Have you got any real reason to object other than you quite like to walk your dog there?

You do realize there’s a big housing shortage making it nigh on impossible for first time buyers in some areas being able to get their own home; or is your area not affected?

NIMBY?

Its all down to the land allocations in the approved plan

Nice theory, but in reality it’s down to how much money the developer and land owner are prepared to throw at the problem. This, for example, was built contrary to the local plan (it’s supposed to be open countryside), well-organised opposition and dire warnings about the impact on the local area simply because the people who profitted from it were prepared to spend money to drive it through:

Think yourself lucky it’s only houses in your case!

…saying how they use the field for recreation, and how it would be a great loss.

All this will achieve is the developers including a ‘green area’ within the development, and maybe a playground.

I’m late to the party on this. Theres a reason for that. It’s due to the fact that we’re part of an action group set up in Harrogate to block/oppose a new development across the road from the Farm.
We were informed by the Council in the first instance about the proposal to build 1200 new homes and a selection of sites were offered, we feel that a site further N/E of the Farm would be better suited so we (all residents and Farmers etc.) around the area got together along with the Councils agreement to form an action group.
We have a louder voice, the ongoing discussions are far better ordered and there is no hint of “pitchforks at dawn” from us lot, we are objecting in an orderly and considered fashion and so far it’s going our way to the point that the development will now reduce in both size and be spread over a longer period.
We have not won, we have compramised.
It’s a democracy we live in.
I’d suggest you form some sort of action group yourselves and get properly ordered.

When you say field, do you mean a privately owned field or council property?

Privately owned, there’s nothing you can do (having sought and successfully gained PP in this situation) and the defence “we’ve been walking our dogs there for years” carries nothing but an admission of trespass. It’s someone else’s property and they can, within reason, do whatever they want on it.

Council? Stands a greater chance of success, but in the long run probably little you can do. Generally the benefits to the council (and potentially the councillors, ahem) are so great that nothing you say will help.

Newts are good, but the developer will have to provide an environmental survey anyway. Traffic? Potential solution, but if the developer agrees to provide new traffic lights / roundabouts etc the problem is solved (in the eyes of the council).

Unfortunately, you can’t really complain if you buy a house that overlooks a field, and that field is subsequently built on. That’s why land is expensive, and why houses that look over nature reserves are even more so.

The key point is to base your objection on official policy, not just local opinion

This bit +1

“I live here and I don’t want to run the risk of slightlty less middle class people living here” doesn’t (and rightfully shouldn’t) work.

We objected to a chinese takeaway opening downstairs. But had to carefull consider our objections to make them relavent to the councils policies, just “we dont want a takeaway downstairs” wasnt a valid argument.

if the Council is happy with the proposals you haven’t got a chance in hell….

look at Delamere Forest – over 3000 objections to the construcion of 70 holiday lodges and a new access road in the actual forest – and planning approved

View the documents and check the maps very thoroughly would be my advice. A friend of mine successfully defended a planning application to build huge blocks of flats in the green space behind their tenements. The maps submitted to the cooncil stated the (only) entrance way for construction vehicles was 10 metres wide between their building and a retaining wall. Reality and a tape measure suggested it was 3 metres. Two letters, problem solved. You can fight The Man !!

Get over it. We need more houses, where you are sounds like a nice place to build some. It’s utterly selfish to try and block the building of houses outside greenfield situations. I will not be able to scrape together a deposit for a house til I’m well into my thirties. I would rather a load of houses were built to bring the prices down and to make the market easier to get into. Not have prices remain high because selfish people aren’t willing to have houses built in their back garden.

Chances are part of the deal will include and area of public space anyway.

Have you got any real reason to object other than you quite like to walk your dog there?

You do realize there’s a big housing shortage making it nigh on impossible for first time buyers in some areas being able to get their own home; or is your area not affected?

This.

Get over it. We need more houses, where you are sounds like a nice place to build some. It’s utterly selfish to try and block the building of houses outside greenfield situations. I will not be able to scrape together a deposit for a house til I’m well into my thirties. I would rather a load of houses were built to bring the prices down and to make the market easier to get into. Not have prices remain high because selfish people aren’t willing to have houses built in their back garden.

