HVS Planning Letters

Planning Application (231333) - Ashdown Farm for change of use and erection 5 bedroom house

Ashdown Farm, Maidenhead Road, Hurst, R40 5RR.

Full Application (ref;231333) for the proposed change of use of land to a mixed use of residential and the keeping of horses, plus the erection of 1No. detached five bedroom dwelling and garage with associated parking, landscaping and swimming pool.

​

WBC letter refusing planning permission - 26 Sep 23

​

HVS Letter objecting to the application - 1 August 2023

Hurst Football Club & Proposed Green Space Designation

HVS was contacted by Hurst Football Club and asked to support them in their submission to Wokingham Borough Council that as a club they do not support the nomination of their ground at Stow Bridge, Hinton Road , Hurst as a designated Local Green Space and that any such designation would neither be appropriate or beneficial to them and may even damage the unique and longstanding support they receive from the owners of the land. Hurst Football Club have also written to Hurst Parish Council requesting their support in this matter. For information only a single individual has nominated the field for Local Green Space Designation.

​

View HVS Letter to WBC - 25 August 2023 2023 

Planning Application (211532) for 4 Houses Sawpit Road & School Road Junction

Update 23 August 2023

​

Application to vary conditions approved.  View WBC letter here.

​

Update 11 April 2023

​

HVS letter to WBC re variation of conditions - new application reference 230657

​

Update 3rd September 2022

​

Following the decision report dated 4th August 2022 from the Planning Inspectorate allowing the Appeal and granting Planning Permission, Councillor Wayne Smith convened an "urgent meeting" of the "Say No to 200 Houses in Hurst" group, of which he is the Chairman and HVS is a member, to discuss the decision in general and any possible impacts on other planning applications in and around Hurst.

The first of these meetings held on 17th August mainly considered  the feasibility of challenging this decision in the High Court through the Judicial Review Process.

Councillor Smith subsequently contacted Wokingham Borough Council requesting them to provide information as to whether in their opinion there were grounds for a Judicial Review ('In short, our opinion is there are no grounds for challenging the decision') and as a first stage in this process would they be prepared to fund a review of the Decision Report and all background information by a leading planning QC to establish the likelihood of any subsequent challenge being successful. A copy of their response is available here.

As a result of their comments, Councillor Smith convened a further meeting of "The Say No to 200 Houses in Hurst" group on the 24th August from which the main action point was to request the HVS Committee to release £7000 from the Society's funds to facilitate the QC's review. The HVS Committee met on 1st September (view Judicial Review briefing note here) and following a lengthy and informed discussion decided against releasing funds for this purpose for the reasons detailed in an e-mail to Councillor Smith dated 2nd September  (view here).

​

Update 7th August 2022

The decision of the Planning Inspector, dated 4th August 2022 is that “The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted”. in accordance with the terms of planning  application ref;211532, and subject to a schedule of conditions imposed by the Inspector.

​

The full Appeal Decision can be accessed HERE, and it is strongly recommended that individual members of the Society and other local residents read this in full in order to at least be fully aware, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the reasons for the Inspector’s decision.  There is also a short summary below of the key points.

​

HVS Statement
 
HVS formally objected to this application when it was submitted to Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) and reiterated those objections to the Planning Inspectorate after an Appeal had been lodged. Indeed before the intervention of WBC, when the Planning Inspectorate had indicated the Appeal would be dealt with by an Informal Hearing, HVS lobbied the Inspector to ensure we were given an opportunity to speak at any such future hearing.

Our objections were based on the fact that the development proposals are outside the current development limits and would appear to conflict with WBC’s Core Strategy Policy CP11 not least because  the proposals did not satisfy any of the exceptions that permit development outside those limits.

In objecting on these grounds HVS was maintaining the stance that it has taken in considering all recent applications for development outside current development limits. However the Society had previously raised it’s concerns with WBC and did so again in relation to this application, that there are concerns that such restrictive policies as CP11 are not consistent with The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and also on the Council’s ability to demonstrate and maintain a minimum five year land supply, and that in such circumstances an Inspector would be required to conclude such policies are out of date and therefore would apply little or no weight to them, which is exactly what has happened in this case. The Inspector has been obliged therefore to apply “the tilted planning balance” concept requiring him to assess the adverse impacts of the development against any benefits when assessed against the policies  in the NPPF when taken as a whole. The Inspector says “I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” and “Overall, I conclude that the benefits of the proposal significantly outweigh the conflict with the settlement boundaries and the limited harm in terms of landscape character and visual impact” 

HVS is aware that many individuals will be surprised, disappointed and perhaps concerned at this decision and the possible effect on current and future applications for development proposals in Hurst. However it is important to remember that into the future, each individual planning application will always be judged on it’s own merits and that in any future appeals any planning  balance considerations relating to that application will have to be fully taken into account.

HVS has looked in detail at the Planning Inspector’s report and whilst people may not agree with the decision he has made, his report does in our opinion properly address all the reasons for refusal as made by WBC, and all other material policy considerations, and as such complies with due process in respect of the observations made. If an application for a Judicial Review  of the Planning Inspector’s Decision was to be considered it would need to highlight where any error in the legal process had been made and to identify why the Inspector couldn’t reasonably have come to the decision he has on the basis of the information put in front of him.

