Introduction
Before noting my specific objections
to the revised Germany Beck reserved matters application and also the renewal
of outline permission, I want to make some comments on the process that has
brought us to this point. My purpose is to show that there have been serious
flaws and omissions in this process. Vital information was ignored that the
rules demand should have been considered. Furthermore there are numerous
recent changes that should lead to refusal of planning permission.
We have reached the present situation
only because serious errors were made which challenge the legitimacy, and
possibly the legality, of the process (part one). This has left many issues in
need of a realistic re-assessment (part two). The National Planning Policy
Framework is the new and cogent document against which planning decisions
should be made. Because this document recognises that existing plans can be
reassessed, it is also examined here (part three).
All of the information set out in this
lengthy response has direct relevance to the planning matters under
consideration for both the detailed, or reserved, matters and any
consideration to grant an extension. I have set out my objections in three
distinct parts.
·
Part One deals with the process itself and
why I do not feel that this application can be accepted as it stands since
there are important, underlying issues which must be addressed before
attending to the detail (or reserved matters). Part One also serves to show
that I have presented all the information necessary for the planning process
to work properly at the appropriate time. But it was not considered, or was
dealt with incorrectly, during this planning process. (So there is some
overlap between the sections of this document.)
·
The second part deals with the many issues to
which I want to raise as either detailed or principled objections, the latter
based on the failure of the applicant to deal with many matters they are
supposed to address and in some cases to change their design to such a degree
that should make any earlier permission invalid. There are numerous recent
material changes that should lead to refusal of planning permission. At the
very least, the sustainable development guidelines set out in the Planning
Framework (2012) clearly allows planning authorities to require changes to an
outline plan when such changes are made. (Please note that much of the
information that should have been considered is in part one so they could have
been considered earlier).
·
Part three looks to the future and the
planning context that is outlined in the new framework – this will show how
pitifully the present application stands up to inspection in the light of how
the Government thinks planning should be done. The clarity of this short
document really does expose the shortcomings of the existing plan. The
proposed plans have to be refused on grounds of the planning guidance in the
NPPF as further set out in Part Three.
Adopting this layout will, I hope, put
the present stage of the planning process into its proper context. There is
some overlap with the topics but this is necessary in order to illustrate that
issues have been overlooked by the planning process and to ensure that it is
now properly examined.
The changed context
The political environment in which
this matter is being considered has also changed significantly and the
application should recognise this. Once again I must point out that the
applicants would have you believe that the wider political context is
irrelevant to this consideration. In this country it is the politicians who
determine what is relevant within the rule of law and my purpose in recapping
some aspects of the planning process is in the hope that the political process
will assert its rights. When mistakes are recognised they must be rectified.
The examples of the Bloody Sunday and
Hillsborough Inquiries have revealed that what passed for due process was in
fact no such thing. Other key instruments of power including Parliament, the
banks and the press have been found wanting in the intervening years since
outline approval was granted. We are, I hope, moving into an era of openness
and integrity where the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law will be
obeyed.
It is in this changed political
context that I now feel able to appeal to the Planning Committee to review how
much information was overlooked or misrepresented during the planning process.
My appeal is that they make decisions that will ensure this planning
application is fully reviewed.
It is not only the political context
that has shifted. The economic context has changed and there is a much greater
awareness of the changing natural environment. The latter has been recognised.
The EIA
rules (2011) can be applied since they are explicit that matters of flooding
and heritage allow applications to be re-considered. The situation along
Germany Beck qualifies and passes this test with exceptional flooding and some
outstanding heritage.
·
In the case of the former, there is now a
much greater willingness to recognise the issues caused by climate change and
especially the revised climatic patterns.
·
In the case of the latter, the existence of
the major 1066 battle of Fulford precisely where it is proposed that the
access road should run is now beyond any serious doubt.
The planning authority is empowered, and should, demand
changes to the plan or should refuse permission.
The Planning Framework also encourages
planning authorities to seek “opportunities to facilitate the relocation of
development, including housing, to more sustainable locations where flooding
patterns are better recognised. (para 100) I would encourage the Planning
Committee to follow this suggestion.
