd Leisure Centre in Stevenage (one of the nearest David Lloyd centres to us), showing that membership fees for a couple were £135 joining fee and £100.50 monthly subscription (£1,341 per annum), in late 2004. This sort of cost puts these facilities well out of range of many local residents. Residents least able to afford the fees are also those geographically nearest to the proposed development, living on the Lakenham and Tuckswood estate - hence our worries that the centre would be used very largely by people driving into the area. The web page where we found the list is now unavailable, but you can see a copy of the information it contained by clicking here.
Why don't we need the nursing home? Although there have been some problems in the wider Norwich area in the provision of care homes for the elderly because of the closure of smaller homes, nevertheless there is no proven need for a very exclusive, expensive nursing home. We do have old people’s care and nursing home care in this area. There is, for example, a nursing home on Ipswich Road and an old people's home in Cecil Road. Existing nursing homes are finding a huge difficulty in obtaining staff, which leads us to question whether there is any business case or social need for the nursing home proposed. In particular, the Methodist Home for the Elderly on Cecil Road, which adjoins and overlooks the Hewett School playing fields is currently experiencing difficulty recruiting staff. Such problems will be exacerbated by the inevitable “poaching” of staff by a new Nursing Home, to the detriment of the people currently in the care of existing facilities for the elderly. We are also aware that the GP's practice most local to the proposed nursing home feels that it would be unable to take on the patients from a new nursing home.
Possible costs of the new nursing home We found details from a Westminster Home in Peterborough, which is a comparable modern new-build Westminster Nursing Home. (We are aware that Westminster has withdrawn from this application, and BUPA is now proposing to run the proposed nursing home, but we still feel that these figures give us some idea of what would be charged.) We have established that costs are based on total medical care and are banded depending on need. The minimum cost is £555 per week; the maximum is £665 per week. There is some local authority help available, but local authority help will not cover anything like this level of fees.
Why don't we need the nursery? In strict terms of need, we are questioning whether the children’s nursery is needed. We note that those using such nursery facilities are likely to be from outside the immediate area, because the fees charged are likely to be very high. As residents, we are greatly concerned at the impact the proposed building of a nursery will have on the well-regarded and popular Hewett School under-5’s nursery. The Hewett School nursery is for the benefit of teachers and the local community. Approximately a third of its children are children of teachers at the Hewett School; the remainder are from the local area. The Hewett School nursery was established in 1974 and recently celebrated its 30th anniversary. Its buildings are adjacent to those of the proposed Teddies nursery. We have established that fees payable to the Hewett School nursery are very considerably less than those payable to the proposed Teddies Nursery. Since the application was made, Teddies nursery has withdrawn, and we do not yet know who would run the proposed nursery school. However, for the sake of comparison, here are some details from a Teddies nursery in Southampton. We noted in particular, from an OFSTED report that the catchment area for the Southampton nursery is recorded as being within a 30 minute/ 10 mile radius drive (not local), so it would clearly be likely to bring more traffic into the area immediately around us. There are other nurseries in this area as well, that do serve the local community. Link n http://www.fivecentres.org/news.htm
Possible costs of the new nursery We have established that there is a £40 registration fee for the Southampton nursery, then costs for children under 3 are £672.92 per month and costs for children over 3 - £629.17 per month. There is a sibling discount of 15% for older child. That is £14,532.57 per year for 2 children (out of earned income).
CONTACT US R.A.I.D. c/o Keith Farwell 7 Cecil Road Norwich NR1 2QL
|
|