Below is a copy of what i submitted to the planning inspector about Scraptoft Hall, back in December. We are still waiting to hear any news.

As one of three ward councillors, I have represented the village of Scraptoft for 20 years. I am a member of the Planning Committee and was present at the meeting on 13^th January 2009 when the current proposal was considered.  I am familiar with the site and surrounding area and have been heavily involved in planning matters relating to the Hall and the former De Montfort University Campus to the east of the site, currently being redeveloped for housing.

Ever since De Montfort University decided to dispose of the Hall and the adjacent campus and concentrate their development programme at the City campus in Leicester, there has been a need to find a new and acceptable use for the Hall. During the last 8 years there have been 3 different proposals: first, De Montfort University submitted a scheme in partnership with a developer, Lychgate properties, second a local resident brought the site with plans to restore the Hall and build some retirement homes in the grounds and now there is the current proposal by Scraptoft Hall Retirement Village.

The first two proposals never reached the Planning Committee for one reason or another and in my view both proposals were poor, badly thought out in terms of access arrangements and did not provide for an acceptable restoration of the Hall.

Whilst historically DMU failed in their responsibilities to maintain this important grade 2* listed building, the Hall has deteriorated enormously since DMU left. The main problem has been persistent vandalism and criminal damage. Last year the lead and slates were stolen and over a period of time most of the  fittings and fixtures have been removed. Reports of youths seen in the building were being received every week last summer and a great deal of Police time has been spent attending incidents and dealing with trespassing. I am aware that there has been at least one arson attempt and the Police have expressed  concern to me that unless a use is found for the Hall, there may not be a Hall to save for much longer.

In considering the current proposal it is important to remember that since its original listing, the area surrounding the Hall has undergone significant change as we saw on the site visit. The University Campus build in the 1950s and 60s comprised large blocks of student accommodation, buildings for teaching, recreation, support services, access roads and car parks. However desirable it would have been to turn the clock back when DMU vacated the site, the existence of the campus buildings meant that when David Wilson

The present scheme has undergone a number of changes following objections /concerns raised by local residents, the Parish Council and the district planning authority. The original proposals included some 3 storey development to the north of the Hall, close to existing properties on Beeby Road. Local residents were concerned that the new building would be overbearing and would result in a loss of amenity. When the applicants were made aware of these concerns they responded positively and were willing to make changes to the design in an effort to address these points. In particular, the reduction of block D from 3 to 21/2 storeys dropping to single storey at the northern end has been welcomed by affected residents.

There has been a great deal of debate about the historic importance of the views from  Covert Lane and looking outwards from the site towards the Scraptoft and Thurnby Valley Separation Area. The extent to which these views will be compromised by blocks G and H is a matter for the Inspector to reach a judgement on.  I agree that it is one of the crucial issues for this Inquiry to address. But in my opinion we shouldn’t forget the other significant and important view of the Hall from the West looking through the gates towards the front elevation. This view is equally important (some may argue more important) and, unlike a previous scheme, the current proposal, which preserves the views from the west, will help to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Harborough District has more elderly people than the national average and the number of older people are expected to grow faster than average over the next 20 years. In Scraptoft and Thurnby I am aware of elderly residents living in large family houses which have become too big for them. They wish to stay in the local area but there is insufficient high quality suitable accommodation available and I believe this scheme will help to meet the local housing needs of older people. It is also worth mentioning that whilst local opinion is not the only issue on which applications should be determined, there have been few local objections to this proposal which is not normally the situation in Scraptoft. Indeed most people I have spoken to say there is a desperate need to find solution for the Hall and believe the authorities should  be realistic about what can be delivered bearing in mind the length of the time the Hall has been empty.

In conclusion, I am convinced that the current scheme which gained consent from the District Council in January of this year is the only chance we have of securing the future of Scraptoft Hall before vandalism and theft result in its complete destruction.

It is unrealistic of English Heritage to assume that there is any alternative waiting in the wings – both the current economic climate and the modern housing estate which wraps round the eastern part of what was once a desirable gentleman’s residence complete with ornamental gardens and extensive pleasure grounds militate against the possible purchase and restoration of the Hall by a single benefactor.  < 

It is equally unrealistic to suppose that there are developers eager to take on a grade II* listed building in an appalling state with little scope to recoup their costs with new build in the grounds especially as ‘other grant funding’ is unlikely to be forthcoming in the current economic situation.

