Thank you to everyone who emailed the case officer in charge of the Woolsington Hall applications with apologies for absence at today’s planning committee meeting. Those of us who attended the meeting made our voices heard. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, Newcastle City Council voted 8-5 in favour of the applications, which will see the destruction of over 1,500 trees, many of them hundreds of years old, to make way for unnecessary millionaire houses in the green belt. Although some members of the committee queried whether the financial information relating to the controversial enabling development could be made publicly available, we were asked to leave the room – for less than half an hour – while the committee considered the complex financial information on which the enabling argument hinged. According to one committee member who had sight of the financial documents the appraisal was ‘all over the place’. The only hope we have now is that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid, will call in the applications. Already, lots of you have written to him asking him to call in the applications – approximately 25 letters have been received to date. The National Planning Casework Unit has advised that an assessment on call in criteria will be now be undertaken and all representations made to the Secretary of State will be taken in account. So it’s vitally important to make our voices heard NOW. If you haven’t already done so, please contact the Secretary of State as soon as possible at sajid.javid@communities.gsi.gov.uk asking him to call in the applications. You can copy in info@savenewcastlewildlife.co.uk You may wish to use the below template as a starting point and to refer to our speech, which was addressed to the committee at the meeting today. Template Letter: Dear Sajid Javid, I refer to planning applications 2014/1925/01/DET and 2014/1926/01/LBC, which relate to Woolsington Hall in Newcastle upon Tyne. I urge you to call in the applications for your consideration following the material changes to the scheme since the fire of 29th December 2015 on the grounds that they conflict with national planning policy relating to inappropriate development in the green belt and enabling development in relation to a heritage asset. 11,000 people have signed a petition against the plans, which constitutes cross-boundary and national controversy. The loss of mature woodland will result in a net loss of biodiversity and contravenes both local and national planning policy. Thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, [INSERT NAME] ______________________________________________________ Save Newcastle Wildlife Speech As a campaign group concerned with protecting wildlife and the green belt, events of 29th December 2015 have not diminished Save Newcastle Wildlife’s interest in this inappropriate development in the green belt, which will destroy one of the city’s largest areas of mature woodland to make way for unnecessary millionaire houses in the green belt. We have already given reasons on planning grounds why these applications should be refused. An 11,000-strong petition is testament to the strength of opposition to the plans. The report concludes there has been no material change, since the fire. But the devastating fire, which reduced the hall to a shell, drastically alters the assumptions of the entire scheme. The proposed enabling development would see further destruction of an integral part of the heritage asset – the historic woodland – and it would be unacceptable to detract further from the remaining historic value of the estate. There is no independent appraisal of the remaining heritage value of the hall. Historic England’s Heritage at Risk register entry for Woolsington Hall notes the owner’s intention to pursue the original scheme despite the hall being gutted by fire. A gutting fire – the culmination of years of neglect – has resulted in tangible and material changes. Furthermore, Historic England’s refusal to comment on the financial appraisal of the enabling development sends a clear message there is no robust case for approving such a scheme. The application process contravenes local planning policy. The Core Strategy is supported by reports and appraisals, all of which were in the public domain to inform the decision-making process. Yet in the case of these applications, which should have been factored into this plan, key documents have been withheld. We obtained information revealing planning officers received repeated requests from the applicant to keep the financial appraisal confidential. There is no record of any such agreement between the council and the applicant. Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 states information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person is not exempt if it is required to be registered under the Companies Acts as defined in Section 2 of the Companies Act 2006. The public interest test must also be met. Maintaining the exemption in this case, does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 refer to the rights of members of the public to see information relating to significant decisions made outside of meetings by officers and states that written records should be available for public inspection. Our requests for information since the fire have been systematically refused, however, a meeting with the senior planning officer handling the applications revealed there had indeed been several meetings with the applicant but there were no written records of these meetings. Last month the Information Commissioner’s Office revealed Newcastle City Council incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(c) of the Environmental Information Regulations and was ‘bemused’ by the council’s decision to withhold information from us. Without openness and transparency the need for enabling development cannot be ascertained. We did obtain correspondence revealing the applicant’s reluctance towards compensatory tree planting in advance of the extensive felling of mature trees. The applicant bemoaned the expense and planning officers suggested perhaps the applicant – who according to a recent report is prospering financially – applies for a public-funded Forestry Commission grant to cover the cost. Such reluctance to outweigh the harm of the development, which has already been recommended for refusal by the council’s ecologist, raises serious concerns about the applicant’s intentions and the scheme’s viability. It is concerning that officers appear keen to rush the application to aid the applicant in avoiding the Community Infrastructure Levy, which could contribute significantly to alleviating the financial pressures facing the council. Inappropriate development in the green belt can only be permitted if ‘very special circumstances’ exist. There is no evidence these circumstances exist. Since the committee last considered the applications, government figures revealed Newcastle as the biggest loser of green belt, losing 9% when drawing up its local plan. Combined with the lack of evidence for ‘very special circumstances’, this revelation reinforces the presumption against further green belt development. The report claims there is no need to refer the ‘amended’ applications to the Secretary of State, yet fails to mention there have been scores of letters asking him to call in the plans following the fire. Clearly, this is still very much a matter of national significance. The applicant claims the scheme will increase the image of the city, although the latest edition of Private Eye suggests otherwise. The fire, which took place in suspicious circumstances yet to be investigated, evidences the applicant’s persistent neglect of the property. Rather than rewarding such negligence, the committee should refuse this scheme until the full facts are made known and a less harmful restoration plan is presented.