DisAdvantage West Midlands
Wed, Jun 23 2010 05:00
| Campaigning
| Permalink
The Action Group has written to Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, as follows: -
Dear Mr Pickles
Advantage West Midlands, Regional Development Agency
The Government must make spending cuts; many of us in Herefordshire think that AWM could easily be closed, save much of money and actually have a beneficial effect on the County of Herefordshire.
My evidence is based on the Herefordshire experience of the last ten years.
During this time AWM, amongst other things, has built two new roads, created an industrial estate that remains empty and is planning a controversial retail centre (ESG) next to Hereford City. None of these make economic sense.
Leominster new Industrial Estate and new access road:
The Leominster access road to a new circa 40ha industrial estate was formally opened in 2003 with funding by AWM. It was opened adjacent to an existing industrial estate as a speculative venture; there was no proven need for it. Local politicians have since stated in the press that if offers the potential to extend the access road around the town of Leominster and open up the area for housing. Roads, housing and town planning is not and should not be the role of a RDA.
Years later the estate remains largely empty. It gained some notoriety last year when an amateur pilot landed his aeroplane on the new access road, the estate was so empty and the road so clear he mistook it for Shobdon airport. The main occupation of plots has been relocated organisations, such as the Police Station, the Vets and Orphans Press. Because these ‘businesses’ are now some way out of town they require a car trip rather than walking to them as was formerly possible.
The Rotherwas Access Road and Rotherwas Industrial estate expansion; AWM grant £9.5m. Road opened August 2008.
The Rotherwas Access Road was refused funding three times by the DfT on the grounds of poor value for money.
There was no traffic or business case for the road, in fact the methodology of accessing jobs created used by Herefordshire Council in their bid to the DfT for funding was criticised by the DfT who lowered the figure of potential jobs created.
Dear Mr Pickles
Advantage West Midlands, Regional Development Agency
The Government must make spending cuts; many of us in Herefordshire think that AWM could easily be closed, save much of money and actually have a beneficial effect on the County of Herefordshire.
My evidence is based on the Herefordshire experience of the last ten years.
During this time AWM, amongst other things, has built two new roads, created an industrial estate that remains empty and is planning a controversial retail centre (ESG) next to Hereford City. None of these make economic sense.
Leominster new Industrial Estate and new access road:
The Leominster access road to a new circa 40ha industrial estate was formally opened in 2003 with funding by AWM. It was opened adjacent to an existing industrial estate as a speculative venture; there was no proven need for it. Local politicians have since stated in the press that if offers the potential to extend the access road around the town of Leominster and open up the area for housing. Roads, housing and town planning is not and should not be the role of a RDA.
Years later the estate remains largely empty. It gained some notoriety last year when an amateur pilot landed his aeroplane on the new access road, the estate was so empty and the road so clear he mistook it for Shobdon airport. The main occupation of plots has been relocated organisations, such as the Police Station, the Vets and Orphans Press. Because these ‘businesses’ are now some way out of town they require a car trip rather than walking to them as was formerly possible.
The Rotherwas Access Road and Rotherwas Industrial estate expansion; AWM grant £9.5m. Road opened August 2008.
The Rotherwas Access Road was refused funding three times by the DfT on the grounds of poor value for money.
There was no traffic or business case for the road, in fact the methodology of accessing jobs created used by Herefordshire Council in their bid to the DfT for funding was criticised by the DfT who lowered the figure of potential jobs created.
Not one job has been created by building the road. Formal questions to Full Council in February and May 2010 were dodged by the Cabinet Minister responsible when asked and when the questioner followed up with ‘I conclude no jobs have been created as a result of building the Rotherwas Access Road’, it was not denied.
The independent Inspector of Herefordshire’s Unitary Development Plan stated in 2006, before the road was built, that the need to expand the Rotherwas Industrial Estate had been ‘grossly exaggerated’. Large parts of Rotherwas estate were and are empty.
