Reference: WBC’s application to de-register Common Land Wey Hill (Fairground) Car Park, Case Reference: 3205089

Mrs ACM Hall

11 Hill Road

Haslemere

GU27 2JP

16th July 2018

For the attention of: Common Land Casework,

Rm 3/25B Hawk Wing, Temple Quay House

The Planning Inspectorate

2 The Square

BRISTOL BS1 6PN

By E-mail to

Dear Sirs

This letter expresses my views on the application to de-register Common Land known as Wey Hill (Fairground) Car Park in Haslemere that was recently submitted by Waverley Borough Council (WBC).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

WBC has submitted an application to de-register the Common Land known as The Fairground within the Register Unit No CL340 land. This land is divided into three pieces: one a triangular piece north of the road and south of an Arts and Crafts church, St. Christopher’s, being a grassy area open to the road: another being a slightly larger piece on the opposite side of the road, between the road and the railway and The Fairground; and the third piece being much smaller than the others, a grass area south of the road and west of the car park area. This area was formerly known as Clay Hill Common.

The Fairground, the piece of land that is the subject of this application, is a former clay pit with its surface now comprised of tipping materials. Haslemere, in South West Surrey, is a market town that is divided into two by the mainline train station. The Wey Hill area, where The Fairground is located, is less historic than the main town centre but is a vital commercial centre.

Having reviewed WBC’s application for consent to de-register the Wey Hill (Fairground) Car Park, I strongly believe this Section 16 application should be refused as no evidence has been given to support a key test that it is in the interests of the neighbourhood. The land swop is wholly unacceptable. WBC has engaged in negligible consultation with the community.

In more detail, I list below my objections broadly set out in six categories –

1)The application is not in the interests of the neighbourhood

2)WBC has failed to explain the need for the proposed de-registration

3)WBC has failed to consult extensively

4)The application lacks vital information

5)The land swop is unsuitable

6)It is the wrong application and should be a S38 application for works on common land

1)The application is not in the interests of the neighbourhood:

  • In its supporting document entitled “Reasons for Exchange and De-registration”,WBC misleadingly states that parking revenues will enable reinvestment in the local community. Surplus revenues from parking charges go into WBC’s General Fund. I am not aware of a precedent in the borough where revenues for off street parking are earmarked to go back into a local community.I am therefore not convinced that generation of parking revenue for the council will be in the neighbourhood interest.
  • WBC states the de-registration is being considered as part of the council’s Place Shaping strategy. Place Shaping is definitely in the interests of the neighbourhood. WBC gave a presentation for towns and parishes in September 2017, these two slides on page 3 of this letterfrom that Place Shaping presentation cover some of the broad themes of Place Shaping. You will see this application is anything but Place Shaping and therefore it is not in the interest of the neighbourhood. Place Shaping examples from the September 2017 presentation include:
  • not car centric – the application talks about de-registering a site to provide a car park! It is the opposite of a Place Shaping as it is encouraging car dependency.
  • to champion the needs of local people – the application supports commuter parking. A 2012 survey revealed by an FOI request to WBC showed70% come from outside the borough. This application does not champion the needs of local people and is therefore not in the interests of the neighbourhood.
  • the importance of lively neighbourhoods and inviting open spaces – the proposal removes the opportunity for future open space. As such it is a contradiction of Place Shaping.
  • walkable spaces, safe for pedestrians and people, reduced need for cars, connecting different spaces. This application does not address any of these Place Shaping principles and is not in the interests of the neighbourhood
  • visionary, strategic and transformational, community centric. This application is not visionary, strategic, transformational or community centric, therefore it is not Place Shaping and cannot be deemed to be in the interests of the neighbourhood.

2)WBC has FAILED TO explain the need for the proposed de-registration

  • The Executive of WBC agreed to proceed with the application to de-register the release land. The Executive failed to share options it had considered to achieve its aims and gave no sound reasons for de-registration. It gave the flimsiest reasons to do so with no regard to the interests of the neighbourhood and no concrete plans.

This is the WBC YouTube of the Item 14 being discussed at the Waverley Borough Council Executive meeting on 8th February 2018:Waverley Borough Council Executive 8th February, Item 14, 44 minutes, 8 seconds in.