An apology
I must apologise for the lack of
polish to my paper but the timetable does not allow for the work required. As
this has to be done in my spare time it inevitably lacks all then
cross-referencing that I would like to include but I would need 6 months to
write a proper response for which I again apologise. I object most strongly
that the applicant can dictate the timetable by submitting changes whenever
they like and impose such a workload on people working to serve the public
good, such as myself.
The time allowed for objections is
suitable for a small, domestic development but totally inadequate for major
developments. I am no NIMBY but am seeking to ensure that those who will make
the decisions on behalf of the public are well-informed and are not misled.
The value of public consultations
The timetable for ‘objections’
belittles the role of those who know the area and have valuable, accurate
information which they can give to those responsible for deciding these
matters. I do not see my primary role as an objector. What I am seeking to do
is ensure that accurate facts are set forward. I see my role as attempting to
ensure that an informed decision can be taken. It is only the omissions and
misrepresentations that have been provided by the applicants that has turned
me into an ‘objector’. (My early correspondence with the applicant reveals
that I recognised that we need both heritage and houses and tried to work with
them.)
Members of the public with specialist
knowledge can make a significant contribution to assessing any planning
application. The planning process has become too formalised with Quango
consultees being used in what looks like a ‘box-ticking’ exercise with local
experts being marginalised in the way their work is considered. The expertise
and hard work by concerned members of the public should not be overlooked.
Their work deserves a place at the very heart of all deliberations about this
planning application.
The new planning framework places so
much more emphasis on the need for proper and timely consultation with the
community rather than the confrontational process which works so much in
favour of the applicant. What I have provided here must be incorporated into
the planning consideration and not ignored and marginalised as it has been in
the past. With planning resources so limited, COYC should welcome and
encourage the role of the public as inspectors and examiners of all planning
proposals.
What next?
Please enforce the principle embodied
in the planning process for proper public consultation. The process can only
work as intended when proposals, observations and objections are presented
alongside each other. It is the failure to link the two that has undermined
the validity of the process so far. (The Planning Framework – see part 3 - has
specific suggestions that all information should be up-to-date and brought
together.)
The community, through the planning
process, transfers a substantial privilege to the applicant. The community, in
exchange, has the right to expect that its concerns will be heard and where
necessary accommodated. The views of the community must be heard and addressed
in any plan for the area of Germany Beck.
Because this has not happened (part
one) and mistakes have been made, it is inappropriate to move forward with the
present process as many of the substantive issues I will raise in Part Two
were not assessed in accordance with the rules. Given the time that has
elapsed it is necessary to look at the Planning Framework which dramatically
simplifies and brings clarity to the key issues in planning. The present
application fails so badly and so comprehensively when subject to a fresh
examination.
So I will argue that this application
cannot be dealt with as a matter of settling a few details at this stage as
the applicants would wish, but must respect the many rules which require key
environmental (including flooding) and heritage issues to be discussed first.
My 34 points are summarised next with
a detailed discussion in each part of this submission. I need to be sure that
there can be no pretence that the necessary information for a sensible
decision has not been presented.
Charles Jones
December 2012
For further information see
·
fulfordbattle.com,
·
savefulford.org and
·
fulfordtapestry.info
As a
footnote can I add that the claim, repeated by the applicants, that I formed
the Fulford Battlefield Society in 2002 in order to oppose the development, is
quite wrong. A constituted society was indeed formed during 2002 at the behest
of the National Lottery so that a substantial grant towards the on-going
project could be given. However York Archaeological Trust brought together
various interested parties during 2000 and I was one of a number of people who
were already looking for the likely site of the battle. My own research began
when I moved to Fulford in 1982 with the help of the Guild of Voluntary
Guides. I resent the attempts that have been made to impugn my motivations – I
also resent the way the applicant launched so many personal attacks on me
during the public inquiry. Such behaviour suggests to me that the applicants
are afraid to address the facts that I am trying to present.
Summary of issues
These are the questions, points and
objections that I am raising. I have put the reference to the particular
section
1
Documents not supplied in evidence
I explain
that documents I sought were not provided. Furthermore many I found to be
flawed or incomplete. I have still not been able to obtain essential
information. There is a need to provide resources to undertake an audit of the
applicant’s paperwork because a decision cannot be made without all the
information.
