The final day of the inquiry. The time when everyone makes their closing submissions to the Inspector, just in case he's missed anything. It should have been the big showdown...the point at which all the ills of the past three weeks are aired and put behind us. But it lost its edge in a way, because the beleagured Hallam team had disappeared and left their barrister, Andrew Williamson, to take the flak on his own.
We were up first...fittingly I felt, as at last it seemed the residents were going to be heard ahead of all the legal jargon that everyone else would use. We'd prepared our submissions - just 6 pages - all easy to digest by the public spectators. We even put some pithy comments in ... I won't spoil it for you now, if you want to read it all click here
Then onto the big guns. One after another they volleyed their siege weapons into the Hallam camp. The Environment Agency exploiting the already open and festering wounds on water contamination in the River Mease...the Highways agency taking blood on the unresolved Highways problems...Jeremy Cahill QC for the MoneyHill Consortium, also taking advantage of the lack of defence around the River Mease...Hugh Richards for the Burton Road site taking no prisoners on the comparative benefits of his clients scheme. Then Chris Young, the District Council's barrister (also acting for the County Council and Natural England) bayonetting over and over again on planning policy, the importance of the LDF, yes the River Mease and yes, the highways issues.
Remarkably and, it has to be said, like a true professional, Mr Williamson wiped the blood away from his face, dusted himself down and delivered a nearly two hour finale for Hallam. The River Mease problem wasn't theirs, it was everyone elses fault...the highways problems and all the late evidence - yes, everyone else was to blame. Of course they could deliver all the houses in 5 years and the other sites weren't capable. It reeled off like a 50 page excuse for why he hadn't done his homework. There are five public/government agencies against them, two developers and PNRA, and we had all got it wrong. Hallam were right...they were going to save the day. It sounded like the cracked record we'd heard all the way along.
Anyway, that's the end of the inquiry proper and this blog. Keep an eye on the website www.packington-nook.org.uk for news from now on. It isn't over until the Inspector reports in a couple of months and the Hallam team must be hoping for some kind of miracle. Underneath it all, I expect they are wondering what they were doing buying the land in the first place...
Friday, 30 October 2009
Thursday, 29 October 2009
In sight of the finish line...
On the penultimate day of the inquiry, this long and painful process feels like at last it is drawing to a close. Today it was traffic and, like Hallam's River Mease pollution mitigation scheme, their cobbled-together traffic scheme limped in front of the inspector.
Basically, there is an insurmountable problem caused by the Packington Nook site being the wrong side of town to all the places everyone will want to go. The secondary schools, health centre, Tesco, trips to Nottingham, Leicester, Derby. Hallam have spent the past 2 weeks on their traffic model that is meant to show how this works - and it doesn't. Too much traffic onto the A42 at J13 isn't want the Highways Authority want...too much off the A42 onto local roads isn't want the County Council want. Stalemate. And whilst they were working this out behind the scenes, we weren't even given a copy of the latest Hallam plan.
Everyone can see why they haven't got a solution. The problem is insurmountable. Short of building an enormous bridge over the town centre, they are completely stumped.
At the end of the day, the inquiry had to discuss conditions "in case" the inspector feels like allowing planning permission. Things like how many trees, height of roads etc. But it feels a bit academic. The whole thing has turned into a farce.
Friday is closing statements. We're up first, so get there early to hear what we have to say. Our final volley of shots across the crisp tablecloths in the Lys Room.
Basically, there is an insurmountable problem caused by the Packington Nook site being the wrong side of town to all the places everyone will want to go. The secondary schools, health centre, Tesco, trips to Nottingham, Leicester, Derby. Hallam have spent the past 2 weeks on their traffic model that is meant to show how this works - and it doesn't. Too much traffic onto the A42 at J13 isn't want the Highways Authority want...too much off the A42 onto local roads isn't want the County Council want. Stalemate. And whilst they were working this out behind the scenes, we weren't even given a copy of the latest Hallam plan.
