A campaigner who wants Waterhills to be turned into a country park is urging voters to reject the Caistor Neighbourhood Plan at a referendum later this month.
Jonathan Holt, who lives in Nettleton but owns property in Caistor, has been campaigning for Waterhills to be turned into a public space similar to Hubbards Hills at Louth.
The Neighbourhood Plan has been drawn up by Caistor Town Council. It is one of two documents recently drawn up to shape the future of Caistor, the other being the Central Lincolnshire Draft Local Plan.
In October, the Town Council met at a public meeting, attended by more than 50 people, to debate, among other things, “allocations” for future housebuilding in the Central Lincolnshire Draft Local Plan. It voted not to support housing development on land near to Waterhills.
There have been extensive consultations on Caistor Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan, which has taken about four years to prepare. About 50% of its content has been removed since last summer, but there have been no public consultations on the shortened version of the plan.
The referendum will be held on Thursday, January 28, between 7am and 10pm.
A voter has contacted the Citizen to remind people that postal votes need to be submitted earlier. He said his vote needs to be returned by Monday, January 18.
Neighbourhood Planning is part of a nationwide Government initiative, laid down by the Localism Act of 2011. According to an online Government publication,
http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-neighbourhood-planning/what-is-a-neighbourhood-plan-and-what-is-its-relationship-to-a-local-plan/ the Neighbourhood Plan would have the same legal status as the Local Plan once it has been approved by referendum. Applications for planning permission would have to conform to the Neighbourhood Plan.
A yes vote would entitle the community (town council) to 25% of the revenues generated by the new Community Infrastructure Levy, which is effectively a tax on new development.
If the community votes No to its Neighbourhood Plan at referendum, the council would only receive 15% of the money raised by the levy. The Neighbourhood Plan needs to be supported by 51% of the votes cast for it to be successful.
The percentage of the votes cast will be the decider, not the percentage of the turnout, warns Mr Holt, adding: “If 10 people bother to vote in the whole of Caistor and six vote to accept it and four are against, WLDC will see that as Caistor accepting the Neighbourhood plan at referendum. It then becomes part of the planning process for the next 15 years.”
“The New Neighbourhood Plan bears very little similarity to the original Neighbourhood Plan of two years ago, being cut down by 50% and whole sections have been removed,” added Mr Holt.
“It contains little substance for development in Caistor other than Policy No 2, which states “major new housing development should be within 800m of the town centre and not beyond 800m from the town centre.”
“In effect, this means Waterhills should be built on as it is the only site within 800m of the town centre, apart from the land to the side of Whitegate Hill across the A46.
“For those of you with long memories, the original plan had a section 21 protecting Waterhills, Canada Lane and South Street Park. This has now been removed from the plan,” added Mr Holt.
“In essence if you do not vote at all or if you vote to accept the Neighbourhood Plan in the referendum, you will be accepting the concreting over of Waterhills. This is despite Caistor Town Council publicly voting to remove the allocations for building in Waterhills back in October.
“So if you want to save Waterhills from the planners, I suggest you vote NO to accepting the Neighbourhood Plan for Caistor on January 28.”
Mr Holt included details of other communications between himself and local authorities to establish whether hard copies of the Neighbourhood Plan would be available for public view.
From the documentation he passed on, it would appear there was a delay in printing the hard copies “due to the Christmas and New Year holiday.” The documents are expected to be available for public view from today (Monday, January 11, 2016).
The Citizen reported on November 20 that the date of the referendum was likely to be January 28.
Roy Schofield, whose work with the Townscape Heritage Initiative led to significant investment in Caistor’s historic buildings, described the “recent spate of issues relating to Waterhills” as “counter-productive” to the Neighbourhood Plan.
“Put simply, if we do not get a substantial ‘Yes’ vote for the Neighbourhood Plan, the Caistor community will lose the opportunity to influence planning decisions and will therefore lose control of the way that the town is developed,” he said.
Caistor Town Clerk Helen Pitman was invited by the Citizen via email on January 7 to make a statement about the Neighbourhood Plan.
On January 9, the Citizen emailed all the town councillors and the clerk again to warn that the Neighbourhood Plan was being perceived as a tacit approval to development on land near Waterhills. “It is vital that people know all the implications – budgetary, or otherwise,” said the email.
There has been no response to either of the invitations to comment.
The picture shows a view from Canada Lane of land near to Waterhills. Photograph by Stewart Wall.
The photographs below accompany a comment from Jonathan Holt. The comment software does not support images.
We have just been to the Heritage Centre to see the plans…..After a few minutes we could see they were not readily available nor in a high profile place as we had expected to see the plans laid up on a wall giving as much importance as to exhibitions put on there. However we had to ask where they were as there was no obvious sight of them. As you go up the stairs and turn left there are 4 , A4 spiral bounded copies, almost hidden from view for people to read which must not be removed. There is still no detailed explanation of what this truly means for Caistor and its residents and no representatives there to ask. On reading the document it’s clear that it’s much different to the original documented flyer sent to every household in 2013. It would appear from the plans in this new document that the famous and historical Waterhills, a real asset to Caistor, could be under threat from extensive housing development as sections of the green band have been made white to indicate that planning permission could be sought and approved. Once housing development starts impinging on this green belt then eventually the rest of the Waterhills could be under threat which would be a devastating loss for Caistor.