2
Visibility of information provided by the public
There can be no justification for proceeding with considering this application
until the matter has been seen by the public – they will have to live with the
consequences. The ‘crowd-mind’ can assist the planning process - and the
rules say they should be consulted.
3
Weapons finds
The
applicant’s archaeological work was not appropriate for a battlefield. Why
were the exceptional finds by other parties ignored? Why was some of the
relevant information not reported in the planning committee? Why did nobody
tell those who had to make the decisions that the applicant’s work was not
relevant and contradicted the findings from the battlefield research? Why was
the extensive landscape and other physical evidence not presented to the
planning committee?
4
Stopping up orders
When I
asked the Government office that granted the ‘stopping-up order’ (for the
access road) why they had ignored my objection that no archaeological work
had been conducted before granting their order, they told me that their
information was that the area had already been investigated. This assurance
was wrong and I want to be sure that the planning authorities are aware of
this. COYC should not allow the permission to stand given that it was granted
without any prior archaeological investigation. This should be subject to a
fresh application.
5
Work that should have been addressed
When
applying for an extension of time for the Germany Beck development, the
applicants were told by the COYC planning officers to address the issues
raised in the report called Finding Fulford. This requirement was
completely ignored, except to claim that such work would be unnecessary. The
applicants did not address the matters. You should back your officers and
decline the application until the applicants do what they have been instructed
to do.
6
The Environmental Study
At the
heart of the original planning process was a deeply flawed study which
suggested that Germany Beck was probably a relatively modern ditch. The
wording of the applicant’s report was masterful since it took care not to deny
that the beck was a glacial channel carved during the last ice age because
their own work demonstrated its antiquity. But this unexamined falsehood has
been used to persuade the planning inspector, and others, that the beck might
not have been there at the time of the battle of Fulford in 1066. I have
challenged the COYC officers and English Heritage to expose this gross
misrepresentation and this document must be thrown out and a truthful document
supplied in its place.
7
The geology that made Germany Beck
Very great
care must be exercised before any decision is made to destroy Germany Beck. So
I would like to take this final opportunity to ensure that those responsible
for making decisions about this landscape have understood the magnificent
forces that have shaped Germany Beck. The real drama that led to the formation
of Germany Beck and the River Ouse and the moraines that are responsible for
the location of the city of York are explained.
8
Planning Creep
I also
strongly object to the ‘planning creep’ that is manifest in this application –
Ignoring known issues and the many material changes to the plan that was
approved demand a new application for permission. The destruction of Stone
Bridge, ignoring the buried hydrology, the omission of the pumping station
from new plans, the anticipatable traffic overload and blocking of the ring
road, lack of through access required by plans and many other issues. The
inadequacies of the present plan must lead to the applications being refused
permission.
9
Common Land
This is
included as it supports my thesis that evidence has been ignored and rights
trampled during the planning process. COYC has been passive or a party to
these undertakings and would invite the elected members to address what has
been done in their name. I was able to document that I had used the land over
which the access road is planned to run without any hindrance for over 20
years. My evidence provided a sufficient case of itself to establish this as a
village green. During cross examination none of the evidence was challenged –
it was simply ignored when the decision was made. However, my evidence was
completely ignored.
10
Other matters that were ignored by the public inquiry and the planning
process
There were
many issues raised in the ‘call in’ letter that led to the public inquiry. I
addressed the issues but the inspector ignored many of the issues set out in
his mandate. I have included them in part one as they should have been
addressed and I suggest, must still be addressed. For example the call-in
letter asked if burying the battle site could be considered ‘in-situ’
preservation! The economic value of the undisturbed site was supposed to be
addressed (much more on this in part 3): The type of housing, a proper debate
about green belt, the appropriateness of living on a flood plain and a
critical assessment of all paperwork should have been a part of the inquiry.
So I have included the evidence I provided in the expectation that the
planning system will now address these outstanding issues especially as there
have not just been a material change with regard to the archaeology but also
with regard to amongst others the green belt, the conservation area and the EA
flood risk predictions.