The number of employees had been given as 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 in the justification for the road by the Council and by AWM in different documents in the same year (thus making it difficult to assess how successful the funding has been in the future). At the formal opening of the road, the most recent assessment it was given as 2000 (though the AWM justification used the 4000 figure)
When the lead official on this scheme from AWM was asked under Freedom of Information for the minutes of the meeting on how the decision was reached to fund the road and estate, the response was – there was no meeting, there were no notes from any telephone conversations. There was no way for the public to understand how the decision had been made
Grants of £10m or more are scrutinised by Government Office West Midlands, this particular grant was £9.5m. There was no way for this decision to be scrutinised by any Government body on the grounds of value for money.
The grant being under £10m did no have to adhere to the ‘Treasury Green Book Guidance’ to justify the money spent.
The whole ‘Rotherwas Futures’ package was £17.5m of which AWM gave £9.5m. If every business on the estate (AWM figures say there are 146) were given £119,000 to spend on their business – the cost of the development, it seems likely they would create more jobs and more innovation than the nil jobs this road created. The Council have increased their borrowing to meet the costs and are relying on future rents and future rent increases to pay it back.
The ‘Edgar Street Grid’ AWM funding of £20m.
ESG is a controversial scheme to redevelop the north part of Hereford city. There is considerably disquiet from local people about the new retail development – what effect it will have on existing businesses who must re-locate, on the existing shops and on the traffic. A campaign opposing ESG (called Its Our City) has a strong following and delivered an 11,000 signed petition, ignored by the Council and the ESG board, calling for a halt to the plans.
Herefordshire people have not been asked if they want the new development. It was not part of election literature at the last election, and in the ongoing ‘Local Development Framework’ plan, it is assumed that it will happen. There is no consultation on do people want it at all. All the exhibitions and ‘consultations’ are about convincing people it is a good thing.
AWM and Smaller Schemes
People complain that on smaller funding schemes (LEADER, the small business grant); AWM is over bureaucratic and therefore difficult. Many forms are required during and at the end of the grant to justify the money. It is a considerable burden on organisations and small businesses applying. Employees that don’t have staff specifically set to the task are put at a considerable disadvantage.
There is a clear imbalance; on small schemes there is an over justification for money spent, on the large schemes (as set out above), there is virtually no justification. This is typical of large hierarchical organisations, too timid to challenge large things but over zealous with small organisations.
Conclusions
AWM has brought a distorting influence to bear on planning and local democracy that has an adverse effect on the county. AWM has a great deal of money and their schemes are generally large and environmentally damaging (the Rotherwas Road for example went through an Area of Great Landscape Beauty, ESG is converting half the City of Hereford, adding to car parking and creating new roads). Money talks, if officials in AWM think it is a good idea the chances are that the scheme will happen. The best efforts of local people can have little effect against the money and clout of AWM. People feel powerless against them, as indeed they are.
The organisation is impenetrable, in spite of a large website with many documents, it is very hard to find how much money has been spent on what, these answers in our experience come from Freedom of Information requests.
In areas like Herefordshire the RDA money should be brought back under democratic control, or, more preferably grants should be allocated by government officials (such as GOWM) who abide by long established and developing policies that are guided by value for money, fairness and sustainability principles.
Yours sincerely
The whole ‘Rotherwas Futures’ package was £17.5m of which AWM gave £9.5m. If every business on the estate (AWM figures say there are 146) were given £119,000 to spend on their business – the cost of the development, it seems likely they would create more jobs and more innovation than the nil jobs this road created. The Council have increased their borrowing to meet the costs and are relying on future rents and future rent increases to pay it back.
The ‘Edgar Street Grid’ AWM funding of £20m.
ESG is a controversial scheme to redevelop the north part of Hereford city. There is considerably disquiet from local people about the new retail development – what effect it will have on existing businesses who must re-locate, on the existing shops and on the traffic. A campaign opposing ESG (called Its Our City) has a strong following and delivered an 11,000 signed petition, ignored by the Council and the ESG board, calling for a halt to the plans.
Herefordshire people have not been asked if they want the new development. It was not part of election literature at the last election, and in the ongoing ‘Local Development Framework’ plan, it is assumed that it will happen. There is no consultation on do people want it at all. All the exhibitions and ‘consultations’ are about convincing people it is a good thing.
