QEB appeal update

The date of the appeal has still not been confirmed but is now expected to be in the Autumn of 2006. The QEB campaign group have been kept very busy in preparing our initial "proofs of evidence" for this appeal. These may be read here. The proofs of evidence from other parties are available on the UK Planning web-site.

QEB refused by Planning Committee (14th July 2005)

Crowd at QEB meetingOn a hot night in mid July 2005, a crowd of over 700 people gathered in the Princes Hall, Aldershot, to see how Hart District Council's planning committee would determine the QEB planning application.  The development was submitted as 7 individual applications;
 Due to the proximity of this major development to the Bourley & Long Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) the planning committee had to be certain that the proposed development in conjunction with the mitigation measures to keep people off the SPA would not have an adverse effect on the SPA.

The meeting was amicably chaired by Cllr David Simpson (from Yateley) and kicked off with an explanation of the various applications by Hart Planning officers. Taylor Woodrow made a short speech about why their application should be granted and then 9 objectors each had a turn at explaining their views on why it should not go ahead. There has been wide spread public agreement that they did a tremendous job and I would like to thank the 8 other speakers who supported me that night;
 The Councillors then waded in mostly with rhetoric about how they didn't want such developments in Hart District, certainly crowd pleasing and some of them will surely be very pleased with the coverage which they have had in the local press. However the worried looks on the faces of the officials gave away their concern that a dislike of development was not going to be a defensible position to take at any subsequent appeal. It was soon clear from the rhetoric that the applications for the closure of the car parks was not going to be passed. This in turn would mean that Taylor Woodrow's mitigation measures would not be sanctioned and the main applications would automatically also have to be refused.

Having along with my colleagues spent nearly two years researching the application, I was saddened that many of our Councillors from outside Church Crookham and Fleet, appeared to have little or no knowledge of the implications the development would have on local residents. Indeed I got the impression, that for some, may well have thought that development on the QEB site would relieve pressure on their own areas; whilst what we were trying to demonstrate was that if an unproven mitigation for the SPA was allowed, it would actually open the floodgates.

I think that the hero of the evening (apart from steadfast team of fellow objection speakers and the crowd who turned out of course) was Cllr. James Radley for his detailed scientific analysis of why the committee might actually be justified in rejecting the application. He had clearly listened to our speakers. Having spoken to him after the meeting he explained how he had gone prepared with both reasons to refuse the applications and a set of conditions which would need to be imposed if the application were to be granted. When he saw how the planning committee was clearly going and appalled at the indefensible position the Council was being put into he knew the time had come to present his researched reasons for refusal. "If the committee had been able to dispel my concerns I'd have accepted that - but no one countered my reasoning and so I felt obliged to use my research as the reasons for refusal".


Only now at the start of August and with the publication of the meeting minutes can I be certain what reasons for refusal have been given.
They are;

04/02304/FUL - Opening of a car park off Beacon Hill Road & construction of a roundabout

  1. The proposed construction of the roundabout, through its overall size, lighting and loss of trees, together with the construction of the car park would have an urbanising impact on this section of the countryside. As such the proposed development is contrary to Policies C1 and C2 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policy RUR2 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

  2. The proposed development would be located on a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC) and would have a detrimental affect upon it. The SINC is identified as an area of former heathland capable of recovery and hence this area should not be subjected to intensified recreational usage. The effectiveness of alternative ecological mitigation measures (the reduction of Bourley Road Car Park) are not plainly established and are controversial. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy E1 of RPG9, Policy E11 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policies CON3 and CON6 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

  3. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the Bourley and Long Valley SSSI which forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area as the proposal introduces easy access to a signposted car park off of an A class road which provides egress to an area contiguous with an area classified as SPA and at a point within 900m of the SPA’s boundary. Thereby to grant planning permission would be contrary to Regulation 48(5) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and CON1 and CON2 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and E10 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011.

  4. In the absence of suitable legal agreements there is a failure to secure in perpetuity funding to fully implement the proposed Visitor Management Strategy. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies E10 and E12 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policies CON2 and CON6 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

04/02305/FUL - Reduction of Bourley Road Car Park

  1. The site lies within close proximity to the Bourley and Long Valley SSSI which forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.  Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 the Local Planning Authority is required to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site's conservation objectives. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal ‘s inherent loss of amenity space is justified on ecological grounds as the mitigation effect of reducing access to the car park is not plainly established and is controversial.

  2. In the absence of suitable legal agreements there is a failure to secure in perpetuity funding to fully implement the proposed Visitor Management Strategy. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies E10 and E12 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policies CON2 and CON6 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

00/00930/OUT - 1,000 dwellings on QEB site

  1. The site lies within close proximity to the Bourley and Long Valley SSSI which forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.  Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 the Local Planning Authority is required to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site's conservation objectives. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that mitigation package as proposed would be sufficient to offset the potential of the proposed development to adversely affect the nearby Bourley and Long Valley SSSI which forms part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area contrary to CON1 and CON2 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and E10 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011.

  2. In the absence of satisfactory secured access arrangements, which would not have a detrimental impact on nature conservation and countryside interests, the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the local highway network. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies T5 and T6 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policy T14 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

  3. The proposal would result in development within the Fleet/Church Crookham to Ewshot Local Gap, which, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, would lead to some coalescence between these settlements and damage their separate identities. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy G3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policies CON21 and DEV2 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

  4. The proposal would result in the development outside the Fleet/Church Crookham settlement boundary and would detrimentally affect the character and setting of the countryside. It is therefore contrary to Policy C2 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policy RUR 2 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

  5. In the absence of suitable legal agreements there is a failure to secure the necessary, appropriate, commensurate and long-term:

As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies UB2, UB4, S4, T1, T5, H8, R2 and IMP1 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 and Policies RUR21, URB13, T1, T2, T9, T14, T16, T17 and DEV 2 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006.

And as the old saying goes "Get out of that".
Ken Blockwell, August 2005
Next Page