Chances are part of the deal will include and area of public space anyway.

And this…

i dont see why you need to get it blocked because you walk your dog on it and the kids play football on it.

was your house sold to you with that as designated green space ?

or is it simply that your view will be spoilt because of it ?

or is it because the “affordable” housing demographic tht will come with a new estate wont fit with your social ideals ?

Its happening all over – get used to it. the 5 year plan for my area includes new housing right across the single track road from me -where i have a lovely view , purely by accident as when i viewed the house it was in the dark and i took into account only the 4 boundarys within which the land i owned was contained – ie the land i could guarantee wouldnt change as long as i owned it.

How ever i look forward to that day as when that day comes ill be greeted with mains sewerage , a propper leccy supply , faster broadband and a mains gas connection (all stipulations on the planning documents as the current stuff barely meets demand as it is)

different if they were knocking down the local woods to build on – i disagree with that , thats entirely different to a field.

It’s utterly selfish to try and block the building of houses outside greenfield situations

I thought this was a greenfield situation? Isn’t that the whole point? Or do you mean something different – in which case is it selfish to try and block the building of houses in all situations outside those which you are referring to? When there are lots of locations where you could build, some more suitable than others, but it’s not the suitability which most people would understand which is behind the reason why developers pick sites to build on. Do you think developers really have the good of the community at heart rather than their profit (I note Bovis recently announced a sharp increase in profits, so it seems they don’t need much help)? Quite rightly we have a planning system which does attempt to determine whether sites are suitable locations to build, taking into account all sorts of important factors (how well it is working in reality at achieving the supposed aims is another matter). Oh and if you’re going to complain at somebody keeping the prices up then you should probably aim at the developers who I understand are currently sitting on a fairly large supply of land to develop, waiting for the market to improve (not that I think you should expect house prices to come down whatever happens – too many with a vested interest in them not dropping, arguably the whole of society has a stake in that, as unfair as it might be for those who are looking to buy their first house).

Where’s the OP gone? I’m serious about my suggestion to drop me a line – I’m in a similar position to bikebouy, though I might be the only person on here who’s showed a planning inspector round a site visit, as I did this afternoon (I don’t think even stimpy’s done that).

Just because its an actual greenfield doesnt actually make it a greenfield situation.

All the details we have says this is a field next to some houses.

What exactly do you take greenfield to mean then? Most development is on such sites.

Though I’m just waiting for stimpy to come back on and point out I don’t know what I’m talking about!

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/greenfield

As i learnt in geography.

Which isn’t quite the official planning definition as I understand it – that doesn’t distinguish between rural and urban undeveloped land (though clearly there is rather less of the latter). As I said, I understand most development is on greenfield sites (it’s certainly where developers would prefer, as there’s less hassle), and it seems quite likely a green field is greenfield.

Fair enough but imo it matter alot whats on the other side of the field…. Is it more fields or more houses…..

Which would you say would make you more likely to grant planning permission (I’m asking you here to assume that you’re a planning inspector, whether or not you agree with the principle that you might be one – if you did happen to be one)? I can see arguments (and valid planning reasons) either way…

Forget trying to be win any arguments about unsustainability of location. Everything environmental can be mitigated/moved too.

Is this the only recreation space you have? Does the local authority have a recreation space policy? Is it based on an assessment of what recreation space they’ve got and need?

Is the highway access unsafe – that is often a showstopper.

AONBs are being built on – there’s little hope of stopping development in non-designated places.

Gap fill is always preferable to sprawl but eventually its all going to be houses ….except where its road.

Lots of good advice on here. We spent a year objecting to a planning application, we got it modified eventually.

Be organised. Someone generally has to take the lead. Get as many objection letters in as possible, more than one per household is ok, each should explain grounds for objection and personal reasons are good. Also look at planning policy carefully. Look at access, complaining about increased traffic levels, pollution, dangers to pedestrians, noise pollution etc all count heavily. I think it’s worth raising a fighting fund to pay for some advice, sadly people are often reluctant to put up a few quid which plays into the hands if the developers / council.