AWM and Smaller Schemes
People complain that on smaller funding schemes (LEADER, the small business grant); AWM is over bureaucratic and therefore difficult. Many forms are required during and at the end of the grant to justify the money. It is a considerable burden on organisations and small businesses applying. Employees that don’t have staff specifically set to the task are put at a considerable disadvantage.
There is a clear imbalance; on small schemes there is an over justification for money spent, on the large schemes (as set out above), there is virtually no justification. This is typical of large hierarchical organisations, too timid to challenge large things but over zealous with small organisations.
Conclusions
AWM has brought a distorting influence to bear on planning and local democracy that has an adverse effect on the county. AWM has a great deal of money and their schemes are generally large and environmentally damaging (the Rotherwas Road for example went through an Area of Great Landscape Beauty, ESG is converting half the City of Hereford, adding to car parking and creating new roads). Money talks, if officials in AWM think it is a good idea the chances are that the scheme will happen. The best efforts of local people can have little effect against the money and clout of AWM. People feel powerless against them, as indeed they are.
The organisation is impenetrable, in spite of a large website with many documents, it is very hard to find how much money has been spent on what, these answers in our experience come from Freedom of Information requests.
In areas like Herefordshire the RDA money should be brought back under democratic control, or, more preferably grants should be allocated by government officials (such as GOWM) who abide by long established and developing policies that are guided by value for money, fairness and sustainability principles.
Yours sincerely
Secretary, DHAA
Regrouping
A meeting was called on April 15th to resolve what to do with the Dinedor Hill Action Association (DHAA) now that the purposes of its formation have been achieved.
The DHAA developed out of the Dinedor Hill Action Group. The DHA Group was formed for the purposes of opposing the Rotherwas Access Road and its associated housing. The DHA Group became a limited company on the 11 May 2007 for the purposes of fighting a court case against Herefordshire Council and was re named Dinedor Hill Action Association. The DHAA’s case was heard in the High Court on June 26th and 27th 2008. It won the Court Case and subsequent appeals by Bloor Homes, as an interested party, were refused. Bloor Homes withdrew from the action and its final chance for appeal on March 9th 2009.
Some members felt that the DHAA should be dissolved and any money remaining in the bank account given to an appropriate organisation. Others argued that the limited company should be dissolved but the Group remain, as there will be future planning issues to be fought and having an existing group and bank account will be helpful.
It was resolved that the DHAA should be dissolved by 31st May 2009. The organisation should be re-named the Dinedor Hill Action Group and the bank account changed accordingly. It was therefore resolved to change the name of the group and the bank account to the Dinedor Hill Action Group.
The DHAA developed out of the Dinedor Hill Action Group. The DHA Group was formed for the purposes of opposing the Rotherwas Access Road and its associated housing. The DHA Group became a limited company on the 11 May 2007 for the purposes of fighting a court case against Herefordshire Council and was re named Dinedor Hill Action Association. The DHAA’s case was heard in the High Court on June 26th and 27th 2008. It won the Court Case and subsequent appeals by Bloor Homes, as an interested party, were refused. Bloor Homes withdrew from the action and its final chance for appeal on March 9th 2009.
Some members felt that the DHAA should be dissolved and any money remaining in the bank account given to an appropriate organisation. Others argued that the limited company should be dissolved but the Group remain, as there will be future planning issues to be fought and having an existing group and bank account will be helpful.
It was resolved that the DHAA should be dissolved by 31st May 2009. The organisation should be re-named the Dinedor Hill Action Group and the bank account changed accordingly. It was therefore resolved to change the name of the group and the bank account to the Dinedor Hill Action Group.
Bloor Homes Withdraw Their Appeal
Mon, Mar 30 2009 07:31
| Court case, Bullinghope Campaign
| Permalink
Bloor Homes withdrew their application from the High Court for an oral hearing, requesting leave to appeal against the Bullinghope housing yesterday (March 9 2009). This was their last chance to contest the High Court decision that ruled against allowing housing at Bullinghope. As they have withdrawn their application it means the Court Case is finally and absolutely lost by Herefordshire Council and Bloor Homes and there can be no housing at Bullinghope during the current plan period.