11
The planning rules that should have prevented the heritage of the
battle site
The
question address in section 11 is ‘why were so many clear rules ignored?’ My
paper sets out the relevant rules regarding heritage. They should have been
considered and made the battle field safe from development if the rules had
been applied and the NPPF in part 3 is equally clear. My contention is that
the rules must now be applied because that is the law. But it would also be
interesting to know why the rules were so easily set-aside.
12
Another perspective on the way the planning process works
If you
have not experienced what happens then this light-hearted narrative about the
site visit at the end of the public inquiry is worth reading. Is it really
sensible to allow any process to stand which has included such behaviour by
the applicants?
13
Water voles and wildlife
Germany Beck has been an established and thriving habitat for water voles
which has been visited by Yorks Wildlife, Council Officers and specially
trained Police officers to investigate the destruction of the habitat. I
object to the Germany Beck application on the grounds that it has failed to
take account of the diverse wildlife that uses the beck as a conduit to the
extensive natural hinterland including Heslington Common.
14
Bats
This is another grave defect in the process. A proper, credible survey of the
importance of the Germany Beck corridor should have been incorporated into
initial planning decision: My first set of questions to the applicant’s
witness at the public inquiry asked why a proper bat survey had not been done,
why none of the existing references to bats in the area had been mentioned in
their submission and what research they had done to allow them to ignore the
obligation to assess this BEFORE any decision was made? The proposed access
junction would completely obliterate this important wildlife corridor to an
extent that mitigation is impossible.
15
Stone Bridge
I was
assured at the Public Inquiry that there was no need for archaeology on this
bridge since it was not going to be destroyed. This is a very old bridge and
cannot be destroyed without a very thorough investigation and discussion. Such
planning creep is not allowed. The proposed destruction requires a full, new
application.
16
Obliteration of the ancient ford from which Fulford derives its name
The area
designated for the junction has been scoured and eroded by the Beck as it
adjusted its course to pass though the gap now spanned by Stone Bridge. This
is at the very heart of the battle of Fulford. This is the ford across the
‘ditch’ where the battle was fought. It must also be subject to a full
independent investigation of its archaeology before its fate is decided.
17
Green belt
The area
where the access road is proposed has never been subject to proposals to
remove it from green belt. The inspector in his report claimed that it was a
mistake or oversight that a small portion of green belt had kept its full
protection, when nearby green belt land had its status reduced. The inspector
argued that those charged with advising on the green belt must have recognised
that this portion would be needed when the hinterland was developed. There is
no rationale for such an assumption. I would ask the planning committee to
reverse this fallacious assumption and not to accept the tautologous reasoning
so far presented to justify the loss of this piece of green belt.
18
Archaeology
I object
very strongly to the claims made in chapter 14.1.8 of the application for
extension of time, and repeated in the reserved matters application, that
there is no evidence for the battle of Fulford taking place along Germany
Beck. A substantial body of evidence has been found and details published – in
June 2012 it was the subject of a publication by the Royal Armouries. How
could it have been possible for the planning process to ignore this extensive
body of evidence?
19
Archaeological work that has been blocked
I have
made several attempts to persuade the COYC archaeologist to use his authority
to get the investigative work done in a timely fashion. I include extracts
from two of my letters which plead with COYC to exert its authority to provide
the facts needed for an informed decision by the planning process. It would
be inappropriate to take the application forward when a timely provision of
the full picture could and should have been made available. It cannot be right
to reward those who prevent inconvenient information being revealed.
20
Additional archaeological evidence
A metal-detectorist
found what is probably another metal reprocessing site to match those
identified along the south side of the beck in 2011 in an area where finds
were predicted but where we were not allowed to search. There is so much more
to be uncovered.
21
Timetable for the work
It defies
logic to allow heritage or environmental issues to be carried out AFTER
permission has been granted. Logic and common sense both dictate that if these
issues are likely to be important, and in the case of Germany Beck, this is
already clear, the work had to be done before the application could be
determined.