Lack of ‘sustainability’ is a more viable argument than you might think.

Trust me, I know.

Aracer is spot on. Greenfield has a specific defintion – as do most things in planning. Dictionary definitions will not cut the mustard I’m afraid.

I would contribute more, but I’m still writing my closing speech to the planning Inspector for tomorrow.

I’m sure Aracer would agree with Jambalaya about the ‘fighting fund for advice’ (at least I hope he does!).

Right, back to hammering more nails in coffins 😀

Gap fill is always preferable to sprawl

Ah, but that gap might be the only green space around (or in planning terms, it could be a significant gap, there might be an established recreational use of the land, it might have habitats of protected species, etc.). I’d be really hesitant about absolutes on issues like this.

Also look at planning policy carefully.

This I think is about the best piece of advice which has been provided. You’ll also find there is a lot more policy and official guidance than you might think, you need to also check out local official organisations with status other than the local council, such as AONB management plans.

I think it’s worth raising a fighting fund to pay for some advice, sadly people are often reluctant to put up a few quid

It can be done. If you can get people behind you and show them you have a good case and a good strategy for use of the money which it’s worth them investing in. Still bloody hard work, but it can be done. It also helps to have somebody with a certain forceful personality who doesn’t take no for an answer 😉

Developers don’t favour greenfield over brownfield. Remediation costings are worked out in advance of land purchase and then used to negotiate a price for the land. Some vendors( e.g. one of our country’s biggest defence contractors) do the remediation themselves first before sale and others without the capability sell the land for virtually nothing (I know of a large hospital plus grounds that was recently sold for £1) as it’s easier to pass the responsibility of contaminated land on to others. There are many variables once demand has been established; section 106 obligations, non-return access routes, ground conditions, storm/foul drainage solution etc etc etc

OP, How many new dewllings are you talking about?
A large estate or just a couple of houses?

A career nimby like william walton * is required !

* next to trump the second most hated nimby in aberdeen.

An article from a Planning journal about undesignated sites gaining planning permission.

[/quote]Unplanned England
15 November 2013 by John Geoghegan, Be the First to Comment

Housebuilding on sites not supported by councils is growing, says John Geoghegan, listing the ten biggest recent approvals.

Since the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect last March, local authorities have been under increased pressure to produce up-to-date development plans to guide housing growth in their areas.

The NPPF emphasises that, if councils are without updated plans and fail to provide five years’ worth of land for new homes, a presumption in favour of sustainable development kicks in. Authorities in such circumstances face a far greater risk of developers gaining permission through appeal for major housing schemes that councils have either refused or failed to determine – even on sites outside local plans. Here, Planning takes a look at the largest “unplanned” housing developments – on sites unallocated in local development plans – that the government has allowed on appeal since the NPPF came into force.

1. Gilden Way, Harlow 1,200 homes and primary school on the edge of town

Decision date: 15 November 2012

Housebuilders Barratt, Persimmon Homes and Taylor Wimpey appealed against Harlow Council’s failure to determine the scheme. Part of the 63-hectare site, on agricultural land, was designated in the council’s 2006 local plan as green belt. The rest was earmarked for development, though of which type was the main bone of contention at appeal.

The applicants argued that the part of the site on which they proposed to build homes was earmarked for development in the local plan. The council’s case was that the site was not specifically reserved for housing, and any housing release should done be through the local plan process. But the inspector said there was “abundant evidence that the council and local residents have known that this (housing) is the type of development which was being considered”.

Phil Waite, Harlow’s portfolio holder for the environment, said the council is now preparing a new local plan and “ultimately the site will be included as one of the options”. Consultant Matthew Clarke of Boyer Planning said the site would provide “much-needed housing” and “deliver significant investment in social and physical infrastructure” including up to 360 affordable homes, a new primary school, and open space.