English Heritage claims that the Hall was not marketed vigorously enough by DMU and that the District Council has rushed into this scheme without having due regard to the damaging impact it may produce on the Conservation Area, the listed building and its setting.  As I have already explained, there were several schemes put forward following active marketing of the property by DMU (indeed I can recall seeing the ‘for sale’ advertisements in the local paper on at least 3 occasions).  None of these reached fruition until this latest proposal.  It is also unfair to claim that the District Council was too eager to find a solution to the building’s condition and failed to weigh up the harm of the new build.  Much discussion was held with the developers, the ward councillors and the parish over the extent of the new building proposed but in the end it was decided that rescuing the Hall before it was too late outweighed any possible harm to the already seriously compromised historic landscape.  In the absence of any fairy godmother waiting in the wings, this scheme represents the last viable chance to secure the future of Scraptoft Hall.  It may not be the ideal solution but it is the only one we have or are likely to have.

English Heritage claims that this proposal is not in the public interest because of the damage it causes to the setting of the Hall.  Surely the ‘public interest’ lies in preventing the total collapse of a nationally important building whose setting has been so eroded over the last 50 years.

Just wanted to up date you on developments  in Harborough - on Monday night (23rd) i managed to write a successful motion that won the vote.  It has some important points on the Co-op’s Eco-Town- and this will hopefully be the one of the final nails in the coffin

The motion said:

“That this Council following a request for clarification from the Rural East Have Your Say meeting:

1. welcomes the decision by the Government not to shortlist the Co-Op’s Pennbury Eco-town near Stoughton in the first wave of sites in England
2. notes the reasons why Pennbury failed to meet the Government’s criteria reflects the concerns raised by Harborough District Council during two consultation exercises
3. notes that the Chief Executive has recently advised the Department of Communities and Local Government that the opportunity to bid for support for studies of further locations was discussed at the Housing, Planning and Infrastructure Group. This group comprises of representatives from all authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire. The outcome of the discussion was that we would not be making a bid for support. Accordingly no further work is planned to be undertaken by the Council at this time.
4. acknowledges that the decision to formally withdraw the bid is a matter for the Co-op not the Council
5. believes that the issue of housing development is best decided at a local level by democratically elected local authorities. “

Sorry it has been so long since my last post - i am currently looking into a new website for the county group!

I sent this press release out last week on housing - let me know what you think!!!

Liberal Democrat’s response to Regional assembly on Housing 

Liberal Democrats have welcomed the decision of the East Midlands Regional Assembly to formally requested Ministers to delay the review of the regional plan that could include increased housing targets. 

Cllr Simon Galton said: “Having attended the meeting I was impressed at how the planning board accepted a lot of the comments and concerns raised by the various submissions to the recent consultation. These concerns are similar to the ones we included in our response which calls for the regional plan review to be delayed and abandon future increases to the targets.  

Local councils are already struggling to find the land to allocate for 97,000 Homes under the agreed plan and the task isn’t going to get any easier. A review now would simply increase the targets without improving the means to achieve them. The Leicester Mercury reported weeks ago about the potential for another increase in targets and these are linked to figures which would have to be included in any review. It is simple, we must build houses but these targets are making the task harder because they keep going up!  

As a group we have continuously raised this issue and have campaigned for sensible locally driven approaches to housing and this could be such an opportunity.”

Dear all, Having spent a while reading through the documents and statements following the Governments announcement on eco-towns two weeks ago – I thought I would do an update on the actual situation.  

First things first, I think we should all be pleased with the fact that Pennbury didn’t make the primary list of eco-towns to be built. This must be in no small part to the tremendous effort of all campaigners and those of us who responded to every consultation and public meeting.   A further victory can be found in the fact that Pennbury didn’t make the reserve list. In fact, Pennbury is on a list that can only be described as ‘neither here nor there’, which is unfortunately part of its danger. Having conducted some research I am afraid to say that the announcement has not removed the danger of Pennbury, but has increased the likelihood that the Co-op may well withdraw it. 

The Planning Policy Statement: Eco-towns that contains the assorted lists, allows for future eco-towns to be applied for directly through the planning system, as well as being considered in the various regional planning documents local government produce. Therefore it is still technically possible for Pennbury to continue – either in its current location or moved elsewhere in the county in the future.   Now, I don’t wish to be blamed as a prophet of doom, everyone has achieved a lot by preventing Pennbury being on the list, but I do believe we may need to face up to the reality that this town could easily rear its ugly head again in the future, the question is if so when?  Simon

I am pleased to announce that the Liberal Democrat County manifesto for the June 2009 has been released. Thanks for everyone who has contacted us with ideas and contributions.

Below is our ‘Pledges for Leicestershire’ and the full manifesto is availble from the links on the left side of the page.