Everyone can see why they haven't got a solution. The problem is insurmountable. Short of building an enormous bridge over the town centre, they are completely stumped.
At the end of the day, the inquiry had to discuss conditions "in case" the inspector feels like allowing planning permission. Things like how many trees, height of roads etc. But it feels a bit academic. The whole thing has turned into a farce.
Friday is closing statements. We're up first, so get there early to hear what we have to say. Our final volley of shots across the crisp tablecloths in the Lys Room.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Cars and fish
Now into our third week and the inquiry is going in circles. Back to the same issues where Hallam seem to be in complete disarray - their planned phosphate removal scheme to protect the River Mease and their traffic proposals to deal with all the cars this site will bring. But we were promised the latest evidence on their traffic model.
After continuing the questioning of Hallam's landscape witness by the barrister acting for the Burton Road site (again a beauty contest and lots of subjective discussion about loss of landscape), we got onto the main focus of the inquiry which is Hallam's planning evidence. This covers everything and their witness, who essentially holds together their case, had to deal with everything. Up to a point that is. Of course the really difficult questions about water treatment were for their water expert (already heard from him) and the really difficult questions about traffic were for their traffic expert (he's on tomorrow). And then, there is "them".
Who is "them"? Well, "them" is Hallam Land - who are the appellants in this case. Asked about who was going to pay for the water treatment works, we were told we'd have to ask "them". "Them" would also tell us if Severn Trent Water had agreed to carry out all this work (they haven't). The trouble is that "them" aren't an entity who are taking part in this inquiry - it's their barrister and their expert witnesses. So maybe we'll never know? What we do know is that "them" think they can start building houses before the water treatment is in place...
No sign of the traffic model.
A long and winding session of cross examination from both Council and MoneyHill barristers didn't really upset the planning witness. He's clearly done this many times before and knows the drill. Barristers always ask questions for which a yes/know answer will suffice. But why use one word when 100 will do? And so it was that various bits of Hallam propaganda about how they could deliver in a way nobody else could were interspersed into his answers.
Still no sign of the traffic model.
It went on a long time and by the time the graveyard shift had arrived it left us just 15 minutes for our own moment of glory. We focussed on the independent market report they'd had commissioned and made a pretty compelling case (if I may say so) that Ashby is becoming an unsustainable dormitory town for the West Midlands - drawing attention to all the industrial sites in the town that have been turned into housing. Of course their witness wouldn't have any of this. So I asked him if he thought everyone would be cynical and disenfranchised if they'd been consulted on a local plan and then this scheme were allowed ahead of that. He began to get it and had to concede that local people had a right to be heard.
We'll see how "them" get on with their traffic and sustainability evidence tomorrow. We might be honoured with a little peak at the traffic model before then.
After continuing the questioning of Hallam's landscape witness by the barrister acting for the Burton Road site (again a beauty contest and lots of subjective discussion about loss of landscape), we got onto the main focus of the inquiry which is Hallam's planning evidence. This covers everything and their witness, who essentially holds together their case, had to deal with everything. Up to a point that is. Of course the really difficult questions about water treatment were for their water expert (already heard from him) and the really difficult questions about traffic were for their traffic expert (he's on tomorrow). And then, there is "them".
Who is "them"? Well, "them" is Hallam Land - who are the appellants in this case. Asked about who was going to pay for the water treatment works, we were told we'd have to ask "them". "Them" would also tell us if Severn Trent Water had agreed to carry out all this work (they haven't). The trouble is that "them" aren't an entity who are taking part in this inquiry - it's their barrister and their expert witnesses. So maybe we'll never know? What we do know is that "them" think they can start building houses before the water treatment is in place...
No sign of the traffic model.
A long and winding session of cross examination from both Council and MoneyHill barristers didn't really upset the planning witness. He's clearly done this many times before and knows the drill. Barristers always ask questions for which a yes/know answer will suffice. But why use one word when 100 will do? And so it was that various bits of Hallam propaganda about how they could deliver in a way nobody else could were interspersed into his answers.
Still no sign of the traffic model.
It went on a long time and by the time the graveyard shift had arrived it left us just 15 minutes for our own moment of glory. We focussed on the independent market report they'd had commissioned and made a pretty compelling case (if I may say so) that Ashby is becoming an unsustainable dormitory town for the West Midlands - drawing attention to all the industrial sites in the town that have been turned into housing. Of course their witness wouldn't have any of this. So I asked him if he thought everyone would be cynical and disenfranchised if they'd been consulted on a local plan and then this scheme were allowed ahead of that. He began to get it and had to concede that local people had a right to be heard.
We'll see how "them" get on with their traffic and sustainability evidence tomorrow. We might be honoured with a little peak at the traffic model before then.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Our rural idyll?
Today saw the Hallam landscape witness telling the inquiry his views on the landscape effects of importing a 1100 house suburb to Packington Nook.
Insisting that the site was lower-level than the other sites being promoted at Moneyhill and Burton Road, he tried to make a case that the attractive approach to Ashby from the south wasn't going to be too badly affected. Then saying that the presence of the A42 made a logical packet in which their development would neatly slot.
Chris Young, for the council then asked if he thought that this massive development was out of scale with the town. Hallam's witness said he didn't think it was massive. Well, maybe not in the context of some of their other developments on the side of Derby or Nottingham, but for Ashby there's no better way of describing a 25% increase in the size of the town.
Then shown attractive views photographed by the council's own landscape expert he was asked to confirm that houses would be built to spoil them. And those three-storey houses right next to the A42? Well they're not at all out of place, after all how are they going to shield the rest of the estate from the traffic noise!
Landscape is all very subjective. The experts can fight it out like art critics. But we live here and therefore are clearly not in any position to know what damage this development will do? Answers on a postcard please...
Insisting that the site was lower-level than the other sites being promoted at Moneyhill and Burton Road, he tried to make a case that the attractive approach to Ashby from the south wasn't going to be too badly affected. Then saying that the presence of the A42 made a logical packet in which their development would neatly slot.
Chris Young, for the council then asked if he thought that this massive development was out of scale with the town. Hallam's witness said he didn't think it was massive. Well, maybe not in the context of some of their other developments on the side of Derby or Nottingham, but for Ashby there's no better way of describing a 25% increase in the size of the town.
Then shown attractive views photographed by the council's own landscape expert he was asked to confirm that houses would be built to spoil them. And those three-storey houses right next to the A42? Well they're not at all out of place, after all how are they going to shield the rest of the estate from the traffic noise!
Landscape is all very subjective. The experts can fight it out like art critics. But we live here and therefore are clearly not in any position to know what damage this development will do? Answers on a postcard please...
Thursday, 22 October 2009
The crumbs from Severn Trent Water's table
Barristers are an interesting breed. They're articulate and well educated. But give them a sniff of blood and they're a different animal altogether. You'd want them all to be on your side, but not on the other side.
So it was today with the crumbling proposal from Hallam Land to rustle up a water treatment facility at Packington Sewage Works. They have a difficult target to hit on the baseline level of phosphates that can be in the River Mease Special Area of Conservation. Hallam had said it would be some time before Severn Trent Water could put the necessary permanent equipment in place, so for a mere £50k a lorry would turn up, install some stuff and hey presto, problem has gone away. Then it will be a mere £600k for the permanent kit. It's expected to last 15 years. But what of the operating costs? asked the Environment Agency's barrister. Long pauses from their expert witness. Thereafter it's everyone who will have to pay and no account has been taken of other developments that might happen in the town. Will they really all have their own bits of kit taking the phosphates out of water from their site. He was forced to admit the whole thing was a "rush job". You could feel the Hallam team cringe.
The fact is that Severn Trent Water haven't agreed to anything. It's just that Hallam are hoping they would. A so-called Grampian agreement would require that the work was done "before a sod of earth" is lifted at the Packington Nook site. After all, if the measures proposed by Hallam don't work, they're hardly going to evict householders and demolish the houses already built.