Here is a writtentranscription of the WBC Executive meeting

For emphasis, I pick out some of the risible reasons cited at that Executive meeting on 8th February 2018:

  • Councillor Edwards: “The Executive is therefore recommended to support the proposed exchange of these areas of land to enable the resurfacing of the land currently for car parking and enable it to be managed more effectively, pending the development for long term proposals for its use.” No long-term proposals were cited. For this land to be de-registered, I believe it is reasonable to expect an outline plan of the car park.
  • Daniel Bainbridge (Borough Solicitor) “Just picking up a point about the longer term aims and potential future of uses beyond use as a car park. Just to really point out that even those longer-term uses would require an application for this to no longer be common land, either through an application for consent to build on it which is what we were in the process of doing a few years ago or to swap. So, if there is a longer-term goal to produce greater facilities on that land, either building on it or producing community facilities or business premises or whatever it might be down the line, that will still require an application in the future to the Planning Inspectorate.”No longer term proposals were cited. I cannot see any sound reason to de-register this common land. I certainly feel a future unsubstantiated promise of greater facilities is a wholly inadequate justification for de-registration,
  • Councillor King: “This report is purely a report for the de-registration of common land, no matter what happens to it in the future. It has to be de-regulated. You might just as well get on with it now. And, to be frank, the sooner we sort that car park out, no matter what we do with it, the better.”No substantive reason was given as to why the land has to be de-regulated.
  • Councillor Potts (Council Leader) “I think it fair to say, we’ve got to do something. This has been in an almost too-difficult-box for a long time for a number of reasons. The facts are that the area itself absolutely does no favours for Haslemere and we have got to do something. And, we’ve got to do something sooner rather than later.”No sooner nor later term proposals were cited in the interests of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, no substantive reasons were cited to explain why this is an almost too difficult box.

3)WBC has failed to consult extensively with the public before submitting the application.

  • In its supporting document entitled “Reasons for Exchange and De-registration”, WBC correctly states the wider community wanted time in order to consider alternative uses for the site. WBC also states no development has taken place. WBC has failed to mention that Haslemere Vision, a voluntary organisation who are assisting the town council to develop our town’s neighbourhood plan, consulted widely with the community in 2016. This consultation concluded that it is the expressed wish of a significant proportion of the community to explore options for the site to be developed for the community’s benefit.At the Haslemere Annual Town Meeting in March 2018, Mr. Homewood (named as the Applicant on behalf of WBC) made the extraordinary statement that Waverley had not received any proposals from Haslemere Vision. The Borough Solicitor in a meeting of The Executive on 8th February stated: that “Haslemere Vision’s potential proposals for that site which never really came forward as I understand it.” This is not the case. WBC has failed to give due regard to the extensive consultation carried out by Haslemere Vision. Haslemere Vision held a workshop in June 2014 called Wow Hill where the community came up with ideas for the site. Preliminary drawings for a development on the site were prepared by Haslemere Vision and the Chamber of Commerce.
  • WBC failed to advertise broadly its pre-consultation. It made no announcement through its social media channels. It held a pre-application meeting that was not advertised to the general public. WBC only received six responses to its pre-consultation. Haslemere has a population of more than 16,000. I suggest this low response is because so few people knew about the pre-consultation.
  • No information about this application has been made available at the time of writing on the council’s website. The only update re Wey Hill is here relating to a 2014 update. relating to a 2013 application for works on common land. Here is a screenshot.
  • The decision to apply to de-register the Fairground was made by WBC’s Executive in February 2018. At the meeting, one councillor claims to have consulted constituents.
  • Councillor Carole King representing the ward the land sits in stated: “The local community, both the residents and the tradespeople, in Wey Hill, not in the centre of Haslemere, but in Wey Hill, are fed up. They can’t park to nip to the shops. There’s nowhere to go. They really are pretty fed up andthey are now actually very supportive of Waverley’s proposals.” I wrote to Councillor King and asked for evidence to substantiate this statement. She wrote back saying: “A tricky one as evidence is purely heresay<Councillor’s spellingfrom various retailers and residents of the ward who have spoken to either myself or Cllr William King (HTC).” Further, there is no clarity as to whether locals were “fed up” with commuter parking or the car park surface.
  • The WBC officer who has submitted this application has failed to return my ‘phone calls and has failed to call with information in spite of being asked twice by email during the pre-consultation period.
  • Reasons given for the resurfacing were ‘health and safety’ but there are no records given of any accidents or claims over a very long time (many decades) of use as a car park and as a Fairground. This is not a reason for de-registration.
  • WBC has failed to make it easy for interested parties living near the Wey Hill (Fairground) Car Park to view the application.In its notice, WBC states printed information is made available in Godalming, a town 10 miles away. Haslemere has a local library, and a community centre – both are in Wey Hill - within a short walking distance of the common land. No information about this application has been made available at the time of writing on the council’s website. WBC has not used its social media channels to publicise this application.
  • The application lacks vital information

In its Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies ( WBC states it is seeking to de-register this site as common land and temporarily resurface it, with a mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including around 50 flats, likely to come forward later in the plan. WBChas failed to specifically mention 50 flats in its Section 16 applicationto de-register this land. I believe this should have been mentioned in the application. The loss of this precious common land and community asset in the heart of Wey Hill in Haslemere is not in the best interests of the neighbourhood because it can currently be used for the benefit of the community, including for parking, whereas if it is de-registered it can be used for any purpose without being in the interests of the neighbourhood.