Simon

Our Pledges for Leicestershire 

• We will devolve many decisions (as appropriate) to Local Forums and allow the local Councillors to engage with their communities to make the decisions that will affect them

• We will continue to campaign against centrally imposed housing targets – with a clear emphasis on protecting

  Greenfield land & regenerating Brownfield sites

• We will start a committed recruitment drive to bring in Youth & Community workers to provide support and guidance to young people.

• We will halt the above inflation increase in charges for Home Care introduced by the Conservative administration over the last few years. (The Home Care hourly charge rose from £6 to £8.40 (40%) from 2005/06 to 2008/09).

• We will work with local businesses to preserve jobs and maintain workforce skills.

• We will re-establish the ‘Community Plus’ budget to support Community Associations in a fair and transparent way

• We will set ambitious recycling targets for household waste of at least 65%. And pursue alternative technologies for waste disposal rather than rely on mass scale incineration.

• We will get tough on anti-social behaviour across Leicestershire.  We will expand the work of the IMPACT teams to combat anti-social behaviour

• We will always focus on getting good quality services – not wasting tax payer’s money on gimmicks and pet projects.

Following an intense debate on the issues of housing in the last County Council meeting before the elections in June, a Liberal Democrat amendment was agreed with all parties and moved with unanimous approval. Simon Galton Leader of the Lib Dem Group said: “I am delighted – after a very passionate debate on housing numbers and provision through the regional plan, it became clear that our amendment offered the most common ground for agreement. With some slight alterations, the amendment was passed and a forceful stance on housing issues has been achieved.” 

A copy of the passed amendment is below: 

County Council Meeting – 25^th March 2009   An amendment will be moved by Mr S. Galton    and seconded by  Mr Parsons    All of the words after first bullet point in paragraph a) of the motion be deleted and the following inserted In their place: 

•  The Prime Minister stated his intention that 3 Million homes are provided across England up to 2020 is no longer achievable.

•  The underline principles of the plan led system which involves local communities and is meant to give certainty about the amount of development which will take place is right but the top down process whereby Central Government imposes housing numbers is denying local people proper involvement and results in excessive amounts of Greenfield land being allocated for development.

•  That a further partial review of housing numbers and the legislation currently before Parliament will give Council Leaders on the proposed Leaders Board a key role in determining future housing numbers.

 All of the words after ‘b) That, accordingly, this Council’ be deleted and the following inserted:  

• Urges the Government to abandon nationally imposed housing targets based on population assumptions, abolish the NHPAU and introduce a system which allows Councils to plan for the needs of their communities in genuine consultation with local people and by working in partnership with other authorities

• Urges all members to attend the “Meeting the Local Housing Challenge” conference to be held 27^th March 2009 to allow members to explore possible solutions to the housing crisis and requests the 3 Leaders to meet as soon as possible after the conference to give consideration to any proposals which come forward with a view to the County Council exercising its community leadership role to address the housing situation through cross party co-operation;

• Urges District Councils in preparing their LDF’s to protect existing green wedges and open space and consider extensions 

• Believes that the polices in the adopted RSS of urban concentration and regeneration remain the right priorities and urges district councils and Leicester City Council  to encourage the redevelopment of Brownfield sites to minimise the use of Greenfield land

Liberal Democrats in Leicestershire have welcomed plans to boost affordable housing and avoid home repossession.

The plans, launched by the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable MP and Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Teather MP, include:

• providing refurbishment loans for owners of empty homes if the homes are leased to housing associations,
• boosting the amount of private housing for rent including using empty commercial property temporarily as housing,
• bringing in a new type of secure mortgage to help boost lending to house buyers,
• letting councils and housing associations buy up unsold private houses and allowing them access to funds to bring them homes up to social housing standards,
• making sure the courts allow repossession only as a last resort.

Simon Galton said, “Many people in Leicestershire are struggling to get their own home or are facing repossession because of the recession. We must do all we can to help residents through these bad times.

“Giving housing associations and councils the opportunity to buy up empty homes that builders cannot sell will mean hundreds of local families will be able to rent a place of their own. In Leicestershire alone there are at least 4, 590 empty properties, in Leicester City there are 5,580; if all of these homes where brought back into use it would drastically cut the number of people waiting on the housing lists.”

The Liberal Democrat Group at county hall has come out in support of the County Council’s plans to challenge the Local Development Framework currently going through consultation by Charnwood Borough Council.

The Liberal Democrat group has been conducting its own research into housing with the recent turmoil in the housing markets and has enlisted the support of Loughborough Councillor

The regional assembly (a unelected body that i am a member off - as it has so much influence over key areas) has been told to conduct a review of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). I am lead to believe that the government wants to increase the housing target number again.  

