CASE - Stevenage

	Home
	Latest Information
	Proposed Site
	Photo Album
	The CASE story
	Listed Buildings
	Press Articles
	Technical Planning Information
	Support Us!
	Contact Us
	Links to other sites

THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST STEVENAGE EXPANSION

TO: Nick Parry of Stevenage Borough Council

Dear Nick

Stevenage District Plan

I am writing to you in the light of recent developments relating to the North Herts District Plan.

CASE submitted detailed objections to this Plan, as we have with the Stevenage Plan. In particular we raised the following objection with regard to the proposed development to the West of Stevenage:

"WEST OF STEVENAGE

Objection to all Policies

Introduction

The proposals for the West of Stevenage totally fail to take into account the provisions of the new PPG3, as does the Adopted County Council Structure Plan. As is made clear in paragraph 37 Local authorities are required to revise their Plans to take into account the provisions of PPG3. Accordingly the Policies relating to West of Stevenage need to be withdrawn and re-drafted so as to accord with the new version of PPG3.

In particular the Local Plan should apply the sequential approach advocated in PPG3. Under the provisions of PPG3 no development should be allowed in relation to West of Stevenage until:

(a) All districts in Hertfordshire have carried out an Urban Housing Capacity assessment pursuant to paragraph 24 of PPG3. Not only should the availability of sites be assessed, but critical consideration should be given to appropriate densities as specified in paragraph 58 of PPG3. In addition proper consideration should be given to windfall sites pursuant to paragraphs 35 and 36 of PPG3; AND

(b) No planning permission should be granted in respect of West of Stevenage until this exercise has been finalised AND all urban and previously used (brownfield) sites county wide have been utilised pursuant to paragraphs 28 to 33 of PPG3."

In view of the implications of these submissions North Herts District Council obtained an opinion from a leading Planning Counsel, C. Lockhart-Mummery Q.C. I am sure that you will have seen a copy of his opinion and I will not, therefore, quote from it extensively. However he advises that

"it is contended (correctly) by objectors that the content of the present Deposit Plan is non-compliant with PPG3 ... In the circumstances, it cannot be rational to pursue non-compliant proposals to an inevitably hotly contended local plan inquiry a year hence"

In the circumstances he goes on to advise that:

"Accordingly, in the interests of the proper planning of the county and the district, it is hard to see how it can be appropriate to continue, at this stage, to promote the Deposit Local Plan in its present form. The logical course must now be to withdraw, and carry out the work explicitly required by PPG3"

Although the new version of PPG3 had not been issue at the date CASE lodged its objections to the Stevenage Plan, CASE correctly anticipated its contents and we raised similar objections to those quoted above. It is undisputable that C Lockhart-Mummery Q.C.'s Advice applies equally to the Stevenage Plan.

I am, accordingly writing to you to enquire what the Stevenage Borough Council's intentions are. In particular can you confirm that you accept the Advice and will be acting in accordance with it. If you disagree with any aspect can you please let me know your reasons.

I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Yours sincerely

Tim Akeroyd

Chairman