Planning appeal opens into rejected Rounton homes plan (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Planning appeal opens into rejected Rounton homes plan
12:16pm Thursday 30th August 2012 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Ancient woodland or the future site of 45 new homes?
The battle over whether a leafy corner of Watford is ancient woodland that should be preserved or turned into new homes resumed this week.
Watford Borough Council threw out controversial plans to build 45 new homes on the Rounton site off Nascot Wood Road in October on the grounds that the woodland there was ancient and merited preserving.
An appeal was launched and the planning hearing, which opened at Watford Town Hall yesterday, saw barristers for the developers and council offer their opening arguments to planning inspector Gyllian Grindley, who has the final say.
Barrister Chris Young, speaking on behalf of the developers, said the crux of the matter was whether the inspector thought the Rounton site qualified as ancient woodland.
He said his client argued it was not ancient woodland and even if the inspector disagreed, it was not of sufficient quality to justify stopping the development.
Mr Young argued that an aerial photograph of the site showed it had not always been wooded and in the early part of the last century was an estate with lawns and even a tennis court.
He added: "Many early maps (of Rounton) don’t show the wood at all."
However Robin Green, the barrister acting on behalf of Watford Borough Council, said there was evidence showing woodland on the site from 1600.
He said as well as meriting protection in itself, the woodland was home to a number of protected plants.
This week’s planning hearing is the latest twist in the long-running saga over the site, which saw planning decisions twice delayed before the plans were eventually rejected in October.
At yesterday’s hearing the planning inspector also heard from one of the borough councillors, Mark Watkin, who sat on the development control committee that rejected the plans.
He told the hearing that as well as the potential loss of the Rounton site, residents in the area were also concerned about the amount of development going on in the Nascot area gernerally.
Councillor Watkin said: "They are unhappy at the rate at which this increasingly less leafy area of Watford is being developed.
"In recent times there have been major developments at the Cassio College site, the HQ of the British waterways, the music school and a number of developments along the once appropriately named Nascot Wood Road."
He added the inspector should take the cumulative effect of all the developments in the area into account when coming to her decision.
The planning hearing is due to continue until tomorrow, after which it will be a couple of months before the planning inspector returns her decision.
Comments(5)
Reg Edit
says...
1:07pm Thu 30 Aug 12
If Watford doesn't want it, Watford shouldn't have to have it. That's democracy, local democracy. We should have local democracy.
If we can't have final say over what goes on in our town, then what's the point of having a council and MP?
I'm not criticising the council here, they are fairly powerless. The whole planning business nationally is set against the people of this country. The last person who should be deciding planning in Watford is someone from outside Watford. In fact, it should be the local council or a local referendum.
For example, if Dotty gets it wrong, we can get rid of dotty at the ballot box. If this planning inspector gets it wrong, pray tell how do we get rid of her?
drunkenduck
says...
1:50pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Reg Edit wrote:Agree with you Roy for once esp about the major.
Planning hearings are a joke, loaded in favour of the developer who hire top gun barristers. McCarthy and Stone are a prime example of trampling over Watford.
If Watford doesn't want it, Watford shouldn't have to have it. That's democracy, local democracy. We should have local democracy.
If we can't have final say over what goes on in our town, then what's the point of having a council and MP?
I'm not criticising the council here, they are fairly powerless. The whole planning business nationally is set against the people of this country. The last person who should be deciding planning in Watford is someone from outside Watford. In fact, it should be the local council or a local referendum.
For example, if Dotty gets it wrong, we can get rid of dotty at the ballot box. If this planning inspector gets it wrong, pray tell how do we get rid of her?
But what is the point of having a major if we can't "all" vote and choose who we want to have a major (similar to major of london). And not rely on the local political parties to choose then own.
Roy Stockdill
says...
3:28pm Thu 30 Aug 12
I recall once being told by a former (Labour) Watford councillor that it was axiomatic that development was presumed to be a "good thing", this being the basis on which all planning issues were decided. Thus, objectors to a scheme had to make a very strong case indeed. And Reg Edit is right, the balance of power rests with the developers who love to present themselves as philanthropists benefiting the community when all they are really interested in is a fast buck!
However, the question of having a planning inspector who doesn't live in the area is because they are assumed to be independent and not biased towards either side. I've obviously never done a survey (indeed, I doubt anyone has) but I'd take a bet that the majority of planning enquiries find in favour of the developers because of the so-called national housing crisis.
I would imagine that the projected 45 houses at Nascot Wood will, if the hearing goes in the developers' favour, be sold at pretty high prices, given the overall housing market in Watford. I can't see that many ordinary much-needed workers like policemen, ambulance men, nurses etc will be able to afford them. Or will the developers pull their usual trick and offer a certain number of dwellings as "social housing"?
Nascot
says...
4:44pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Reg Edit wrote:As with drunkenduck I agree with you Reg
Planning hearings are a joke, loaded in favour of the developer who hire top gun barristers. McCarthy and Stone are a prime example of trampling over Watford. If Watford doesn't want it, Watford shouldn't have to have it. That's democracy, local democracy. We should have local democracy. If we can't have final say over what goes on in our town, then what's the point of having a council and MP? I'm not criticising the council here, they are fairly powerless. The whole planning business nationally is set against the people of this country. The last person who should be deciding planning in Watford is someone from outside Watford. In fact, it should be the local council or a local referendum. For example, if Dotty gets it wrong, we can get rid of dotty at the ballot box. If this planning inspector gets it wrong, pray tell how do we get rid of her?
drunkenduck says...
12:25pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Though for above story, would say "save the woodland" - full stop. And bet you that if a similar developed happened near, close to Barrister Chris Young home. He would object it.