So Roy Schofield states the people of Caistor must vote yes to retain some control over planning issues in Caistor despite it being obvious that the revised Neighbourhood plan is actually promoting building on 2 greenfield sites (not brownfield first) in Waterhills and possibly across the other side of the A46 on Whitegate Hill. As regards the financial incentive (CIL)- developers have to put in 25% social housing on an application which will not incur CIL charges. So for every £1000 of CIL 1000 – 25% = 750 to WLDC. They will then give either 15% (£112.50 or 25% of 750 (£187.50) to Caistor Town council to possibly give to worthy recipients such as Caistor Co-op property/development department. It would seem to me a NO vote on the Neighbourhood plan would bring Caistor to the attention of WLDC and to Planning in Central Lincolnshire – but you must vote NO. Not bothering will be taken as Yes in effect.
Jonathan Holt
I agree with the previous comments as I was astonished to see that the very areas that the Town Council voted unanimously to remove from the land allocations are still retained in the published plan. What is going on? Just what are they playing at? It beggars belief that they could expect residents to accept this travesty! I urge everyone to vote a resounding NO to this plan. Explanations should be given by the Town Council. It is disgraceful!
The Citizen will be in trouble for emailing all Councillors and the Clerk.
I hope you realize that you are all marked individuals.
Well done the CC . How long before you are closed down !
Complain that the market place is struggling, complain about buses being cut because you shop in Grimsby, complain that we are building too close to the market place, complain we are building too far from the marketplace, complain that public space is costing too much, complain we don’t have enough public space, complain we don’t get enough money, complain about the process of getting 25% of the money, complain about social housing in the town, complain about social housing contributions, complain about empty buildings, complain about compulsory purchase orders, complain about building greenfield, complain greenfield sites outside the town boundary not open all year, complain about pubs closing, complain about the noise from pubs, complain about energy prices, complain about turbines, biomass/gas and solar, complain about rates and council tax, complain about poor doctors and library, complain about your kids having nowhere to live/house prices, complain about building houses.
Have I missed anything? I’m seriously concerned about the complete lack of circular understanding that many of the VOCAL Caistor residents seem to have. Perhaps more worrying, a good few of the councillors themselves don’t even understand the process based on what I saw at CLLP meetings last year.
As a side note, I would also like to ask why the Citizen has suddenly decided that it has the power to make planning representations? I would argue that a hyperlocal newspaper should always be as impartial as possible, as a ‘Caistor citizen’ you certainly don’t represent any of my views in terms of planning within the town.
That’s the worrying thing. There certainly is a lack of understanding of what Caistor residents are being expected to vote on.
Residents, vocal or not, have not been given the options in laymens terms, for or against,(Apart from the actual plan, that unless you are political, would you actually go and read it). In fact reading some of the vocal comments it is evident that the majority of residents didn’t know anything about a referendum let alone information to formulate a decision. I for one am now undecided after reading the comments in C C. We shouldn’t be reliant on finding out something as important as a referendum through the Caistor Citizen. Not being vocal should have no bearing on being given the options prior to a vote. An unbiased circular should have been funded and put forward to every resident by the Council, just like it would be on Europe if we ever get one. Only this way could it avoid people saying they didn’t know anything about it until after the fact!
Having said that, I think you’ll find that there will be a very small turnout even if the facts are out there. In a perfect world, newspapers ‘should’ be impartial but it’s not a real world and I haven’t come across one national paper that is. You just have to read the Sun, The Mirror, Daily Mail etc to see that they point you in a direction that suits them but the final decision is up to the reader.
There is reference in the article to postal votes needing to be returned by the 18th, having just checked mine the date for postal votes to be received by is Thursday 28th at 10pm
Excellent comments for and against which will enable the Citizens of Caistor to make their own informed vote
Thanks for pointing out the lack of protection of the waterhills. Also do they really think we walk to the co-op? Maybe occasionally for fun but not with heavy bags!
It’s patently obvious why Caistor Town Councillors are failing to provide each household with details of the amended neighbourhood Plan: they have a vested interest, it’s their plan and at a number of meetings the public’s view has been abundantly clear, NO BUILDING NEAR WATERHILLS. It is interesting to note that councillors recently voted to support The Central Lincolnshire Draft Local Plan, councillors included a number of possible development sites outside of the 800mtr radius of the town centre but they also unanimously rejected the site near Waterhills which bizarrely is acceptable by them in their very own Neighbourhood Plan. In my opinion development should initially take place on BROWNFIELD sites and then sites supported by Caistor Town Council within the Lincolnshire Draft Local Plan. Vote NO for the referendum the Neighbourhood Plan, it is a flawed document.