And what of the Water Cycle survey, that's expect to be complete by the start of 2010? That's likely to show that the better sites are those to the north of the town that stand a better chance of draining elsewhere. No wonder Hallam are in a hurry to have Packington Nook in the bag before then.
Then up with their flooding expert. The measures proposed to reduce flooding in Packington aren't being disputed by the council. So we asked him why it was, that if Packington was going to be protected, the vast majority of Packington parishoners were against this development. Well,they're not concerned for the benefit of the 5 or so houses that are regularly flooded, speculated the Hallam witness. Well,maybe. But the reality is that they don't want a flood scheme at the expense of a massive development on their doorstep.
Blood, as they say, is thicker than water...
So it was today with the crumbling proposal from Hallam Land to rustle up a water treatment facility at Packington Sewage Works. They have a difficult target to hit on the baseline level of phosphates that can be in the River Mease Special Area of Conservation. Hallam had said it would be some time before Severn Trent Water could put the necessary permanent equipment in place, so for a mere £50k a lorry would turn up, install some stuff and hey presto, problem has gone away. Then it will be a mere £600k for the permanent kit. It's expected to last 15 years. But what of the operating costs? asked the Environment Agency's barrister. Long pauses from their expert witness. Thereafter it's everyone who will have to pay and no account has been taken of other developments that might happen in the town. Will they really all have their own bits of kit taking the phosphates out of water from their site. He was forced to admit the whole thing was a "rush job". You could feel the Hallam team cringe.
The fact is that Severn Trent Water haven't agreed to anything. It's just that Hallam are hoping they would. A so-called Grampian agreement would require that the work was done "before a sod of earth" is lifted at the Packington Nook site. After all, if the measures proposed by Hallam don't work, they're hardly going to evict householders and demolish the houses already built.
And what of the Water Cycle survey, that's expect to be complete by the start of 2010? That's likely to show that the better sites are those to the north of the town that stand a better chance of draining elsewhere. No wonder Hallam are in a hurry to have Packington Nook in the bag before then.
Then up with their flooding expert. The measures proposed to reduce flooding in Packington aren't being disputed by the council. So we asked him why it was, that if Packington was going to be protected, the vast majority of Packington parishoners were against this development. Well,they're not concerned for the benefit of the 5 or so houses that are regularly flooded, speculated the Hallam witness. Well,maybe. But the reality is that they don't want a flood scheme at the expense of a massive development on their doorstep.
Blood, as they say, is thicker than water...
Facing a watery grave
The Environment Agency well and truly won the day yesterday showing that, on sewage and phosphate removal, Hallam are making it up as they go along. There is an aggressive target to meet on phosphate content in the River Mease. Hallam had come up with this SUDs scheme,where they would combine phosphate removal with their flood alleviation plan, but that was hurriedly withdrawn yesterday. The EA's very sharp barrister also said that Severn Trent hadn't properly been involved with the discussions to improve Packington Sewage works and that a lot of what is being proposed is a bit of a pipe dream.
Hallam still haven't brought all their evidence on highways and the Inspector reminded them that ALL the evidence is meant to be submitted 6 weeks before the inquiry. Well hang on a minute, isn't the whole purpose of the inquiry to deal with a planning application Hallam said the council couldn't determine back in FEBRUARY?? So how could it have been determined then?
On Tuesday there was a straight beauty contest involving the other sites at Burton Road and Moneyhill against Hallam's plan for Packington Nook. The view from the tower at the castle was much-discussed. Burton Road saying that their site was least damaging to the landscape and Moneyhill saying that their site is closer and more beneficial to the town centre.
It's getting good...almost worth turning up for the spectacle... It's just a pity that so much time and public money has been spent dealing with this inquiry when Hallam must have known perfectly well that the application was dubious. Well,we'll see what the Inspector has to say about that...