As a group we oppose the idea that the government can simply increase the targets before the ink is even dry on the previously agreed targets. We already have major concerns about the current target of 97,000 homes for Leicester and Leicestershire which will present the districts with huge challenges. Any further increase to these figures seems blind to the realities around us. I will be responding to the Regional Assemblies consultation on this review and as always i am willing to accept comments from readers on the matter.

Housing is a complex business, and targets simply don’t do anything without the means to see it through. The current turmoil in the economy has already caused a decline in land values and construction companies are simply not building. It seems crazy to me to have a target that risks allocating huge tracks of greenfield land for development when the future is so uncertain. What the government should be seeking is local solutions to the housing crisis – trying to find ways we can build more social houses and bring the huge numbers of empty homes in the City back into use. Targets and numbers don’t put roofs over people’s heads – we need action not further reviews.

Simon

The latest government solution in meeting housing needs is to promise £13 Million to be used to buy surplus housing stock from developers and convert into affordable/social housing. As an idea this seems fine yet the detail suggests that this money will buy 335 homes across the entire country. Although i welcome any increase to the allocation of affordable housing by government i do wonder if the sentiment is the only positive thing about this.

Locally we have a real need for affordable housing to help people get on the housing ladder, buy equally we need social housing to help those that simply need somewhere to live. As a county councillor i feel that to some extent we need to change our attitude to housing, we need to accept that council houses are needed and we needed to deal with the ones we already have. Across Leicestershire there are approximalty 14,000 empty homes, local districts have powers to develop an ‘Empty homes strategy’ but most couldn’t afford to buy the vacant stock. Government should be supporting local councils in buying this empty stock as an interim measure until more can be built. And we should commit to a coordinated strategy to ensure that all developments have the right mix of houses - not as a selling feature but as right for local people.

My worry is that developers play into our fears about housing by offering a specific percentage of affordable housing - yet we have the capacity to do so much more. The proposed eco-town is sold as a solution to the housing problem (30% will affordable/social property) yet 30% of 15,000 is still significantly less than the total empty homes in the county, and is also less than the 30% of ALL developments the Regional Spatial Strategy calls for. I understand that people worry about the prospects of their children or even their own issues (with negative equity etc), and i beleive local councils should do more to protect all from the worst excesses of the housing bubble bursting and to use this time to rectify the mistakes of the past.

If the chancellor is planning to spend big to protectt our economy - we should at least see some of the money be used locally to ensure that all have access to homes.

Following an intensive campaign a local protest group in Warwickshire has successfully managed to have a judicial review enacted. The group called BARD received the ruling from Mr Justice Collins on 11^th September. The outcome is a review to be presented by the High Court before the year end which could potentially set the precedent that affects all eco-town proposals. In particular the judge made many comments about the role of the Ministry for Communities and Local Government in the process and how this could be seen to undermine the planning system. The judge wrote: “I note there must be concern that the defendant [Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government] may have disqualified herself from considering any planning application for an eco-town because of perceived bias in its favour. 

Simon Galton, whose seat comprises most of the area designated for development if Pennbury ecotown is allowed expressed his ‘delight and hope’ that this would start a proper scrutiny of the ecotown process.   He said: “I have said often that this entire process is unfair and simply side steps the local planning system. I am incredibly hopeful that the judicial review will highlight what I consider to be intrinsic flaws of the proposed ecotown’s selection process, including the bespoke planning policy statement and am delighted that a local pressure group has been able to get this far.” To see BARD’s press release go to: http://www.bardcampaign.com 

Liberal Democrat group leader Simon Galton has welcomed the passing of a motion at the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth which commits the party to opposing the Eco-Town process. 

Simon Galton CC stated: “it was a good debate I am delighted that the party has committed itself in opposition to free standing eco-towns being imposed by government. I am pleased that the debate reinforced the fact that it is the Liberal Democrats that are the only party that consider sustainable development through local democratically accountable planning as the best way to create the homes. As a country we should do more to improve the existing housing stock and bring empty homes back into use for those without homes and those struggling to get on the housing ladder.  

Moreover the motion demonstrates how the Liberal Democrats oppose the crazy situation where a planning application rejected because it doesn’t meet the criteria of a local development framework or spatial strategy is simply allowed to apply to government to get a second chance. I offer my thanks to Cllr Sebastian Kindersley and Liberal Democrats in South Cambridgeshire for presenting this motion and setting our party as the only one that truly has the best interests of local communities at heart.”