HVS believes we need  to closely examine some of the inferences made in the Inspector’s report, and also lobby central government in relation to their targets in relation to WBC’s 5 year Housing Land Supply, so that any future threats to our village and it’s surrounds by inappropriate development can be mitigated.   

HVS is committed to playing a full  role, both individually and  as part of the community in this process.

The Main Issues reviewed by the Inspector and his decisions, as well as procedural matters considered with respect to Local and Neighbourhood Plans are below:

​

Procedural Matters.

• As it has not been possible to make substantive reference to policies contained within the emerging new Local Plan, in accordance with section 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework little weight                    has been attached to them.

• As there is no evidence as to when any Hurst Neighbourhood Plan following consultation, may be subject to formal examination, the policies contained therein have been afforded no weight.

​

Main Issues Reviewed by The Inspector

​

Whether the proposal is in a suitable location for housing having regard to national planning policies, the Council’s spatial strategy for new housing and housing land supply. 

• Conclusion that the proposal would conflict with MDD Policy CC02 as well as CS Policies CP11 and CP9

• Key factor is whether WBC can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (‘HLS’).  The inspector reviewed the latest data regarding the HLS and it is 4.92 years.

• As HLS less than 5 years the weight given to CC02 and CP11 and CP9 reduced to moderate.

​

The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. 

• Accepts that as a matter of principle there would be localised harm, however the visual elements of such harm would be minimised and local.

• Moderate weight attributable to likely adverse effect of scheme.

Whether the proposal is in a suitable location for housing having regard to the accessibility of services, facilities and to the reliance on motor vehicles. 

• Considers that local facilities adequately accessible by means of walking and cycling.  Bus stops are available for other services. 

• Cars would be required to access other facilities, but no basis to support assertion that proposed dwellings would be overly reliant on cars.

The effect of the proposed development on trees. 

• Tree that is potentially a veteran tree is protected by a TPO and as per the plan it is not being removed.

• 6 trees identified for removal to facilite site access are Catgory C trees and of low quality or Category U trees which are not suitable for retention.

• Except for above 6 trees, does not consider that the proposed development would cause a significant detrimental impact on existing trees.  Therefore no conflict with CP3, CC)3 or TB21.  These policies also require developer to maintain fauna and flora etc as integral part of plan.

The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity.

• Accepts the appellants view that a 1% biodiversity net gain, which meets current legal requirements, and there is no evidence provided that the developer’s Ecology Rebuttal Statement may be in correct.

Whether the proposed development makes sufficient provision for affordable housing. 

• Apellant has provided a completed Unilateral Undertaking, which amongst other things provides for an affordable housing contribution of £175,342 towards off-site provision.

• This carries significant weight for the Apellant

Whether there are any material considerations which mean that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan (Planning Balance). 

• The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing.  This therefore triggers the so called ‘tilted balance’ and planning permission granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the piolicies in the Framework taken as a whole.

• Factors reviewed and decision taken that on balance the appeal should be allowed.

​

Public Consultation starts 12 May 2021 and ends 03 June 2021

View Letter of Objection written by HVS

Letter from HVS Chairman to PHAG regarding Planning request at Sawpit Road - 20 May 21

Letter from PHAG to HVS re Sawpit Road - 20 May 21

HVS Statements re Potential Planning Application in Sawpit Road.

HVS Statement regarding Sawpit Road 23 April 21

WBC Letter to HVS - 2 July 21 - Planning Permission Refused

Notification from WBC that application gone to appeal, letter not received from PINS - 8 Sep 21

Update Jan 22

Appeal to be determined on basis of an Informal Hearing (date & venue to be confirmed).

Deadline for submissions of Comments is Thursday 20th Jan 22.

View more details.

HVS Letter to Planning Inspectorate - 19 Jan 22

Update 8/9 February 2022

John Osborne on behalf of The Society spoke to the Planning Inspectorate yesterday (8th February) to clarify the position regarding the future Appeal. Regarding the change of procedure he was told that the request came  from Wokingham Borough Council, who felt that the Appeal could be dealt with under Written Representations which resulted in a review by one of the Inspectorate's most senior Inspectors who concluded that there is "no justification for a Hearing" and that "the Appeal will proceed by way of Written Representations". In our written representation which has already been submitted, The Society had also expressed a wish to speak at the Hearing, and is sorry to have lost that opportunity. If you have not so far submitted your written submissions because you too had wished to speak at the Hearing, you can still do this by sending an e-mail to east1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk quoting the Appeal reference; APP/X0360/W/21/3280255 and it is suggested this should be done by 22nd February 2022.

John spoke again this morning (9th February) to the Planning Inspectorate and was informed that the decision to change the procedure for determining this Appeal is now being reviewed again !! Watch this space for further up to date news!!

Update 17 February 2022
HVS was in contact again with the Planning Inspectorate today 17th February and they have confirmed that following a review this Appeal will be dealt with by Written Submissions rather than an Informal Hearing.