Hallam still haven't brought all their evidence on highways and the Inspector reminded them that ALL the evidence is meant to be submitted 6 weeks before the inquiry. Well hang on a minute, isn't the whole purpose of the inquiry to deal with a planning application Hallam said the council couldn't determine back in FEBRUARY?? So how could it have been determined then?
On Tuesday there was a straight beauty contest involving the other sites at Burton Road and Moneyhill against Hallam's plan for Packington Nook. The view from the tower at the castle was much-discussed. Burton Road saying that their site was least damaging to the landscape and Moneyhill saying that their site is closer and more beneficial to the town centre.
It's getting good...almost worth turning up for the spectacle... It's just a pity that so much time and public money has been spent dealing with this inquiry when Hallam must have known perfectly well that the application was dubious. Well,we'll see what the Inspector has to say about that...
Sunday, 18 October 2009
In the papers...
We made it to the Leicester Mercury yesterday - very good coverage (click below)...
Homes scheme given a bashing
Homes scheme given a bashing
Friday, 16 October 2009
Here come the Nimbies
When we started preparing for this inquiry, our planning consultants sagely told us that we'd be treated in one of two ways. First of all, we could be ignored. The developer's legal team could just sit listening to what we had to say and then nonchalently wave us away, leaving the professionals to continue with the inquiry. On the other hand we could be discredited as Nimbies. A NIMBY, for those who don't know, is someone who objects to something which provides the greater good, but happens to be located near them.
Today, we were the Nimbies. First up, Nigel Smith - district councillor for Packington - read out a statement underlining the strong concerns of the residents of Packington, as Ashby creeps closer to their village. Then Chris Miles of Packington Parish Council reminded the inquiry of their survey which showed the vast majority of residents against the development. He outlined concerns about flooding. An avenue to be exploited by Hallam...their scheme has a big pond which will fill up when it rains and save Packington from the deluge. Wouldn't parishoners in Packington think that was a good idea?
Then it was us. Led by our barrister, Jack Smyth, I expressed concerns about the way local views had been bypassed by the developers, underlining that it was for local councillors to determine planning applications, or decide where houses should be built. If this appeal were allowed, it would fundamentally undermine that whole process and open up the entire field for each and every developer who wanted to try their luck with a planning inquiry.
In cross examination, Hallam's barrister was very polite and accommodating, but went for the NIMBY theme. We were against all development, weren't we? No, I replied, but it was up to the proper processes of the LDF to decide where development should be. Calling into question the objectivity of our surveys which showed Packington Nook development was extremely unpopular, he went into his hat and pulled out the magic rabbit which was a graphical analysis of our LDF survey. People near Burton Road didn't like the Burton Road development, those near MoneyHill didn't like that...so too with Leicester Road. So everyone in Ashby is a NIMBY! There's a big swathe of red lines, showing roads where residents who replied thought the Packington Nook site was the least preferred - it's towards the centre and south of the town (where, incidentally, is the greatest density of residents in the town). It shows very plainly how unpopular their site is. I've scanned and uploaded it here.
We then took the stand on local highways. John calmly and carefully told the Inspector where the problem hotspots were in our medieval town centre roads. Pictures of queuing traffic. Buses coming out onto Wood Street on one of the worst junctions in town (which would be relied on by residents of the new development to get to Tesco). Then the rat run down Cambrian Way and Windsor Road. John conceded that some road calming on Cambrian Way would be a good thing, but only to stop cars that currently speed there. It was unacceptable to use that as mitigation for higher traffic volumes. Cross-examination was brief. Lots of questions that needed to be asked would probably have exposed the absence of their full traffic model, which we are yet to see.
