Members of the public who live or work in the District are invited to put one question/statement of not more than three minutes duration relating to items to be discussed in Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered within three minutes, the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary question that arises from the reply.
A person who wishes to speak must register at least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start.
There is an overall time limit of 15 minutes for public speaking, which may be extended at the Chairman’s discretion.
Minutes:
Hatchfield Farm: Secretary of State Decision – Next Steps (Report No: CAB/FH/16/042)
The following members of the public spoke on this item (as summarised below):
(a) Councillor Bill Rampling (Chairman, Moulton Parish Council and on behalf of the Forest Heath Rural Parish Alliance)
Councillor Rampling addressed the Cabinet and confirmed that he was representing the Forest Heath Rural Parish Alliance and Moulton Parish Council who were supporting Lord Derby in challenging the Secretary of State’s decision. He hoped that the Cabinet would also take the decision to join this challenge.
Councillor Rampling then asked a question of the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Lance Stanbury, this being:
‘If the challenge was unsuccessful and the Secretary of State ruling stood, would the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, have to start the local plan process again?.’
Councillor Rampling further stated that the Council’s Core Strategy was based on the premise that the majority of the houses to be built would be in the most sustainable locations, ie the three market towns (Brandon, Mildenhall and Newmarket). However, Brandon was severely constrained for ecological reasons and if Newmarket could only be developed according to the wishes of the horseracing industry, where were the new houses going to be built.
Councillor Lance Stanbury then replied to the question raised and confirmed that the local plan process would not have to be started again. The Council’s Local Plan Working Group would be exploring all available options for growth within the District. Councillor Stanbury also stated that, at this stage, he was unable to confirm where the new homes were to be built as this was subject to due process, however, he would be speaking to this point later in his address to the Cabinet.
(b) Dr Allan Marchington (Resident of Herringswell)
Dr Marchington addressed the Cabinet and requested that the Council continued to support the decisions made regarding the provision of homes at Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket. He explained that, over two years ago, a democratic decision had been made, based on evidence, to approve 400 homes on Hatchfield Farm by the Council’s Planning Committee. This decision had been challenged by the horseracing industry and by the local MP, who requested for this decision to be called-in by the Secretary of State. Following a public enquiry, the Planning Inspector agreed with the Council’s decision and had determined, based on evidence, that 400 homes at Hatchfield Farm would not be detrimental to the horseracing industry.
In August 2016, the Secretary of State refused planning permission for 400 homes at Hatchfield Farm, due to the perception of damage to the horseracing industry from this application, thereby overruling both the Council and the Planning Inspector’s decisions. The effect of refusing this planning permission now meant that Newmarket would not receive the much needed infrastructure improvements, contributions towards primary education and provision of additional sports/community facilities.
Dr Marchington requested that the Council continued to follow the sequential process of the local plan and to support its local residents in their desire for sustainable development. He requested for the Cabinet to stand by the Council’s decision to provide housing on Hatchfield Farm, to prevent the situation whereby the perception of damage was allowed to determine where housing was provided in the District. In his view, there was no evidence to support this perception and should be challenged and requested that the Cabinet considered joining Lord Derby and the Rural Parish Alliance in a High Court challenge of the Secretary of State’s decision.
(c) Councillor Rupert Osborn (Chairman, Worlington Parish Council)
Councillor Osborn addressed the Cabinet and explained that his representations were of his own personal views as a resident of Forest Heath and as Chairman of Worlington Parish Council.
Councillor Osborn stated strongly that the Council should support Lord Derby in his appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse planning permission for 400 homes at Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket. Having read in detail, the comprehensive report of the Planning Inspector, Councillor Osborn was of the opinion that the development should have been allowed. All the relevant issues had been explored in the Planning Inspector’s judgment, which had concluded that there would be no negative impact on the horseracing industry. Councillor Osborn considered that with the proposed infrastructure changes and provision of new and much needed affordable homes in Newmarket, the impact of this development would have been positive and would have assisted with encouraging people to be able to both live and work in the town.
Councillor Osborn also referred to the wider planning consequences for the District, as a result of the Secretary of State’s decision. He expressed his concerns in relation to the planning constraints already in existence which prevented development, along with concerns that further restrictions in Newmarket could mean that the surrounding towns/villages may have to take further additional development. The village of Worlington was already being affected by increased traffic and any additional development may make this situation worse.
Councillor Osborn concluded by stating that the Council had previously decided that development on Hatchfield Farm was appropriate. Therefore the Council should support Lord Derby in his appeal, for the sake of the District as a whole.
(d) Ralph Brownie (Resident of Cavenham)
Mr Brownie addressed the Cabinet as a ratepayer from the village of Cavenham.
Mr Brownie acknowledged the responsibilities and difficulties placed upon the Council when trying to provide significant numbers of additional housing within the District. The proposals for 400 homes at Hatchfield Farm had met all the criteria for a sustainable development, in an ideal location which offered both infrastructure improvements and opportunities for employment. This location was also already adjacent to existing cycleways and public transport routes in the town.
By adopting the Hatchfield Farm proposals, the Council would also have had the opportunity to access S106 monies for the improvement of access along the A142/A14 intersection. The modelling of the proposed infrastructure improvements, by Suffolk County Council, had shown that the overall movement of traffic would have been of benefit to all road users, including the horseracing community.
Mr Brownie raised concerns on the already increased traffic levels on the roads, particularly from small/medium sized developments which were bringing more cars to each and every village in the County. A significant amount of this additional rural traffic was as a result of commuting into the main towns, such as Newmarket.
Mr Brownie referred to the future medium/long term plans for Newmarket, which included the increasing of facilities, such as an uphill gallop, with the express objective of increasing the number of associated horseracing training opportunities within the town. Therefore, unless homes were placed within an accessible and sustainable location, such as Hatchfield Farm, there would continue to be a problem of ever increasing traffic on both rural roads and arterial routes throughout the town.
Mr Brownie concluded that that the Council had a duty to its ratepayers to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse planning permission for 400 homes at Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket.