---

Hatchfield Farm Development

It is a pleasure to have you chairing our proceedings, Miss Begg, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond. We are here to discuss the proposed Hatchfield farm development in Newmarket. The proposal is to build 1,640 houses in Newmarket overall—enough to house 5,000 people in a rural town with a population of around 15,000. It is proposed that 1,200 houses will be built on the Hatchfield farm site itself. Newmarket is a rural town with a unique and colourful history, and it is one of the few places in the country that can genuinely boast of being an international hub for a high-value industry. The proposal would effectively increase the town's population by a third, which would be the equivalent of adding a development for 3 million people on to London. The proposal would damage an industry that provides a large share of all the jobs in the town. Newmarket is home to two of the country's most famous race courses, almost 70 miles of gallops, 2,800 acres of fully maintained training grounds, 62 stud farms and 79 licensed trainers. At the peak of the season, more than 2,500 racehorses are in training there, and all are stabled in and around the town. Hundreds of horses need to be exercised on a daily basis, which is one of the compelling sights to be observed every day on the streets of Newmarket. However, there is already a large and growing traffic problem—indeed, that is the very nub of the issue at hand. The more traffic with which trainers and racehorse owners have to deal, the less likely they are to make the commitment to Newmarket that the industry needs to survive in the town. Newmarket can have a more severe traffic problem, or it can have a horse training industry, but it simply cannot have both. To put it simply, under the proposals for the Hatchfield development, Newmarket will have a traffic problem that is potentially destructive. It should be noted that Hatchfield farm is not the only place where houses may be built, and that the council's proposals have been for a general urban extension to the north-east of Newmarket. However, Hatchfield farm is considered to be the only realistic sizeable site for the extension. The proposal submitted to the council by the landowner of Hatchfield farm is for 1,200 dwellings to be phased over 15 years, as well as retail outlets, restaurants, community facilities, sport and recreation facilities, a primary school and a park-and-ride facility. We should bear in mind that the council's proposed plans also include 240 homes to be built on brownfield sites by 2020, as well as 200 more on greenfield sites by 2031. That would take the number of houses to be built in Newmarket to 1,640. Why would the building of so many houses have such an impact on the all-important horse racing industry in Newmarket? First, the raising and training of young thoroughbreds requires a quiet and tranquil environment. The disturbance that will inevitably be associated with the construction and occupancy of so many houses and the noise of so much extra traffic will destroy that tranquillity. That is what has led Richard Fletcher, the chairman of the Newmarket town council development and planning committee, in his role as a spokesman for the town council to assert:""if this proposal goes ahead, it would cause untold damage to the equine industry in the town and possibly its total demise."" He goes on to say:""there is insufficient employment in Newmarket to cater for the needs of the proposed new urban extension, indeed, jobs in the equine industries would be lost, and it is fanciful to argue that sufficient employment opportunities would be created. Newmarket would lose its unique character and become a lifeless dormitory town for Cambridge, Bury St Edmonds and beyond on the already too busy A14. The town council totally rejects this future."" Barton Willmore's evidence to the public examination in respect of the draft Forest Heath core strategy that was commissioned by Tattersalls, which is the leading bloodstock auctioneer, states:""The horseracing industry consider that Forest Heath district council has seriously misunderstood the importance of the horseracing industry to Newmarket and its future and the detrimental impact that 1,200 houses, the largest single increment of growth in the history of the town, will affect adjacent horseracing yards and studs, the tranquil environment of Newmarket and the movement of horses on adjacent roads. An already fragile balance will be upset."" Barton Willmore goes on to point out:""in terms of both the scale and location of development, the proposed allocation of 1,200 houses on a peripheral greenfield site in North East Newmarket/Hatchfield Farm represents a fundamental change in planning policy for housing in Newmarket. On its own, this proposed greenfield extension is significant in that it represents an increase of over 13 per cent. in the total housing provision in Newmarket. Such a significant change in policy in a uniquely sensitive town demands a sound evidence base…The horse racing industry are concerned that the identification of North East Newmarket/Hatchfield Farm to accommodate 1,200 houses has not been subject to detailed studies or the provision of an adequate evidence base."" In the document planning policy statement 3, which was released by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 29 November 2006, criteria were set out. That document states that local authorities""should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. To be considered deliverable, sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant Local Development Document:""– Be Available – the site is available now.""– Be Suitable – the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.""– Be Achievable – there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years."" Will the community that such a development creates help to destroy the predominant local industry and employer? Beyond those essential considerations, it has been suggested in the Barton Willmore evidence that""in the preparation of the core strategy, the horseracing industry also considers that the council has not engaged properly with the industry nor understood its concerns. In particular, the horseracing industry point to the resolution of the LDF working group not to discuss their concerns until after the submission of the draft core strategy to the Secretary of State. It is also the case that the council only now seem to be putting in place the evidence base in support of the core strategy."" Peter Grimm, the strategic traffic manager of Suffolk county council, has said about the nearby junction between the A14 and the A142—a key arterial junction into Newmarket—that""the Highways Agency have identified this one of the top 10 worst traffic junctions in the region. And there is no short term traffic solution to accommodate this development."" That is significant, given that the proposed developments would increase the size of the population using the junction quite dramatically. However, as it stands, nobody seems to be willing to pay for the upgrade. At best, there is a widespread perception in the horse racing industry that Forest Heath district council has failed to consult and communicate effectively with it. That is particularly regrettable because Forest Heath has defended and promoted the industry in an exemplary way. For example, in my lifetime as the local MP, a one-time slump in racing meant that a number of local training yards were up for sale and their owners approached me—and, indeed, the council—aggressively to get permission for change of use into residential housing. The council