22
The threshold for Heritage Asset is low and the protection high
Can the
applicants explain why they keep insisting that this site is not the site of
the battle of Fulford when all informed observers recognise that Germany Beck
is the probable site of the battle of Fulford. As far as I know, all the
impartial observers recognise Germany Beck as the site of the battle. There is
nothing in the rules that requires an asset to be proved. The burden of proof
does not lie with the heritage asset – It is the applicant who has to show
that their work will not destroy irreplaceable assets. The planning system
must re-assert this fundamental rule. After that, the threshold set out in all
of the planning rules should be applied: Happily there is so much evidence for
the battlesite that it will easily clear any sensible threshold of
probability.
23
Flooding
I am still
incredulous that a plan that was shown to be wrong and which presented data
that was demonstrably incorrect is still being considered as viable even when
the new realities of ‘peak-rain’ have been manifesting themselves. The
planning ‘experts’ and inspector rejected the evidence of local residents
whose stories and images proved the initial plan was wrong. I have learnt to
have no confidence in the models and expertise of those who attempt to predict
floods at Fulford – and our archaeological work can help to explain how the
landscape is changing and why they are getting it wrong. Do not ignore the
evidence. The redesigned plan cannot be accepted because it is still wrong.
24
The cultural and economic value of site
The
identified battlesite at Fulford has great cultural, environmental as well as
significant economic potential. The site is little changed since 1066 and is
fully accessible on public land and footpaths. When I guide people round the
site I can tell them they are standing on the land surface where the English
faced the Norse army 946 years ago. It would take very little to create a
significant visitor attraction as this is such an important piece of our
national story. As noted earlier, the planning system has omitted any
assessment of the economic potential of Germany Beck. These gains must form a
part of considerations about this site according to the correct planning
process.
25
An alternative housing plan
I have
worked extensively with the homeless charities Shelter and Crisis. I recognise
that we need both heritage and houses which is why I was happy to cooperate
with the developers when the housing was being planned. I was sad that they
gradually revoked my access when I shared the emerging evidence with them. I
offered an alternative proposal at the public inquiry, pointing out that the
adjacent collection of affordable houses near the University, built mainly by
housing associations, offered as many homes but occupied only a quarter of the
land of the proposed development. Rejecting this plan need not lead to a loss
of future housing. Heritage and housing can co-exist.
26
Deliverability
The National Policy Planning Framework clarifies the
position of old plans that are no longer relevant. The plan must be tested to
see if it is still relevant and viable.
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available
now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a
realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five
years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with
planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires,
unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within
five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand
for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
Considering the above stipulations, an alternative plan for
this area would make much more sense.
27
Summary of objections
PART THREE – the new National Policy Planning Framework
28
Where is the plan?
When so
much in the past and future models for planning, one has to ask, where is the
required plan? So much of the legitimacy for the original application was
founded on the assumption that it fitted a legitimate plan. This veil of
illusory legitimacy cannot hide the truth that this seems to be somebody’s pet
project. Democratic control must be reasserted over the granting of the
enormous privilege and financial gain that the community grants through the
planning process.
29
The Roles of Planning
Because
planning is for the future, it is important to address the roles of planning
set out in the NPPF. The proposed plans does not meet crucial parts of the
protection planning offers and should therefore be refused permission. That is
a measure of how poor the plan and the process that has been followed until
now has been. The applicant plan simple does not address the roles defined.
30
Planning principles
To emphasise the roles we are offered 12 planning
principles against which the poor performance of the present plan can be
measured.
31
Proactive action on flooding
Para 100 anticipates that there are some existing plans
that might need to be revised in the light of revised recognition of flood
risks : “where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some
existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking
opportunities to facilitate the relocation of development, including housing,
to more sustainable locations.”
The modern
messages is unambiguous - Revise the plan.
32
Noise pollution
One of the few times when the planning inspector seemed to
attend to the problems raised by critics was when the problems of noise that
will be broadcast from the access road was discussed. Attempts to raise the
proposed access road even higher will only exacerbate and spread the noise
pollution to the whole southern part of Fulford village.
33
Agricultural land use
I am not
aware that the recommended assessments has been undertaken.
34
World Heritage application
The battle
site was left out of the city’s application. Any prospect of future
recognition will be serious damaged if an international heritage site is
knowingly destroyed by a defective planning process.
All of these points can be pursued in
the text sections below which expands and explains the contentions set out in
these summaries.