Roy Schofield writes by email: –
It is distressing to me to see such an ill informed report as the “Waterhills campaigner: Vote No in referendum” particularly at this time when the Neighbourhood Plan is to go to referendum, its final stage, following 4 years of hard work and considerable community consultation along the way. The diagrams included in the latest version of the neighbourhood plan are no different to those included in the draft document which was published some time ago.
The photograph that you included in your article is rather misleading as it is not the area which I understand as being ‘Waterhills’. Any OS map clearly shows ‘Water Hills’ over the field which is north of Spar Top and east of the Viking Way footpath. This field contains a number of springs which is the source of Kelsey Beck and will never be built on. With regard to the campaigner who wants Waterhills, which is currently in private ownership, to be turned into a country park like Hubbard’s Hills, it is a preposterous idea considering the relatively small area that it covers in comparison to Hubbard’s Hills (http://www.hubbardshills.co.uk/).
Please do not allow your readers to be misled regarding claims about ‘Waterhills being concreted over’ or ‘allocations for building in Waterhills’. Neither of these events will happen for the reasons stated above. Admittedly the revised Neighbourhood Plan is a much reduced version of the previous draft but the content and wording in the latest version is taken from the draft version and is still valid and relevant.
If Caistor wishes to continue its development to become a prosperous and forward looking community the voters in Caistor need to vote a resounding ‘Yes’ in the neighbourhood plan referendum.
Do we need to register to vote, or just turn up on the day? I presume voting is at the heritage centre?
I’m sorry but you have to be registered to vote as per National and Local Elections. If you are not already, then I fear you are too late and will not get a vote.
I am perturbed to find that in Nettleham, councillors and those involved in preparing the Neighbourhood plan are NOT permitted to campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote. Obviously that is not so here in Caistor as we have had posts from involved parties.
Also, although I am affected by building to the rear of North Street and Brigg Road, it is because I live on North Street. Sam omitted to mention that his family own much of that land, and that it is the same land involved in a current planning application and, therefore there is a considerable financial interest in his calling for a ‘yes’ vote.
I cannot understand why the previous NP stipulated that development on all land adjacent to Waterhills should be ‘resisted’! Why was that left out of the one we are asked to approve? It is a very important part of Caistor and right beside the Viking Way, and our council is supposed to be promoting that Caistor WELCOMES Walkers. Yes, when they descend into Caistor they would get uninterrupted views of houses right up to Hundon Walk!
It makes no sense at all
This comment accompanies two images at the end of the article.
Jonathan Holt writes: –
I have done what Roy suggested and taken an OS map – see above. Please note the W on Waterhills is actually below the Viking Way/Hundon Walk into lower Waterhills. Note the first letter of Canada Lane is above Hundon walk – but it still stretches down to Brigg Road !
I do not see trying to create a tourism attraction for Caistor similar to Hubbard Hills as preposterous – no more preposterous than giving the
Co-op £325,000 of Caistor residents’ money for a falling down building. Perhaps the people of Caistor would like to take a lease on the fields in Waterhills for future recreation use – I was talking to one farmer on New Year;s Day who owns a field in Waterhills and he was quite open to it at this stage.
So I see this “Neighbourhood Plan” as being fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose. Make an effort next week and Vote NO.
Thank you, we have been repeatedly told by those on the steering committee that we are wrong in calling the whole site Waterhills, it obviously depends on the map, but regardless of that, to most residents the WHOLE area is collectively known as Waterhills. It is the fault of those who drew up this document for removing the ‘development to be resisted’ caveat from the earlier NP. If it had remained there would be none of the controversy this has generated. They are ignoring requests as to why this was removed from the plan, when to most residents, it is vital. Why is that? I doubt they will give us the courtesy of straightforward answer. I cannot see how we can vote ‘yes’ to this worrying plan, it is creating much suspicion!
I totally agree with you that the whole of the area is the Waterhills and we have always known it so since we have lived and looked over the Waterhills for 25 years. The Montessori map shows plots 3 & 4 up for sale. Plot 4 says it is grasslands but if you go to the brochure it says it has the potential for development and is being looked into. Plots 3 as you enter the Waterhills therefore always known as part of the Waterhills is also up for sale with potential development. All of this could and would change the Waterhills. Why would we as a community want to change the landscape of our all ready beautiful countryside which is a real asset to Caistor as a whole. It is a real tourist attraction, not to mention the health and well being it gives to residents who benefit from walking etc in green areas and beautiful countryside. I also think that the NP is flawed and not transparent enough for us to understand, even having read through the Independent Examiner’s Report, it still does not categorically give us assurance that our green spaces are protected. The Eaminer reccomended scrapping policy 21 because he said ‘ lacks clarity’ and that it did not conform to the planning framework. Paragraph 77 of the national planning policy framework as quoted in the CC post ‘Referendum explained in detail’ clearly indicates in bullet points 2 & 3 that the Waterhills could be protected in a future plan to prevent future residential development. We feel This does not reflect the current neighbourhood plan.