  • WBC intends to install parking machines for the purposes of charging for parking services and the plan has been submitted to you without a design and accompanying indication of how many parking spaces, parking meters and lighting columnsthere will be. Committee papers from a Haslemere Town Council planning meeting on 21st June 2018 indicate roughly 100 car parking places. In 2014, a town councillor analysed car parking data via DVLA and there are between 173 and 195 cars parked here on weekdays:

189 cars 24/2/14

194 cars 25/2/14

189 cars 26/4/14

194 cars 26/4/14

173 cars 27/4/14

Haslemere’s car parks are full and the residential roads will become throttled with all day parking to the detriment of the neighbourhoodif capacity is reduced. There is no alternative strategy (bus services, park & ride, carpooling etc.) proposed by WBC to accommodate these displaced cars.

4)Unsuitable land swop

  • At WBC’s Executive meeting on 8th February 2018 that gave the authority to de-register The Fairground, the Borough Solicitor revealed he did not know the exact dimensions of the release and replacement land. Borough Councillor Edwards said: “It is of equivalent size to the area subject to the de-registration application. So, it’s the same size. Or very nearly the same size. Or slightly bigger.”
  • The replacement land was described by a town councillor (now Haslemere Mayor) Cllr David Round as follows at WBC’s Executive meeting of 8th February: “I do think we have to be very careful here otherwise we might become a laughing stock. How many of you have visited this land that is proposed to swap? It’s rubbish. It’s partly used as a tip. It is smaller than the existing one. To say it is increased value from ecological purpose might be true because a car park’s a car park. But, to say it is of equivalent size, amenity and monetary value, it plainly isn’t. The Wey Hill car park would be worth millions if it could be developed. This land that you are proposing to swap it with, will never be worth anything. It is also publicly accessible at the moment anyway. So, if you can’t take the land that you previously thought of in Tanner’s Lane, neither can you take this. You need mountaineering skills to go on it. I tried. I didn’t go far. I hadn’t got any abseiling rope. It is very steep. It is frankly a joke. And, that is what I’ve heard people say in Haslemere. We will be laughed at if we continue to propose this land as the swap.”I agree with the councillor. It is a joke.
  • I am dubious that the replacement land is bigger.My own research shows that in its S38 application for works on common land submitted in 2011, WBC cited the size of the car park as 5,500 square meters. In its current local plan part 2 documentation, the land is attributed an area of 5,000 square metres. WBC’s measurements are questionable. In its pre-application consultation letter attached to this application, WBC outlined a larger boundary and stated an area of 4,761 square meters. In this S16 application form, WBC states the area to de-register is 4,926 square meters. In addition, it’s unclear if it is an administrative error but I am unsure as to why the application does not seek to de-register the boundary of the common land. I wonder if it is to try to give the impression that the replacement land is larger than the release land.

BOUNDARY DEPICTED IN CURRENT APPLICATION (release land)

AREA 4,926 SQUARE METERS

BOUNDARY DEPICTED IN PRE-CONSULTATION LETTER (release land)

AREA 4,761 SQUARE METERS

In a S38 application for works on common land submitted to the SoS in 2013, WBC cited the area of the car park as 5,500 square meters! This is larger than both versions of the replacement land provided in this application.

BOUNDARY DEPICTED IN CURRENT APPLICATION (replacement land)

AREA 5,087 SQUARE METERS

BOUNDARY DEPICTED IN PRE-CONSULTATION LETTER (replacement land)

AREA 5,360 SQUARE METERS

  • Great store is placed on Natural England’s support for the land swop. An FOI response revealed to me that Natural England have not made a site visit. Indeed, in the NE officer response accompanying this application, the use of the phrase “And I can’t tell” does not give confidence the NE officer can confidently stateit is an equal swop based on picture and maps reviewed. WBC states in 16b that NE describes the replacement as “deadwood priority habitat”. In fact, NE describes the replacement land as “being deciduous woodland a priority habitat”. I do not agree with the removal of a priority habitat of deciduous woodland to create an open space
  • At WBC’s Executive meeting of 8th February, Councillor Edwards explains the replacement land is “within a short walking distance via a footbridge over the railway.” On a Google Earth map it looks like an easy route to the swop but the footbridge over the railway is in a poor condition, it is not accessible for the infirm or those with motability vehicles. I cannot agree to losing common land in a central vibrant area and exchanging it for land on the edge of a non-central industrial estate.
  • The contours on a large-scale plan reveal that the replacement land is about a twenty metre drop over a very short distance. There is no public benefit in having the replacement land, bearing in mind that by virtue of its steep slope it will not be open to all members of the public.

5)IT IS THE WRONG APPLICATION AND SHOULD BE A SECTION 38 APPLICATION FOR WORKS ON COMMON LAND