The scheme for five affordable homes by Darren Wills of Classic Builders was REJECTED. The community’s need outweighed the need for more housing.
Statement from the Open Spaces Society at the bottom of this article. Please read!
In the north of Plymouth, surrounded by a housing estate, there is a small, triangular patch of grass, known locally as Wilmot Gardens Community Green. Alongside this site stand a number of stunning mature trees which form the remnant of an ancient hedgerow – a priority habitat.
This third of an acre was purposefully left open when the housing estate was built in the 80s, and as one objection to the planning application for the housing estate back then explains, this area was one of the most densely packed residential areas in Plymouth. Since then, even more green space has been lost to housing developments nearby and a sports centre down the road.
Almost unbelievably, this last space is now at risk of being built on.
Classic Builders, a building firm based in the Southwest, hopes to build 5 homes on this site, in doing so denying local people their open space and to add insult to injury, they plan to fell 5 of the 12 mature trees – including a gorgeous Category A oak. According to documents obtained under FOI requests, Classic Builders, who have worked with PCC on a number of projects, get the land for the bargain price of £72,500, more than £30,000 less than the highest offer, once planning permission is granted. The documents also appear to show that Classic Builders will not have to make any of the usual contributions to the local area through a Community Interest Levy or similar.
For the residents of Wilmot Gardens and the surrounding streets, the green is a lifeline. It’s used regularly by dog walkers, families and older people. Many of the homes nearby are only available to people over 50. The residents have said how they rely on this space to spend some time outside, to socialise, and they have spoken about how the space and the trees have a positive impact on their mental health.
In the past, residents have requested permission to install a bench on the green; permission was refused. This has, unfortunately, made it less inviting than it should be for people with limited mobility, but recently, a picnic bench has appeared on the land. This guerrilla seating has unsurprisingly proved very popular, with one family even using it to have their breakfast.
So why cram houses into this last patch of space?
The publicly owned land was “disposed of” subject to planning permission being approved by PCC in 2020 without the knowledge of the residents. They deemed it to be “surplus to requirements” without so much as a conversation with locals, let alone a formal assessment of community use. I was recently told by a committee member that they “know” that the residents don’t use the green. An unusual conclusion to have come to without ever having spoken to the residents and one I found surprising since many have told me how much they value it. The comment makes more sense when you know that this is also what a Classic Builders manager is said to have once told one of the residents. Anecdotal evidence from the developer, which clearly represents a blatant conflict of interest, should not be how green space is assessed by the planning committee.
But now, in a surprising revelation, in the latest officers’ report for the committee, PCC admit that the green should never have been classed as “Surplus to requirements”, which is how they justified the disposal. A thorough (albeit desk-based) assessment of the surrounding area confirms what locals have been saying, that the green, “currently serves properties that are not sufficiently served by other spaces of the same nature and function”. Although they attempt to play down the number affected to merely hundreds.
This means that the application ticks none of the boxes required in important local policies, to build on open space and even more importantly, it is also not compliant with national policy, in the National Planning Policy Framework, although this is not mentioned in the officer’s report.
The development is also non-compliant with local policies on trees and will also breach Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) rules, resulting in an eye-watering net loss of 48%.
A previous application was rejected due to the loss of green space. The latest version (which includes a community garden the size of a postage stamp, which will be permanently shaded by the remaining trees) will be discussed by the planning committee this Thursday. The committee approved this application last year, but it was subsequently quashed by the courts due to a failure to ensure the homes would be affordable. Last year, the application received 50 objections and now PCC officers have refused to reopen the application for public comments, despite the new information and the quashing.
The original officers’ report stated that alternative spaces to play and be in nature were close by, but this was quickly called out by locals, and officers reluctantly agreed they had got it wrong. The next nearest place to play is almost double the recommended distance away, as stated, in their own policy, and over double that recommended by the World Health Organisation – a steep and uneven 15-minute walk. Watch this video of a resident undertaking it.
And let’s not forget, it’s not just current residents who are impacted; the new residents would be without sufficient open space too.
A sports facility, nearby, was originally cited as an alternative place to play in the report, but even after officers admitted that they had got it wrong, one Labour councillor suggested that an uneven and, in places, overgrown path, which goes around the outside of a sports field, would be a suitable alternative to open green space. In order to use the field itself, you must book and pay. I suspect if it were his kids, being forced to play on a path, around a sports field where you can only look on as others play sports, he would be less enthusiastic about it.
An international meta-analysis done in 2019, concluded that reduced levels of green space near homes is undeniably associated with higher “all-cause mortality”. Life expectancy in Plymouth is already lower than the UK average.
So why are officers recommending it for approval?
