Letter: GBC Should Continue to Try and Take the Shine from the Planning Inspectorate’s Jackboots

Published on: 10 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 10 Mar, 2019

Eashing Lane SANG

From John Perkins

In response to: Application to Convert Farmland into a Nature SANG Approved Despite Reservations

The Wood Street application did not tick all the planning policy boxes, which is why it was rejected twice by GBC. Their policy was overridden by the planning inspector, who decided the salient point was that a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) was necessary in order to allow house-building, an argument that is laughably circular. Other inspectors reached identical conclusions at other sites, following rejection by GBC.

My point is that sites such as Tyting Farm were proposed as SANGs by GBC and the council would have collected the tariffs from developers, simultaneously raising funds and protecting those sites. Now, thanks to what appears to be national government policy to build regardless of local opinion or planning constraints, those sites are again vulnerable. GBC were doing a good job and deserve support for it, but in my opinion they should continue to fight if only to take the shine off the Planning Inspectorate’s jackboots.

Lisa Wright will probably be able to confirm that the farmer was a tenant. The owner is a development company based in Guernsey who paid £235,000 for the site in 2012 and, having got it designated as SANG, probably raised its worth by £10 million, although the farmer won’t see any of that.

Share This Post