Our Closing Statement at the Inquiry, Land east of Tring ‘Marshcroft’

The Public Inquiry into Redrow plc’s proposal for massive development in the Green Belt at Tring has now concluded, and we have submitted our Closing Statement.

Our Combined Objectors Group – CPRE Hertfordshire, the Chiltern Society, and Grove Fields Residents Association – is doing everything we can to save this 300 acres’ site from development. We participated at the Inquiry as a Rule 6 party, having retained specialist legal counsel and expert witness representation to help present our case. We were pleased that several other Interested Parties also presented evidence, and that many concerned local people attended the Inquiry each day to support our campaign and show their opposition to Redrow’s development proposal.

The Inquiry has now concluded with the various parties having submitted their final Closing Statements. A short excerpt from our Closing Statement follows…

Read on for the introductory section of our Closing Statement, and download the full statement here.

Download

What happens next?

Following the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Planning Inspector will write up his findings and his recommendation. This will go the Secretary of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities who will make the decision on the case. There is no prescribed timetable for this, and we anticipate it could take 6 to 9 months or even longer before we will know the outcome.

Meanwhile, we are hugely grateful to the more than 400 individuals who donated to our Marshcroft campaign – thank you all! Your generosity means that we reached our £30,000 fundraising target which allowed our Combined Objectors Group to retain the external specialists who have been so valuable in making our case and presenting the evidence.

Please sign up below for our newsletter to stay up to date with all of our work to protect the countryside for everyone, now and in the future.

– – –

Closing Statement on behalf of the Combined Objectors – Introduction

“The Combined Objectors Group[1] strongly opposed this application and in light of the voluminous evidence heard over the last 15 days continue to do so.

This development finds no support in the adopted plan. I therefore start with an obvious point: this is not an example of plan led development; it is an example of developer led development and the antithesis of a plan led system. The Combined Objectors are not NIMBYs who are averse to house building as has been suggested, we welcome development but it must be the right number of houses, in the right place with the right supporting infrastructure, enabling Tring to thrive whilst maintaining the market town character. The size and location of houses are all questions of judgment which should be decided by a democratically accountable council, not a developer intent on making a return to investors.

The Local Authority is taking its time to prepare and produce a plan—but that does not mean that they should be perpetually punished when they are confronting the necessary trade-offs. The delays are not in spite of a plan led system; but the result of a plan led system. The regulation 18 draft produced an unprecedent number of responses from the community and these require careful consideration. This is the plan led system in action and we are reminded in the NPPF at paragraph 15, that development is meant to be genuinely plan led. Development contrary to the plan erodes trust in and undermines the plan led system. Accordingly, a direct impact of this scheme is a further erosion of the plan led system and this weighs heavily against permission.

There are multiple ways to increase the provision of housing, however, there is as Professor May acknowledged[2] one way to protect the Green Belt—do not develop upon it. As the council have explained in their closing, there are multiple sites available for development—the acute housing challenges are not going to be solved by building on this site.

This not the place or the time to make submissions on green belt policy—the democratically elected government has made it clear that the Green Belt should be permanently open and inappropriate[3] development should only be allowed where there are very special circumstances which will only exist if the benefits of a scheme clearly outweigh the impacts. All sides agree this is an exceptionally high bar and the high court reminds us that this is not a quasi-mathematical exercise but an overall assessment of whether the circumstances truly constitute very special circumstances so that development may be permitted notwithstanding the importance of the Green Belt.[4]

There was a somewhat juvenile attempt by the appellants to paint those who objected to the scheme as selfish or hypocritical.[5] A point is either good or bad and the motivation of the speaker is irrelevant.[6] Nevertheless, the truth is the opposite; far from being selfish, protecting the green belt is a manifestation of our better selves—forsaking the immediate desire to develop to ensure that there is open space for future generations. Our children, grandchildren and future generations should benefit from the countryside just as we have done. We must be vigilant against the temptation to abandon the needs of future generations.”

Download our full Closing Statement to continue reading…

Download

– – –

CPRE Hertfordshire is a Registered Charity and a Charitable Incorporated Organisation, Reg. No. 1162419

The Chiltern Society is a Registered Charity No. 1085163 and a Company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales 4138448

Grove Fields Residents Association is an unincorporated association of concerned local citizens coming together to fight this destructive development proposal

[1] CPRE Hertfordshire – the Countryside Charity, The Chiltern Society, and Grove Fields Residents Association

[2] Cross-examination of Professor May on 26 April 2023

[3] All sides agree that this is inappropriate development

[4] Sefton MBC v Secretary of State For Housing, Communities, And Local Government [2021] EWHC 1082 (Admin)

[5] Cross-examination of Mr Berry and evidence of Professor May on 26 April 2023

[6] Alternatively, if the motivation of the speaker is relevant the assertion of the appellant has to be considered in the context that they are a corporate entity with a duty to make a return for their shareholders who have already invested substantial amount of time and money in this scheme and are very keen to make a return on their investment.