Apparently building literally anywhere can be justified now due to our housing needs. You might have assumed that the building and felling had been approved by the Conservatives, we all know how the Tories like to fell trees in Plymouth. But it’s Labour members who make up the majority of the committee and they were content that the benefits for just 5 small homes outweigh the negative health impacts of losing the space and trees would have on hundreds of existing residents and future generations.
This development would only tick one of Labour’s new 5 Golden Rules for house building. Yes, the homes will be affordable, but it is not a brownfield site, it is not “grey belt”. It will not result in improvements in infrastructure or services and it obviously won’t enhance local green spaces. Officers claim it classifies as a “sustainable development” but that seems a bit of stretch.
Nobody is denying that homelessness is devastating, but surely the solution is not to build on literally any space, regardless of the health implications? This approach would leave the door wide open to build on any public park, as long as the houses are affordable. It’s madness.
Incidentally, since the application went in, PCC have announced they will be building 2,000 homes just up the road and a whopping 10,000 homes in the City Centre. Wouldn’t it be easier to just make it 10,005?
During a planning committee meeting for the latest application, the Labour cabinet member for housing, Cllr Penberthy, wholeheartedly pushed for the development, saying that PCC and Classic Builders had been working on the development, together, for over 5 years. He spoke, not on behalf of the council but the minutes show that he was speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Until recently, all 3 of the ward councillors for Wilmot Gardens were Labour; one has now gone Independent. Residents have had next to no support in resisting the applications from them.
Over a year ago, Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) requests were submitted to the council. If granted, a TPO is a “material consideration” for a planning committee. These requests have never been determined, despite the committee requesting they be and internal emails revealing that the Tree Officer clearly considers the trees sufficiently special to warrant protection from a TPO. A complaint about the non-determination resulted in the council saying that they decided not to determine it because there was a live application, which of course does not undermine the amenity value of the trees and only confirms that they are at risk, making the case to grant them stronger. If the application is approved, it cannot be overruled by making TPOs so determining the request after the decision is pointless. The failure to use the powers available to ensure valuable trees are properly protected when under threat in my represents a failure of PCC’s tree officer.
It’s been suggested that this all began because Wilmot Gardens is not the most affluent area in Plymouth. Many time-poor working families with young children live here, with fewer people able to get to grips with arcane planning policies as other, more affluent areas. There are multiple examples of residents in leafier parts of the city who have successfully seen off housing developments on their doorsteps, even in places where alternative parks are literally adjacent. In one case, the council actually helped the residents purchase the land at a discount; it’s now a lovely community park.
Or could it be that, now officers know the green should never have been disposed of, they are doubling down on their mistake, rather than owning up to it. Can PCC, who invited the developer to apply for permission to build on the land, really now recommend that the application be refused? I can see how that might make them feel uncomfortable. I suspect they would rather a community is devastated than they take responsibility for a balls up.
Let’s hope the committee members can be relied upon to do what’s right, not what’s convenient. In theory, planning decisions should not be whipped. PCC very rarely surprises me in a good way. I very much hope to be surprised this Thursday and that those trees and the space will remain, to be enjoyed by future generations for years to come, but I won’t be holding my breath.
STATEMENT FROM OPEN SPACES SOCIETY:
OPEN SPACES SOCIETY CALLS ON PLYMOUTH COUNCIL TO REJECT PLANS TO DEVELOP UNIQUE WILMOT GARDENS
The Open Spaces Society,(1) Britain’s oldest national conservation body, is deeply concerned that on 24 July Plymouth City Councillors are being recommended to approve the development of Wilmot Gardens, Crownhill. The case officer, Mr Macauley Potter, is recommending approval with conditions of five houses on Wilmot Gardens, a 0.3-acre much-loved open space. The 32-page report is here. There are 49 objections.
The council’s previous decision to build here was quashed by the High Court in May, following action by local protestors, backed by the Open Spaces Society. This action was in part because the council had not sufficiently considered that this was a valued green space in an area of poor open-space provision.
The council accepts that the proposal is against its own policy (DEV27) ‘as there would be a significant loss to the existing open space’. The policy outlaws the building on open space unless the space is surplus to requirements, or it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision on a suitable location.
The officer acknowledges that this space is not surplus, and that it will not be replaced by equivalent or better space. He states that the green ‘currently serves properties that are not sufficiently served by other spaces of the same nature and function’. Nevertheless, he claims that ‘there are sufficient public benefits or material planning reasons which are afforded significant weight’, and recommends approval.
Says Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society:
‘We deplore the council’s proposal blatantly to override its own open-space policy. Wilmot Gardens is much loved by local people. The council seems to think that, because there is no Friends group, and no community notice-board, it does not have value or quality for community involvement. That is plainly bizarre, as local people have shown their love and care for the site, for instance by placing a bench here and their concerted campaign to safeguard the site.
‘We urge Plymouth councillors to reject this monstrous proposal and leave the space for all to enjoy,’
