Keep The Wannies Wild Appeal Statement Ref 3244389 Planning appeal Ref: APP/P2935/W/20/3244389 Cold Law, Northumberland Construction of a publicly accessible landmark, commissioned to commemorate Queen Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth Appeal statement by the objectors’ group ‘Keep the Wannies Wild’ (KTWW) About the KTWW group 1. This group was formed on 12 June 2019 in urgent response to the Northumberland County Council (NCC) Strategic Planning Committee’s deliberations of June 4th 2019. At that meeting NCC officers had recommended the proposal be granted but, following the number and nature of representations received, the councillors voted to defer the decision for a site visit. They carried this out on the morning of July 2nd 2019 and at the Strategic Planning Committee meeting later that day a resolution was passed by 13:3 votes to refuse permission, leading to this appeal. 2. Between these two committee meetings the size of the KTWW group grew exponentially and is still increasing. This statement is made on behalf of its over 1900 members and others who objected at application stage. Some 128 letters, e mails and online comments were made then and more are expected at the current appeal stage. This strength of feeling is despite some local tenants and employees of the Ray estate feeling unable to voice their objections publicly. The Wannies area extends between and beyond the A68 and A696 roads which are circuitously linked by the unclassified Wannies Road C195. 3. Many residents and visitors were unaware of the proposal until June 2019; some on the Council’s notification list did not receive their letters. One West Woodburn resident says she only heard about it from her son in Australia because it was on the news there! The address of the proposal was given as Kirkwhelpington, some miles from Cold Law, so the location was misunderstood. Although exhibitions were held at some locations in 2018, the number of responses was only 43. One objector who is closely involved in community matters was unaware of the exhibition despite living only yards from the village hall. People were asked to choose between three artists’ concepts rather than express whether the brief for a 56m high monument was appropriate in that location. West Woodburn First school (for children aged 4-9, fewer than 20 pupils at the time) was also involved but little children could hardly be expected to understand the project. More than one 9-year-old 1 Keep The Wannies Wild Appeal Statement Ref 3244389 has said recently that they are furious to have been used in this way because they are against the monument being built. 4. Objectors were therefore slow to respond and the 4th June committee report mentions only 29 letters received. It is an indication of the strength of local feeling that, between the two committee meetings, objectors mobilised to ensure that there was wide publicity including on social media, in the press and on local television. Although the committee report for 2nd July still recommended approval, the contemporaneous notes made at the meeting (Appendix 1) demonstrate that support was waning by then and that the planning arguments expressed through oral contributions were important in the decision-making process. The Tourism Officer’s presentation was lacking in evidence and councillors were diligent in their discussions and questioning of the Planning Officer. Their morning site visit, which brought out the inappropriateness of the Cold Law site, was fresh in their minds. They thus made the decision to refuse permission on the basis of much more information than had previously been available either to them or the Planning Officer and did not act unreasonably. 5. This statement has been complied by members of the KTWW group and is presented on behalf of members. A number of individual letters have been submitted at appeal stage to the Planning Inspectorate but the Inspector should also bear in mind that this statement represents many more who have relied on the group to speak for them. It includes a number of quotations to illustrate the ‘flavour’ of objections and to provide the evidence to justify dismissing the appeal. All literary sources and references are in the Miscellany at Appendix 2. Parish Councils and other Prominent Objectors 6. It is highly unusual for 5 Parish Councils to be involved in a planning application as is the situation here. Objections were made at application stage by the statutory consultee, Corsenside Parish Council, but little notice appears to have been taken of that. Cold Law lies very close to the boundary of Corsenside with Kirkwhelpington Parish Council but they were not consulted. Learning about the proposal late in the day, the other 4 Parish Councils were concerned as the appeal development would be widely seen in views from outside Corsenside Parish. People living in Otterburn and Rochester, for example, would pass through the Wannies area going to larger towns and could not avoid seeing it. 7. At appeal stage the following Parish Councils have objected: Corsenside, Elsdon, Otterburn and Rochester with Byrness. 