On June 26th and 27th 2008 the case, Dinedor Hill Action Association (DHAA) against Herefordshire Council, with Bloor Homes an Interested Party was heard in the High Court London. The case concerned an allocation of land for 300 houses just south of Hereford, between the railway line and Bullinghope Church. The DHAA claimed that the decision of Herefordshire Council to include the allocation of land at Bullinghope for housing was unlawful. The High Court ruled in their favour.
The Bullinghope housing site had been brought forward for inclusion in the Unitary Development Plan 2008-2011 by Herefordshire Council for the purpose of part funding the Rotherwas Access Road, which has now been completed using other funding.
The UDP Inspector had recommended against the Bullinghope housing site in his June 2006 report, stating it would be ‘totally unsuitable’ for housing and ‘a material and unjustified incursion into open countryside’. The Council decided to ignore the Inspector's decision and went ahead and included the 300 housing site in the UDP. The DHAA took the council to court under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The DHAA won their court case. The Judge ruled that the housing allocation should be quashed. He said the reasons given by the inspector for rejecting Bullinghope had not been dealt with and that “this amounted to a substantial flaw in the decision making process.” He added “… the decision was in reality driven by the Access Road funding and explains the absence of any proper reasons for rejecting the inspector’s recommendation.” The Council were reprimanded by the Judge for knowingly not producing relevant material in Court.
The Council were not given leave to appeal, however it remains open to a defendant to appeal against the decision of no appeal. The Council did not apply for appeal, but Bloor Homes as an interested party did. They were refused this appeal on 31 October 2008. The second appeal judge refused leave as he ruled that the evidence showed the reason the Council wanted the Bullinghope housing was to fund the Rotherwas Access Road, therefore they had not addressed the UDP Inspector’s reasons for rejecting housing at Bullinghope. In spite of this Bloor were allowed yet one more chance, an oral hearing to apply for leave to appeal. They applied for this and were given a date on March 31st 2009. However, they decided to withdraw their application.
Said Becky Roseff, Secretary of the DHAA “I never doubted that we would win an appeal, just as we won the Court Case as the facts were on our side, but we are all pleased not to have to go to court again. I would like to thank our excellent lawyers Phil Michaels from the Rights and Justice Department of Friends of the Earth and barrister David Forsdick from Landmark Chambers and all the people who gave us money and support for the case.”
For more information ring:
David Miller, Chair 01432 273995
Becky Roseff, Secretary 01684 541408
On June 26th and 27th 2008 the case, Dinedor Hill Action Association (DHAA) against Herefordshire Council, with Bloor Homes an Interested Party was heard in the High Court London. The case concerned an allocation of land for 300 houses just south of Hereford, between the railway line and Bullinghope Church. The DHAA claimed that the decision of Herefordshire Council to include the allocation of land at Bullinghope for housing was unlawful. The High Court ruled in their favour.
The Bullinghope housing site had been brought forward for inclusion in the Unitary Development Plan 2008-2011 by Herefordshire Council for the purpose of part funding the Rotherwas Access Road, which has now been completed using other funding.
The UDP Inspector had recommended against the Bullinghope housing site in his June 2006 report, stating it would be ‘totally unsuitable’ for housing and ‘a material and unjustified incursion into open countryside’. The Council decided to ignore the Inspector's decision and went ahead and included the 300 housing site in the UDP. The DHAA took the council to court under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The DHAA won their court case. The Judge ruled that the housing allocation should be quashed. He said the reasons given by the inspector for rejecting Bullinghope had not been dealt with and that “this amounted to a substantial flaw in the decision making process.” He added “… the decision was in reality driven by the Access Road funding and explains the absence of any proper reasons for rejecting the inspector’s recommendation.” The Council were reprimanded by the Judge for knowingly not producing relevant material in Court.
The Council were not given leave to appeal, however it remains open to a defendant to appeal against the decision of no appeal. The Council did not apply for appeal, but Bloor Homes as an interested party did. They were refused this appeal on 31 October 2008. The second appeal judge refused leave as he ruled that the evidence showed the reason the Council wanted the Bullinghope housing was to fund the Rotherwas Access Road, therefore they had not addressed the UDP Inspector’s reasons for rejecting housing at Bullinghope. In spite of this Bloor were allowed yet one more chance, an oral hearing to apply for leave to appeal. They applied for this and were given a date on March 31st 2009. However, they decided to withdraw their application.