2. Queensway, Lytham St Annes 1,150 homes on the edge of town

Decision date: 21 June 2012

Developer Kennington PT Partnership appealed against Fylde Borough Council’s non-determination of a 1,150 home development on greenfield land. The site was not allocated for development in the council’s 2005 local plan. The council opposed the scheme, saying it conflicted with the local development plan and was inappropriate for the green belt. Secretary of state Eric Pickles cited the NPPF in his 2012 decision letter, which said that refusal would run counter to the framework’s requirements for schemes to be approved where plans are out-of-date and councils are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply. Fylde only had a housing supply of 1.4 years. He also approved an application by Lancashire County Council to build an associated link road to the M55 motorway.

Mark Evans, Fylde’s head of planning and regeneration, said the site was now being included for potential residential development in the preferred options for the emerging local plan. Consultant Tony McAteer, acting on behalf of the applicant, said: “The scheme will help resolve traffic congestion and meet housing needs in a highly sustainable location.”

3. Shottery, Stratford-upon-Avon 800 homes and shopping centre on the edge of town

Decision date: 24 October 2012

Applicants JS Bloor Homes and Hallam Land Management appealed against Stratford-upon-Avon Council’s refusal of outline permission for their scheme, sited on 54 hectares of farming land. Although the council argued that the site was not included in its emerging core strategy, the applicants pointed out that the site was identified in the 2003 local plan as a strategic reserve to help meet housing needs after 2011.

The relevant policy was saved by the council in 2009 and only abandoned in the third draft of the core strategy after the planning application had been refused, against the advice of planning officers. Pickles said the development was not premature because the local plan was at a very early stage of preparation and the scheme would “meet a significant unmet housing need in a sustainable location”.

In July, the council failed to overturn the decision in the High Court. Chris Saint, council leader, said the proposed development “undermines” the setting of the nearby Anne Hathaway’s cottage, the home of Shakespeare’s wife. Consultant Owen Jones, a director at Boyer Planning, said it was “an urban myth” to suggest the Shottery site was outside the local plan. He said: “The continuity of housing supply that this scheme will provide is clearly a very important factor in an area where, historically, house building has been restricted and affordability has worsened.”

4. Ridgeway Farm, Swindon Up to 700 homes plus green space and a primary school

Decision date: 26 November 2012

Housebuilder Taylor Wimpey appealed against Wiltshire Council’s non-determination of the scheme, on 27 hectares of farmland. The council and neighbouring Swindon Borough Council both objected to the location of the site in the countryside. They argued that there was no specific allocation for it in any adopted or emerging development plans and the proposed development would be premature in relation to the progression of their core strategies. Though the draft Wiltshire core strategy, which was examined over the summer, did not allocate the Ridgeway Farm site, Pickles noted that the site had been considered in previous development plans for housing. A government letter said Pickles gave “significant weight to the fact that the framework indicates that, in the absence of a five-year housing land supply in an up-to-date, adopted (development plan), planning permission should be granted for the proposal”.

A Wiltshire Council spokesperson said: “The council was disappointed considering the site should have come forward through a plan-led approach. However, since the appeal we have sought to work with the developer to secure high quality design and integration with the adjoining Swindon urban area.”

A Taylor Wimpey spokesman said the scheme would provide “high quality homes”, adding: “As well as providing much needed homes for the local area, our proposed scheme will provide a significant boost to the local economy through the creation of jobs and the provision of financial contributions towards local facilities, services and infrastructure.”

5. Deans Farm, Bishop’s Cleeve Up to 550 homes plus a high street

Decision date: 16 July 2012

Developer Welbeck Strategic Land appealed against Tewkesbury Borough Council’s non-determination of the case. It was considered alongside another appeal for a neighbouring site in Bishops Cleeve for 450 homes that was also allowed. The letter from Pickles said the proposals were “contrary to development plan policy” because both sites were “outside any development boundary”. But because the development plan was “dated” the weight of this issue “should be significantly reduced”. Pickles said “the most significant material consideration is the housing land supply” and the fact the council could not demonstrate a five-year land supply. In February, Tewkesbury unsuccessfully challenged both decisions in the High Court. It argued that the Localism Act meant local authorities’ views should now be entitled to greater weight than other material considerations.

