Hi everyone
Sorry for not posting sooner, but I have had a busy week trying to do some real fee paying work in between my "pro bono" work on Newmarket!
Firstly, I think I have confused thing a little and got site names mixed up because Matthew Sheppard was down to represent DeVillers Developments (and GMI) on Trinity Farm and the Holywell Farm sites but the site that was heavily promoted as an alternative site to Newmarket was Holywell Farm at J32 which is this site - [urlhttp://g.co/maps/z4rdk[/url
All these sites BTW are greenbelt, as are the majority of the 43 other sites that WMDC looked at for the B8 allocation. The sites short-listed from that initial 43 was around 11, as they did not meet the criteria laid down in the core strategy, the biggest one being that this additional B8 had to be located on the M62 corridor, and ALL of the sites short listed are greenbelt!
This is a point I have been making since I got involved in supporting Newmarket and something many of the small handful of vocal detractors who post on this and other forums, have been unable or unwilling to grasp. The inspector confirmed at the examination that she was satisfied that the only way to meet the required allocation was to remove land from the greenbelt and although we all really knew this, the fact that she chose to state that at the examination, and not stay quiet on this until her report is issued, is a major vindication of WMDC LDF site selection process.
The Holywell farm site was being forcefully (possibly too forcefully at times) promoted by Matthew Sheppard for the B8 allocation initially, instead of Newmarket, but he also kept his options open and was pushing the inspector to take more land out of greenbelt now, even if it was not allocated for specific B8 development in the LDF, probably because he knows that the Holywell site proposal was not as robust as Newmarket! Interesting tactic! It was clear that Matthew's primary objective was to serve his landowner and developer client and to try and get this site allocated either by replacing Newmarket or if not, as well as Newmarket, then finally just getting the site taken out of greenbelt now for future possible development in maybe 10 years or more time. He was not there to do anything other than represent his clients to the best of his ability.
The council were asked by the inspector to state the reasons that Holywell Farm was rejected and therefore the reason Newmarket was selected. They very confidently put forward there reasons for rejecting this site. The access is an issue because there is limited capacity on J32 and WMDC stated that this is the reason they had already also insisted that the proposed new Castleford Tigers stadium at GH would have to have a new link road constructed as part of the planning conditions. The land is mainly agricultural and of a higher grade generally than the small area of agricultural land being used at Newmarket. It also has poor topography and no natural shielding cover from planting. The two main reasons they rejected the site was firstly the issue of convergence, in that it would narrow the greenbelt between Cas and Ponte to a very slim corridor, unlike at Newmarket were even when fully constructed, the greenbelt to both the Wakefield and Leeds sides. Second, within the adopted core strategy, as well as this land being located on the M62 corridor some of it also had to relate, as best as possible, to the Wakefield city sub-region and not the Cas and Ponte sub-regions. Basically, some of the extra B8 has to be better served for people living in areas of Wakefield with the biggest employment issues (the Eastmoor estate being and example). Selecting Holywell Farm, or most of the other rejected sites, would mean that all the extra B8 allocation would all be in the Eastern section of the district and that would be against the core strategy. Newmarket means that the extra B8 is split evenly between to the two. So, although the objectors keeping telling us how remote the site is, WMDC think it is by far the best and only suitable site available when you look at the allocations as a whole.
As I said on Twitter, I don't think Matthew Sheppard was able to put forward a convincing or compelling enough argument in favour of selecting Holywell over Newmarket and the inspector would need to be totally convinced that WMDC had made made some substantial misjudgement in the selection of Newmarket if she was to overturn WMDC preferred site options. I don't feel she was, but only time and the report will tell!
Nathan Smith, acting on behalf of some of the Newmarket Lane Residents, was asked what he considered the best alternative site to Newmarket was, he also said that he felt Holywell farm was a better option than Newmarket... surprise, surprise! So, when the chips are down the objectors are quite happy to promote other areas of greenbelt over the area of greenbelt near them... what does NIMBY stand for again?
The inspector asked him what other sites he favoured over Newmarket and he just pretty much just listed the 10 other sites that WMDC had rejected. The inspector picked one of those sites at random and asked WMDC to again say why they had rejected this site. Once again, they were able to, IMO, put forward strong reasoning for rejecting this site. The inspector was not about to go through every site and I personally think that she was just demonstrating to the public meeting, by way of this example, that WMDC had been robust and consistent in there selection methodology. I got a little cheap but very polite shot in during this discussion against Mr Smith by pointing out that as Mr Smith was indeed being paid by residents of Newmarket Lane and therefore that by definition, any site other than Newmarket would be acceptable to his clients. This actually made both the inspector and Mr Smith chuckle and Mr Smith declined the inspectors offer to come back on this point!
I thought that Nathan Smith did the best he could, but as at the PI, their arguments looked & felt weak.
So in conclusion, I personally felt it went very well and I am struggling to see anything other than at least 51ha of land being taken out of greenbelt in the LDF... but equally, we will just have to wait and see in her report! There is also a slight possibility that she might take more land out of the greenbelt at Newmarket while still keeping the B8 allocation at 51ha! This is to do with technical site access arrangements and might mean the area for the business starter units also comes out of greenbelt but will not be allocated for specific use, but again we will have to see!
This whole situation is unprecedented, what with the LDF & PI for a planning application being ongoing at the same time! As such, if the LDF report upholds WMDC proposals to take Newmarket out of greenbelt and allocate for B8 in February then given that LCC did not object to the stadium at Newmarket, then it would be hard to see the PI report recommending turning down the planning application for the whole development. As the crux of both Leeds and the opposition action groups arguments is against the B8, and that the stadium, starter units and hotel are therefore less of an overall issue, then one inspector saying this land is OK for B8 but then the other saying no, would seem to a very embarrassing prospect for the planning inspectorate and as such, I can't see this happening! Of course, if Mrs Bussey says that Newmarket isn't the best B8 allocation then that could be a huge blow! However, the point is we just don't know because the processes are effectively independent!
I think the LDF process will show that this site is the best available site for the B8 but while we are confident, we are not complacent!
PS. LCC sent two members of staff, the highways guy that spoke at the PI, who said nothing at all, and a young lady in place of Sue Speak (one of LCC's senior planners) who I suspect is reasonably junior. She didn't say anything until right at the end, and then when she did she said very little and pretty much what she did say had been proved wanting at the PI.... it looked like she had been told to go through the motions! I picked up on a couple of issues but also took the opportunity to again state that we believed that LCC's objection was almost totally politically motivated and lacked any substance. The inspector offered LCC the opportunity to respond to me on this point.... and she declined! I think LCC have given up after the kicking they appeared to get at the PI and now just appear to be going through the motions!
Interestingly, both June Fender and a Dr Gajjar were 'at the table', along with Mr Crapper of Oulton Society. Mr Crapper spoke and made several points, most of which I took the opportunity to respond to, but June Fender & Dr Gajjar did not speak... at all! Also, Paul Williams and Andrew Booth were down to be at the table, but neither turned up!