2 Keep The Wannies Wild Appeal Statement Ref 3244389 Kirkwhelpington is not meeting until after the deadline for this statement but its minute of 2nd July 2019 shows that it was concerned at not having been consulted at application stage which implies opposition to the proposal. Appendix 3 contains copies of the 5 Parish Council objections and a plan showing their boundaries in relation to the appeal site. 8. Other substantial objectors are The Redesdale Society, the British Mountaineering Council, local councillors and Guy Opperman MP. Individual objections from relatives of Sir Charles Parsons, professional climber Robbie Phillips and Sir Simon Jenkins are included in Appendices 7, 9 and 14 respectively. KTWW fully agrees with the Council’s reason for refusal and this statement provides hard evidence from the local community to demonstrate why the refusal of permission is justified. Use of Social Media 9. The appellant divides his time between his Sussex home and the Ray Estate. Peasemarsh, Sussex is, we believe, his primary home and is the address on the draft S106 agreement. Since the appeal was lodged he has aggressively tried to use social media to demonstrate support but failed. He has purchased full page adverts in local papers and covered their webpages with pictures of ‘Ascendant’ asking people to support it (Appendix 4). The Inspector should take a critical approach to representations made in support of the proposal as they may come from people who have no knowledge of the area or, alternatively, they may be employed by the appellant or be his tenants. Notwithstanding the money thrown at this by the appellant, the Hexham Courant’s online poll, completed on 3rd February 2020, showed 86% of the poll’s 1300 respondents were opposed to the appeal development. THE MAIN POINTS FOR KEEP THE WANNIES WILD GROUP The nature of the application 10. The proposal is described as ‘A publicly accessible landmark, commissioned to commemorate Queen Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth’. The two main items that identify it with this description are the name: The Elizabeth Landmark and the promise that the walkway around the monument would bear inscriptions related to Her Majesty and the Commonwealth. Misleadingly, the promotional material for ‘Ascendant’ has implied that the project has Royal approval, but this is not the case. This may have led some official bodies to not oppose it for fear of embarrassment. 3 Keep The Wannies Wild Appeal Statement Ref 3244389 11. The KTWW group has no anti-royal agenda as made clear by three objectors’ letters published in the Hexham Courant on February 13th 2020 (Appendix 5). But when the hyperbole surrounding the proposal is penetrated it is clear that there is no connection to the Commonwealth that would make sense of it. Indeed, far from ‘bringing communities together’ as the application claims, it has already brought together the rural communities of this part of Northumberland, but in opposition not support. The Queen has previously stated that she would be pleased to be honoured by a Commonwealth Canopy of indigenous tree planting instead (Appendix 6). It advises that: it is important that proposed projects should not be politically controversial or likely to attract adverse publicity. Regrettably the appellant has not followed this good advice. 12. Personal matters are not the subject of planning control but this highlights the weakness that the proposal has been dealt with primarily on the basis of the Queen’s name plus unsupported claims about sparking tourist interest. None of these are capable of being secured through planning conditions. Since the appeal was lodged the promoters have striven to link it more closely to its location by referencing industrialists such as Sir Charles Parsons who was a previous owner of the Ray estate. They do not seem to have made up their minds what the monument represents but are casting around for justification after the event by loading the design with symbolism. Sir Charles Parsons had no descendants beyond his two children so it is notable that the three close relatives whose father was in charge of the Parsons Engineering company have voiced their strong opposition (Appendix 7). They say: We consider it highly unlikely that Uncle Charlie would view the proposed Elizabeth Monument with anything other than dismay and horror. We feel that he valued the wildness and unspoilt beauty of the area, just as walkers and others enjoy it today. 13. Turning to the proposal itself, consider for a moment that another landowner decides to fund an identical monument but to call it after his cherished wife The Gladys Landmark, with her favourite poems inscribed along the walkway.