Local democracy dead?

Local democracy dead?
Local council officers incompetent?
Party funding from developers?

Whatever the reason, we lost the appeal!

Despite there being no NEED for houses in Baldwins Gate, no PLANNED expansion of Baldwins Gate, all RURAL development planned to make three Rural Service Centres more sustainable... despite ALL the local objections... despite the planning objections put forward unanimously by the local Planning Committee... despite hundreds of pages of evidence against the proposals...
THE PLANNING INSPECTOR CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF IT MATTERED.

According to the statistics, Newcastle doesn't have enough housing SO BUILD IT ANYWHERE!

It doesn't matter that it destroys Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (BMV)
or that everyone needs to use a car to get anywhere
or that there are inadequate facilities for an increase of 50% population
or that the school is full
or that we have only a part-time subsidiary surgery of the doctors at Madeley
or that public transport is totally inadequate.

NONE OF THIS WAS MENTIONED BY THE INSPECTOR.

And by granting this appeal, the inspector has opened the flood gates to applications all over the village. ALL PLANNING LOGIC has gone and Newcastle Planners are making totally illogical recommendations by paying lip-service to "Sustainability"...

• How can it be "unsustainable" to build 5 houses at Slaters when 113 extra families will be travelling from Baldwins Gate to everywhere by car from Gateway Estate?
• How can it be "unsustainable" to build 3 houses at Manor Road when 113 extra families will be travelling from Baldwins Gate to everywhere by car from Gateway Estate?
• How can it be "unsustainable" to build 1 house at Hill Chorlton when 113 extra families will be travelling from Baldwins Gate to everywhere by car from Gateway Estate?

It IS UNsustainable to be building those but so was the building of an extra 113 houses on Gateway Estate. Once we have an extra couple of hundred cars what difference would a dozen more make? Or another couple of hundred when the next estate is built behind the school... WHERE DOES IT END?

After the announcement of the Appeal Decision it was suggested that the Action Group get a barrister's opinion as to whether the appeal could be challenged with a judicial review. That opinion would have cost the group £2500. 

However, if the result had been positive, there is no way that in a short time we could have raised even pledges to cover the potential £50K costs if we were to lose so all we could do was write to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, asking for him to review the decision which has so many flaws in its logic and which does untold damage to the whole borough by the precedent it sets.

NO RESPONSE SO FAR! 

WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE NEWCASTLE CANNOT IDENTIFY SUFFICIENT LAND TO MEET ITS HOUSE-BUILDING NEEDS FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT FIVE YEARS which means that developers can apply to build anywhere and the NPPF sats that their application must be viewed "WITH A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT".

WHY?

• Is it because the officers of the council have not updated their housing target figure for several years despite the original targets being TOO HIGH?
• Is it because an officer of he council told our Parish Council that we need not bother with a Neighbourhood Plan because "there will be no major building in Baldwins Gate"?
• Is it because nobody explained to the Planning Committee councillors the danger in which they placed the council if they removed certain sites from the Housing Land Supply list?
  
  OR
• Is it because the OFFICERS of the council have a different agenda to that of the Planning Committee...? ... an agenda that works AGAINST the wishes of the council tax payers who pay their salary and for whom they are supposed to work?

ONE DAY IT WILL ALL BECOME CLEAR!

If you would like to be kept up to date, make sure you JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Sign up here.