Said Becky Roseff, Secretary of the DHAA “I never doubted that we would win an appeal, just as we won the Court Case as the facts were on our side, but we are all pleased not to have to go to court again. I would like to thank our excellent lawyers Phil Michaels from the Rights and Justice Department of Friends of the Earth and barrister David Forsdick from Landmark Chambers and all the people who gave us money and support for the case.”
For more information ring:
David Miller, Chair 01432 273995
Becky Roseff, Secretary 01684 541408
Regional Spatial Strategy comment
Mon, Dec 8 2008 08:41
| Planning, Bullinghope Campaign News
| Permalink
Dinedor Hill Action group has commented on the Regional Spatial Strategy which has huge implications for traffic and housing in Hereford. You can download our submission as a pdf document here.
Bloor Homes Loses Appeal on Bullinghope Housing
Wed, Nov 5 2008 08:07
| Campaign Press Releases
| Permalink
Bloor Homes and Herefordshire Council have been refused leave to appeal over the High Court decision to stop the Council putting housing at Bullinghope against the planning inspectors recommendation.
In the judgement, appeal court judge Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick said: "... the council's decision to include the Bullinghope site (despite the inspector's recommendation) was not that it disagreed with the planning judgment but rather that the council's decision was driven by the perceived need to obtain funding from the developer in respect of the Rotherwas Access Road."
This is not the end of the story. Bloor now have seven days to apply for permission to appeal at an oral hearing.
David Miller, Chair of the Dinedor Hill Group said; "We are delighted with this decision and hope against hope that the Council will learn from this. They wanted to push through unsuitable housing in an unsuitable place, just to get the money to fund an unnecessary road."
"Local people need to ensure, at the ballot box if necessary, that the council learn from their mistakes and do not continue with their current policies on housing and roads."
In the judgement, appeal court judge Rt Hon Sir John Chadwick said: "... the council's decision to include the Bullinghope site (despite the inspector's recommendation) was not that it disagreed with the planning judgment but rather that the council's decision was driven by the perceived need to obtain funding from the developer in respect of the Rotherwas Access Road."
This is not the end of the story. Bloor now have seven days to apply for permission to appeal at an oral hearing.
David Miller, Chair of the Dinedor Hill Group said; "We are delighted with this decision and hope against hope that the Council will learn from this. They wanted to push through unsuitable housing in an unsuitable place, just to get the money to fund an unnecessary road."
"Local people need to ensure, at the ballot box if necessary, that the council learn from their mistakes and do not continue with their current policies on housing and roads."
Council in denial about losing the Bullinghope case: when will they learn?
Wed, Aug 27 2008 07:37
| Campaign Press Releases
| Permalink
Dinedor Hill Action Association has reacted with astonishment to claims by Herefordshire Council* that they won two out of three points brought to the High Court Bullinghope judgement release on Thursday.
In fact the DHAA only brought one action - on housing at Bullinghope - which they resoundingly won. The other two points mentioned by council officer Kevin O'Keefe had never been raised by the group at all.
Association Secretary Becky Roseff said: "It's incredible that instead of learning a lesson the Council are in denial about losing the case. In the same interview the officer refused to admit that there was no affordable housing in the Bullinghope plans they have been forced to scrap. Anyone who has read the planning application knows there was no affordable housing, so why would he not admit this? It's continual smoke and mirrors with this authority."
"Do the Council's legal team actually know how to read a judgement? They seem to have misinterpreted this one so I will try to explain it simply for them: they lost!"
- ends -
*in an interview on BBC Hereford & Worcester's Andrew Eastman show on Thursday 24th
In fact the DHAA only brought one action - on housing at Bullinghope - which they resoundingly won. The other two points mentioned by council officer Kevin O'Keefe had never been raised by the group at all.
Association Secretary Becky Roseff said: "It's incredible that instead of learning a lesson the Council are in denial about losing the case. In the same interview the officer refused to admit that there was no affordable housing in the Bullinghope plans they have been forced to scrap. Anyone who has read the planning application knows there was no affordable housing, so why would he not admit this? It's continual smoke and mirrors with this authority."
