Local Group Name - Campaign to Protect Rural England

Skip to navigation
Thursday, 20 March 2014 12:51

CPRE 2014 Budget Response

Responding to today's Budget the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) identifies some environmental winners and losers

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is putting a call-out to the country’s “citizen scientists” to join in Star Count 2014 – a cosmic census to help tackle light pollution.

The Government’s new transport strategy must revitalise or build diversionary routes on the rail network to mitigate major disruption caused by floods, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is urging.

Government proposals for a new "fast track" planning court would remove critical democratic safeguards for local communities, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) warns today.

CPRE expressed disappointment at today's announcement by Defra [1] on how much money rural development measures, including green farming schemes, will receive.

Responding to today's announcement that the consultation on the environmental impact of HS2 will end as early as 24 January 2014, Ralph Smyth, barrister and Senior Transport Campaigner for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says:

'The Government has chosen the minimum length of time allowed [1] for its consultation on the biggest ever environmental impact assessment in UK history. A 56 day formal consultation period for 50,000 pages of documents means you would need to read 1,000 pages a day just to know what is proposed. To add insult to injury this period includes the Christmas and New Year holidays, when Parliament has 23 days off.

B&NES Core Strategy again…

SOBAEvery month I sit down to consider the big stories in rural planning in our region, and pretty much every month sees a new twist in the saga of the Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy. So I can only apologise for returning to it once again…

Very briefly, the Core Strategy – the strategic planning policy for the next 15 years – is undergoing Examination in Public at the moment, whereby a Planning Inspector works through the plans to ensure that they are sound and compliant with national policy. The process got halted because there were questions about the evidence that the council had provided for their housing numbers. Cynical observers felt that the only problem with the evidence was that it didn’t point to high enough housing numbers, but at any rate, the issue has now been resolved and the Examination is starting again.

However, the Inspector in charge of the process has recently written to B&NES Council to say – among other things – that in order to deliver the right number of houses at the right time, the suggestions that have been put forward regarding new housing in the Green Belt around Bath will have to be included not as outline plans but as specific proposals with a great deal more detail included. This in turn means that a new public consultation will have to be run about these Green Belt developments.

To say that the proposed developments are controversial would be an understatement. The plans involve releasing land from the Green Belt at Odd Down (near Southstoke) and at Weston; there is also a proposal to extend development at the ex-MOD site at Ensleigh. Between these sites, a total of perhaps 720 houses are proposed for green field, Green Belt locations in the setting of the Bath World Heritage Site – and the final figure could well be more, depending on how the details are planned.

Bath was named as a World Heritage site not just because of its Georgian architecture, but because of the extraordinary completeness of the original vision for the city: a civilised and beautiful urban space set within a Romantic rural landscape. So it’s barely an exaggeration to say that the preservation of the Green Belt around Bath has perhaps more importance to the character and future of the city than in any other UK city.

The consultation on the proposed Green Belt developments begins on November 11th, and we will be meeting on that date with other local organisations to discuss our response.

North Somerset Core Strategy

Long Ashton 1More Core Strategy news, this time from North Somerset. Earlier this year, a Judicial Review was held on North Somerset’s Core Strategy. It was triggered by Bristol University, who own land near Long Ashton which they wish to develop for housing (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/estates/long-ashton/). They challenged the housing numbers in the Core Strategy, in the hopes that higher housing numbers might mean urban extensions south of Bristol – into the land which they own.

The arguments were arcane in the extreme – you can read about the details here.

Long Ashton 2However, the result was by no means a clear-cut victory for the University. The judge ruled that Policy CS13, on the numbers of new houses needed, should be remitted for a fresh examination. If CS13 were to be found unsound, this would have implications for the rest of the Core Strategy as new sites for housing might need to be allocated.

Anyway, in the run-up to the re-examination of CS13, there has been a surprisingly frank exchange of letters between the council and the Inspector.

The Inspector seemed at first to suggest that the whole of the Core Strategy might need to be re-written. He wrote:

“I consider that these matters would go to the heart of the Core Strategy and are unlikely to be capable of being addressed by making Main Modifications…

Before proceeding further, I would suggest that the Council should give serious consideration to […] these fundamental issues and should assess whether it would be worthwhile to proceed further through, what is likely to be, a costly and time consuming re-examination process.”

The Council came out fighting:

“…there is concern about the perceived lack of balance in the Inspector’s initial letter. In particular the starting point seems to be that the remitted examination process is unlikely to result in a successful outcome…”

Not exactly bar-room brawling, but strong language for this kind of thing!

They went on:

“…it is clear that the projections as assessed now will be very different to those at the time of the original Core Strategy examination. They are likely to be substantially lower primarily as a result of the recalibration of the population base in the light of census data, reduced migration and household formation rates, and factors reflecting more recent economic conditions.”

“The Council’s position is that even if the housing requirement is increased, the flexibilities in the plan mean that this is likely to be able to be accommodated without changing the spatial strategy“

In plain English, they say that they don’t think that new sites will be needed, as if anything, they expect to lower the housing numbers or at least accommodate them in their existing plan.

The Inspector was put plainly on the defensive:

“In your response you refer to my having ‘pre-judged’ the outcome of the re-examination and having displayed a ‘lack of balance’ in my letter. I can assure you that this is not the case…”

The Inspector then shows his awareness that an expensive legal team will be watching his every move:

“I am cautious about the handling of the re-examination as I wish to avoid any possibility of further legal challenges.”

You can read the full text and find out more here:


North Somerset Council clearly mean to fight this challenge very hard. I would imagine that they are fuming that their lovingly prepared and successfully adopted Core Strategy is being hauled over the coals again. I’m not a gambling man, but I think I’d bet quite a lot that the very last place on earth that North Somerset Council would now allocate for housing is a certain stretch of land near Long Ashton…

Growth agenda is fuelling damaging development across National Parks and other precious landscapes

That was the response of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) to the announcement today that Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has applied for judicial review of the Airports Commission's refusal to revisit its airport expansion criteria. In September the Commission had to relieve one of its members of his duties after it was revealed he was still being paid by the Manchester Airport Group (MAG) when he took up his role. MAG are the owners of Stansted airport and have submitted a proposal for three extra runways that would devastate large areas of countryside and would damage tranquillity further still.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) today warned that Government proposals to allow farmers to turn buildings into houses are badly thought through: they will lead to a rash of housing development in the countryside but without the safeguards provided by the planning system.

join us

Back to top

woodland glade