Then Chris Tandy described how the Gilwiskaw Brook has suffered under previous development and the only bit left outside the SAC is the bit that crosses the Hallam site. The suggestion that more surface water flow should be put down the river system to flush out the high levels of phosphates goes against the needs of many protected species that need a sandy bed and slow running water to breed. With pictures of blown manholes and raw sewage leaking out in times of high usage and rainfall, it is clear how floods in Packington have a further more sinister risk of contamination. Again, surely the Hallam flood protection scheme would stop all this?! - interjected their barrister. Chris replied wisely - it has been shown that the residents of Packington would prefer to have a flood than your houses!
Not a bad effort by the Nimbies.
Today, we were the Nimbies. First up, Nigel Smith - district councillor for Packington - read out a statement underlining the strong concerns of the residents of Packington, as Ashby creeps closer to their village. Then Chris Miles of Packington Parish Council reminded the inquiry of their survey which showed the vast majority of residents against the development. He outlined concerns about flooding. An avenue to be exploited by Hallam...their scheme has a big pond which will fill up when it rains and save Packington from the deluge. Wouldn't parishoners in Packington think that was a good idea?
Then it was us. Led by our barrister, Jack Smyth, I expressed concerns about the way local views had been bypassed by the developers, underlining that it was for local councillors to determine planning applications, or decide where houses should be built. If this appeal were allowed, it would fundamentally undermine that whole process and open up the entire field for each and every developer who wanted to try their luck with a planning inquiry.
In cross examination, Hallam's barrister was very polite and accommodating, but went for the NIMBY theme. We were against all development, weren't we? No, I replied, but it was up to the proper processes of the LDF to decide where development should be. Calling into question the objectivity of our surveys which showed Packington Nook development was extremely unpopular, he went into his hat and pulled out the magic rabbit which was a graphical analysis of our LDF survey. People near Burton Road didn't like the Burton Road development, those near MoneyHill didn't like that...so too with Leicester Road. So everyone in Ashby is a NIMBY! There's a big swathe of red lines, showing roads where residents who replied thought the Packington Nook site was the least preferred - it's towards the centre and south of the town (where, incidentally, is the greatest density of residents in the town). It shows very plainly how unpopular their site is. I've scanned and uploaded it here.
We then took the stand on local highways. John calmly and carefully told the Inspector where the problem hotspots were in our medieval town centre roads. Pictures of queuing traffic. Buses coming out onto Wood Street on one of the worst junctions in town (which would be relied on by residents of the new development to get to Tesco). Then the rat run down Cambrian Way and Windsor Road. John conceded that some road calming on Cambrian Way would be a good thing, but only to stop cars that currently speed there. It was unacceptable to use that as mitigation for higher traffic volumes. Cross-examination was brief. Lots of questions that needed to be asked would probably have exposed the absence of their full traffic model, which we are yet to see.
Then Chris Tandy described how the Gilwiskaw Brook has suffered under previous development and the only bit left outside the SAC is the bit that crosses the Hallam site. The suggestion that more surface water flow should be put down the river system to flush out the high levels of phosphates goes against the needs of many protected species that need a sandy bed and slow running water to breed. With pictures of blown manholes and raw sewage leaking out in times of high usage and rainfall, it is clear how floods in Packington have a further more sinister risk of contamination. Again, surely the Hallam flood protection scheme would stop all this?! - interjected their barrister. Chris replied wisely - it has been shown that the residents of Packington would prefer to have a flood than your houses!
Not a bad effort by the Nimbies.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Ashby - a vibrant town?
An interesting exchange today between Hallam's barrister and Alan Harvey, the council officer who is the case officer for the application. Hallam painted a picture of Ashby as a "vibrant" town, a place with only minor historical character, shops bulging with customers. Of course it is worthy of development... The council agreed but said it didn't necessary help Hallam, because there are other sites being considered.
When we give evidence, we'll be reinforcing the cost and limitations of the town's vibrancy. The jammed up town centre road system as everyone gets to the secondary schools and Tesco, the employment areas - again on the other side of town, the demographics of Ashby which show that a lot of people who live here work elsewhere. We'll also be saying that the historical nature of the town owes as much to it's scale as to the fact it has a castle and the immediate hinterland of Market Street!