admirably rejected those pleas, and the essential character of much of Newmarket was retained. The overriding question is why the proposal is still moving forward. Two key issues need to be addressed: why are the houses potentially being built; and why are they being built on this site in Newmarket, when there is no demand and space is available in the nearby village of Red Lodge? The answer to both those questions can be found in the regional spatial strategy, which has been imposed by the East of England Development Agency. That strategy has in turn been imposed on Forest Heath district council and requires it to build 6,400 homes between 2001 and 2021. The requirement for 2021 to 2031 is 3,700 dwellings. That adds up to 10,100 houses by the year 2031. In the seven years between 2001 and 2008, 1,625 homes were built, which leaves 8,475 still to go. We are, of course, talking about one of the smallest local authorities in the country. To put it simply, no local authority can avoid the targets set out for it in the regional spatial strategy, as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 strengthened the powers of the Secretary of State over local planning authorities. The local development framework, which the local district council produces, must be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy and must go before an examination in public by a planning inspector before approval. That planning inspector can recommend changes, and if the planning authority refuses to carry them out, there is a default power for the Secretary of State to impose changes in the LDF. As well as strengthening the powers of the Secretary of State, the 2004 Act abolished the next level down from regional planning bodies—the county structure plan. The Act therefore strengthened central powers and the powers to override the concerns of local council and local people in order to move planning strategies forward, while at the same time detaching the setting of quotas further from local circumstances. The regional spatial strategy is the driving force behind the proposed development at Hatchfield farm. The councillors at Forest Heath have been left with no option but to plan for the overall construction of 8,475 houses between 2008 and 2031 in their area of jurisdiction and responsibility. The reason more houses are being considered on the scale of the Hatchfield site is that Forest Heath district council is being required by law to do so by the regional planning authority. If the council had not submitted its core strategy, as part of its local development framework, it would have left the district with the risk of a policy vacuum, meaning that it would lose control over many planning applications because it would no longer have a five-year housing land supply. That is the draconian reality of the situation. A letter from the Government office for the east of England dated 14 September 2007—the time of a campaign on saving local plan policies—stated that the local planning authorities""should make good progress with Local Development Frameworks according to the timetables in their Local Development Strategies. The policies have been saved in the expectation that they will be replaced promptly"." The risk of a policy vacuum would also jeopardise the ongoing application of the existing saved policies that protect the training and breeding industry, which is a key and difficult point in the context of Newmarket. Newmarket is one of only three towns in the district covered by Forest Health district council. It has, in practice, restrictions placed on it for expansion purposes by the fact that it has training grounds around it for horses and many training yards in the middle of the town. That highlights more than anything else the total inflexibility of the regional spatial strategy. Instead of allowing the housing stock in the area to grow organically, it requires an amount of housing to be built without regard to the local constraints faced. That is what leads us to the position we find ourselves in today, and hence the debate. Newmarket is not the only place where houses are being built. For example, the nearby smaller town of Mildenhall, which has a population of 10,000 and has certain restrictions placed on it because of existing flood plains and the presence of the US air force, has a target of 1,330 houses to be built by 2031. Residents of Newmarket, to their great credit, have shown that activism is not dead in the 21st century. The group Save Historic Newmarket has shown a remarkable ability to galvanise people to action and organise them. I would like in particular to acknowledge the campaign led by Rachel Hood, Fiona Unwin, Jacko Fanshawe and many others for effectively raising civic awareness and attempting to preserve the built heritage of the town and its unique character, which stretches back over several hundred years. That is why the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), has said that, if the Conservatives are elected, she will abolish the bureaucratic and undemocratic tier of local planning. That will include the abolition of the regional spatial strategies, the regional planning boards and national and regional targets. She has said that she anticipates primary legislation in the first year of any new Conservative Government and that, prior to such legislation, she would consider whether to use the executive powers of the Secretary of State to revoke the regional spatial strategies in whole or in part. The core of the issue is this: if the current framework for planning applications remains in place, not only will the people of Newmarket be left with the Hatchfield farm development, but similar developments will be imposed on other communities with little or no regard to the feelings of the local people who have to live there or to their livelihoods. Towns and villages all over the country are being considered for expansion in order to meet the quotas for housing that are set down in the various regional spatial strategies. The central targets are laid out before the regional planning bodies, which then impose targets on district councils such as Forest Heath. Those councils are then forced to propose developments such as the one that I have described. The people who live in the places affected then have to organise themselves and expend huge amounts of time and energy defending their interests and those of their town in order for sense to prevail. It is time for the Government—I hope we will get some comment from the Minister on the matter—to recognise all the difficulties they have created for so many people due to the implications of their draconian policies. Housing must reflect the real needs of real people, which is why developments such as those proposed for Hatchfield farm must be stopped before they are begun. I hope that the Minister will now understand why I have introduced the debate. It is clear that there appears to be insufficient flexibility in existing legislation to deal with the problem that has now arisen in Newmarket, which I dare say is replicated in other parts of the country. As a result, the local council has found itself at the receiving end of a huge tide of local anger, and the situation has been compounded by communication and consultation issues. I cannot believe that such absurd inflexibility, which in this case will damage the quality of life and the main industry of the town, was in the minds of the Government when the 2004 Act was drawn up. Newmarket is a precious jewel in the life of England, with its extraordinary character and history. Frankly, however, the proposed development, which is obscene, has the capacity to destroy it.