Tewkesbury Borough Council’s development manager Paul Skelton said though “disappointed with the appeal decision”, the council “respects the secretary of state and the High Court’s decisions”. “We look forward to working positively with the developers to eliver a high-quality development,” he added. Consultant David Barnes, director of Star Planning and Development, said the “sustainable” scheme would meet the area’s housing shortfall and provide benefits to the village including the delivery of affordable homes, “extensive” open space and sports pitches.

Building on unallocated Land: How much does it matter?

Experts disagree over whether development outside local plans is of lower quality compared to schemes on unallocated sites.

Michael Hepburn, a senior associate director at consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, said in his experience there was no difference in quality. He said the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provided adequate tests in terms of sustainability and design to ensure that quality remained high even for unallocated development, and added that the pre-application engagement and consultation process as well as the formal planning process gave councils and communities “plenty of scope” to have some control over such schemes. “The last thing we want is for people to think that development outside an adopted plan is automatically poorer quality,” he said.

Planning lawyer David Heales, an associate at Clyde & Co, said: “It is a fundamental tenet of the plan-led system that it provides for departure and/or exception. Of itself, this has not adversely affected the quality of development coming forward.”

But Dr Hugh Ellis, chief planner at campaign group the Town and Country Planning Association, expressed concern that housing developments were being approved on appeal. He said: “If we want high quality communities over the long term, that can’t be done in a piecemeal way.” Provision of housing through permissions of individual sites or individual development plans are “going to be pretty hit and miss”, Ellis said, and “will never deliver enough”. He said the NPPF had resulted in the private sector winning more housing appeals and expressed concerns about whether developments “are in the right place, of the right quality or achieving any affordable or social housing”.

Consultant David Barnes, director of Star Planning and Development, which represented the applicant in the Clevelands appeal, said he expected unallocated sites to continue coming forward for development so long as there were still shortages in housing land supplies and delays in adopting local plans.

Secretary of state Eric Pickles cited the NPPF in his 2012 decision letter, which said that refusal would run counter to the framework’s requirements for schemes to be approved where plans are out-of-date and councils are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply

Did he really? Those exact words? Because that’s not actually what the NPPF says – now I accept that Pickles might be incompetent, but you’d think he ought to know what his own document says.

Building on unallocated Land: How much does it matter?

Clearly that depends on what the unallocated land is. In a lot of cases it is equal in quality and all other relevant planning considerations to land which is in the local plan – it’s simply that the unallocated land wasn’t put forward at the time of any strategic housing review which fed into the plan. However sometimes there are good reasons why land isn’t allocated, sometimes land has been “un-allocated” when the issues were realised.

unallocated sites to continue coming forward for development so long as there were still shortages in housing land supplies and delays in adopting local plans.

Of course the reason this is happening is that despite lots of grandiose words in the NPPF about decisions being made at local level and being “plan led”, the reality is that local planning layers which were in place have been removed, leaving councils with only out of date plans and significant hurdles being placed in the way of new ones. Delays in adopting new local plans aren’t largely the fault of local councils – they’re very keen to get them in place as soon as possible, though admittedly they haven’t always been the best at bringing them forwards, which isn’t helped by significant staffing problems.

You mention walking dogs from your estate in the first post, what was there before the estate?

If it was green fields then can you really not see the irony?

Stimpy/Aracer – Any updates on your case?

Just waiting for the decision from the planning Inspector. Should be received in the next few weeks. Will let you know the result when it comes through.

Aracer did a tremendous job too – couldn’t have done any more.

And he even brought me marmite sandwiches!

Sometimes there can be a pleasant surprise down the line – witness the proposed new development for 78 houses in Delamere Forest being out on hold and sent to a Local Public enquiry despite the councils enthusiasm overruling considerable local opposition:
Campaign Against Delamere Destruction