We're on tomorrow - 9.30am to 1pm. Then everyone decamps back home for the weekend and the Royal Hotel reverts to it's role as a gentille wedding venue!
When we give evidence, we'll be reinforcing the cost and limitations of the town's vibrancy. The jammed up town centre road system as everyone gets to the secondary schools and Tesco, the employment areas - again on the other side of town, the demographics of Ashby which show that a lot of people who live here work elsewhere. We'll also be saying that the historical nature of the town owes as much to it's scale as to the fact it has a castle and the immediate hinterland of Market Street!
We're on tomorrow - 9.30am to 1pm. Then everyone decamps back home for the weekend and the Royal Hotel reverts to it's role as a gentille wedding venue!
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Landscape, nature and noise
With the inquiry in full swing, we today heard evidence from the council's witnesses on landscape, ecology and noise.
Damage to the landscape and visual amenity was one of the reasons why the Packington Nook site failed at the last public inquiry 10 years ago and it was back today - the council's witness saying that the loss of landscape was unacceptable and no form of mitigation, in terms of planting trees between all the houses would replace it. Clearly, other sites in the district are less sensitive.
The inquiry then received written evidence from Severn Trent Water, saying there was no firm commitment to implement the all-important phosphate removal that Hallam need to satisfy the water quality requirements. This clearly irritated their barrister, who asked lots of questions on this to the Natural England witness, before being told that it was a matter for the environment agency.
On noise, another fine performance by the council's witness saying that this was the worst site in Ashby to be troubled by noise - mainly from the A42.
Damage to the landscape and visual amenity was one of the reasons why the Packington Nook site failed at the last public inquiry 10 years ago and it was back today - the council's witness saying that the loss of landscape was unacceptable and no form of mitigation, in terms of planting trees between all the houses would replace it. Clearly, other sites in the district are less sensitive.
The inquiry then received written evidence from Severn Trent Water, saying there was no firm commitment to implement the all-important phosphate removal that Hallam need to satisfy the water quality requirements. This clearly irritated their barrister, who asked lots of questions on this to the Natural England witness, before being told that it was a matter for the environment agency.
On noise, another fine performance by the council's witness saying that this was the worst site in Ashby to be troubled by noise - mainly from the A42.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Day one!
It started with a crisp Autumn morning. Mist rising from the Packington Nook meadows and drifting over Lower Packington Road as the sun rose.
Off to a good start at the Royal Hotel, promptly at 10am. As predicted the room was too small for our supporters (thank you) and a brief adjournment saw the council's team lose their table to fit more public seating.
Everyone who is opposing the appeal was there, with their barristers. The council, us, Environment Agency, Highways Agency, Burton Road and Moneyhill developers. Leicestershire County Council and Natural England are being represented by the council's barrister, Chris Young. Hallam lost another appeal in Harrogate last week, so turning up to Ashby to see this opposition must have been rather demoralising!
It's heartening to know that the Inspector has seen the site - arriving early yesterday for a walk around the footpaths. He'll be taking another stroll there once he's heard the arguments at the end of the inquiry. Outside the hotel, I noticed that the county council will be staging a bit of traffic congestion for next week with the closure of Station Road under the railway bridge. I wonder if that is a coincidence!
The opening statement from the council's barrister was bullish. Fairly straight to the point on questioning the tardiness of much of Hallam's evidence which, for important highways and water quality issues, is still incomplete. Concerned that we hadn't quite done our homework, it was gratifying to hear that even the Inspector hadn't read the evidence from Hallam received over the past couple of days. Hopefully we can get everything done and dusted in the three weeks the inquiry is set to run.
The first witness from the council, Steffan Saunders, works in the planning policy team. He described how the LDF is evolving and went on to produce a new report which asks the cabinet of the council to approve a proposal for 1000 houses in Ashby, of which 472 still need to be found. It showed that the council are working hard on their local plan, which is a contention being pursued by Hallam. We'll see where that gets them later in the inquiry.