"Do the Council's legal team actually know how to read a judgement? They seem to have misinterpreted this one so I will try to explain it simply for them: they lost!"
- ends -
*in an interview on BBC Hereford & Worcester's Andrew Eastman show on Thursday 24th
This will run and run
Mon, Aug 18 2008 02:18
| News update
| Permalink
DINEDOR HILL ACTION ASSOCIATION
Dinedor Hill Action Association hoped that their success in the High Court would be the end of the long running controversy with regard to the proposed housing development at Bullinghope. So, it is disappointing to learn that Bloor Homes, but significantly not the council, have decided to appeal. But first, they have to obtain leave from the Court of Appeal. If granted then the appeal will be heard. However, it is not a re-hearing. The appeal would have to concentrate on the Judge’s reason as given in his Judgment and whether he misdirected himself or committed any errors of law. Regretfully this case is by no means concluded. It is going to run and run.
David Q. Miller
Dinedor Hill Action Association hoped that their success in the High Court would be the end of the long running controversy with regard to the proposed housing development at Bullinghope. So, it is disappointing to learn that Bloor Homes, but significantly not the council, have decided to appeal. But first, they have to obtain leave from the Court of Appeal. If granted then the appeal will be heard. However, it is not a re-hearing. The appeal would have to concentrate on the Judge’s reason as given in his Judgment and whether he misdirected himself or committed any errors of law. Regretfully this case is by no means concluded. It is going to run and run.
David Q. Miller
Bloor Homes to seek appeal - message to supporters
Mon, Aug 18 2008 02:16
| News update
| Permalink
I have to report that Bloor Homes are seeking leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal. This despite Judge Collins in the High Court refusing leave to appeal and the council opting not to appeal. However, in my view, I suspect that, the council were probably aware of Bloor’s proposed action and decided to leave it to them.
In the council-planning meeting today, councillors were not allowed to discuss Bullinghope on the basis that decisions on Bullinghope are currently sub-judice. I am advised that it was wholly wrong for the committee chairman to make this decision on the advice of the council lawyer sitting with him. Sub judice does not apply in this case, as the Court of appeal Judges would be considered in law not to be prejudiced by public debate.
Our lawyers in the case are currently on holiday and I will contact you again as soon as the picture becomes clearer.
We may yet have to rally round again.
Please see the statement issued today by Judge David Miller, Director of DHAA
Regards,
Peter Cocks
DINEDOR HILL ACTION ASSOCIATION
In the council-planning meeting today, councillors were not allowed to discuss Bullinghope on the basis that decisions on Bullinghope are currently sub-judice. I am advised that it was wholly wrong for the committee chairman to make this decision on the advice of the council lawyer sitting with him. Sub judice does not apply in this case, as the Court of appeal Judges would be considered in law not to be prejudiced by public debate.
Our lawyers in the case are currently on holiday and I will contact you again as soon as the picture becomes clearer.
We may yet have to rally round again.
Please see the statement issued today by Judge David Miller, Director of DHAA
Regards,
Peter Cocks
DINEDOR HILL ACTION ASSOCIATION
Legal challenge documents
Fri, Aug 15 2008 07:03
| Court case
| Permalink
We've now added the main documents from the legal case to a new section here.
To appeal or not appeal...
Fri, Aug 15 2008 06:16
| Court case, Bullinghope Campaign
| Permalink
Herefordshire Council have announced that they are not appealing against the High Court judgement against houses at Bullinghope.
The Council were about to remove mention of the Bullinghope housing in a Planning Meeting on Friday 15th August when news broke that Bloor Homes have applied for leave to appeal as an 'Interested Party'. So despite being in the published agenda the item was dropped from the planning meeting.
The Association is therefore still asking supporters for funds in case the Bloor appeal needs to be defended. This will be announced by the Appeal Courts in due course.
The Council were about to remove mention of the Bullinghope housing in a Planning Meeting on Friday 15th August when news broke that Bloor Homes have applied for leave to appeal as an 'Interested Party'. So despite being in the published agenda the item was dropped from the planning meeting.
The Association is therefore still asking supporters for funds in case the Bloor appeal needs to be defended. This will be announced by the Appeal Courts in due course.