Wednesday will be landscape, Environment Agency and noise. Evidence about noise from the A42, that is!
Off to a good start at the Royal Hotel, promptly at 10am. As predicted the room was too small for our supporters (thank you) and a brief adjournment saw the council's team lose their table to fit more public seating.
Everyone who is opposing the appeal was there, with their barristers. The council, us, Environment Agency, Highways Agency, Burton Road and Moneyhill developers. Leicestershire County Council and Natural England are being represented by the council's barrister, Chris Young. Hallam lost another appeal in Harrogate last week, so turning up to Ashby to see this opposition must have been rather demoralising!
It's heartening to know that the Inspector has seen the site - arriving early yesterday for a walk around the footpaths. He'll be taking another stroll there once he's heard the arguments at the end of the inquiry. Outside the hotel, I noticed that the county council will be staging a bit of traffic congestion for next week with the closure of Station Road under the railway bridge. I wonder if that is a coincidence!
The opening statement from the council's barrister was bullish. Fairly straight to the point on questioning the tardiness of much of Hallam's evidence which, for important highways and water quality issues, is still incomplete. Concerned that we hadn't quite done our homework, it was gratifying to hear that even the Inspector hadn't read the evidence from Hallam received over the past couple of days. Hopefully we can get everything done and dusted in the three weeks the inquiry is set to run.
The first witness from the council, Steffan Saunders, works in the planning policy team. He described how the LDF is evolving and went on to produce a new report which asks the cabinet of the council to approve a proposal for 1000 houses in Ashby, of which 472 still need to be found. It showed that the council are working hard on their local plan, which is a contention being pursued by Hallam. We'll see where that gets them later in the inquiry.
Wednesday will be landscape, Environment Agency and noise. Evidence about noise from the A42, that is!
Monday, 12 October 2009
All ready to go!
Here we are - the night before the inquiry and we're ready. Ready to all sit down in the 'cosy' room the council have booked for the three week slog at the Royal Hotel in Ashby. We're hoping that as many as possible of our 300+ supporters will be coming to watch and show the Inspector how important this all is.
It's about our town and our way of life. I expect outsiders will think we're a bunch of raving NIMBYs, but Ashby has a unique character and an important historical context that is worth hanging onto...and 3500 people agreed when we surveyed last year. If it goes Hallam Land's way, they'll simply sell the land on to their builder friends and retreat to Sheffield with a huge profit.
That's what it's all about.
So watch the blog and we'll do our best to let you know, on a daily basis, what's happening and what will happen next.
Please come along to the inquiry if you can - 10am on Tuesday 13th October start and (most importantly) 9.30am on Friday 16th when we're giving our evidence, along with Chris Miles of Packington Parish Council.
See you there!
It's about our town and our way of life. I expect outsiders will think we're a bunch of raving NIMBYs, but Ashby has a unique character and an important historical context that is worth hanging onto...and 3500 people agreed when we surveyed last year. If it goes Hallam Land's way, they'll simply sell the land on to their builder friends and retreat to Sheffield with a huge profit.
That's what it's all about.
So watch the blog and we'll do our best to let you know, on a daily basis, what's happening and what will happen next.
Please come along to the inquiry if you can - 10am on Tuesday 13th October start and (most importantly) 9.30am on Friday 16th when we're giving our evidence, along with Chris Miles of Packington Parish Council.
See you there!
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
All our evidence is submitted
In the last week we've been submitting our evidence and getting hold of everyone else's. There are lots of parties at the inquiry and all - apart from Hallam Land - are against the development. That means there's a lot of evidence to be shared.
Whilst we had last Tuesday as a deadline for doing this electronically, that didn't work too well for some people who had incoming size limits on their email accounts. So there is also two copies of everything for everyone. A bad day for trees!
Whilst we had last Tuesday as a deadline for doing this electronically, that didn't work too well for some people who had incoming size limits on their email accounts. So there is also two copies of everything for everyone. A bad day for trees!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)