Decision upheld to block green belt homes at Sawston
They said: "I acknowledge that there are large areas of housing development to the north and west of the site."However, the appeal site is currently agricultural land free from any built form."The inspector said there would also likely be parking areas, outbuildings, gardens and other areas which would extend the site further.The plans also included proposals for 15 community allotments, a new permissive right of way, and a potential community orchard. The developer said its plans offered a "unique development" which had "significant merits".The district council said it recognised the social benefits of the proposed allotments and potential community orchard, but argued this was not enough to outweigh the fact it was an "inappropriate development".
In appeal documents, the developer said: "The local planning authority has had more than enough time within the last four years to meet demand [for self-build plots]."Their blatant disregard for the importance of delivering this form of housing is extremely disappointing and we very much hope that the inspector can grant the appeal to assist those desperately waiting for plots to be delivered in the district, and to comply with the government's clear agenda that the district should be significantly boosting the supply of all types of housing."The planning inspector said it recognised that there was a "demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed", but the benefits of the plans did not outweigh the harm to the greenbelt.
Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Pound and gilts slump amid doubts over Chancellor's future
The value of the pound and long-term Government bonds slumped sharply after Sir Keir Starmer failed to back Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Ms Reeves was visibly tearful in the House of Commons over a 'personal issue', as her position and Government credibility faced scrutiny after a U-turn on welfare plans. The U-turn on the Welfare Bill is now expected to stop the Labour Government from securing almost £5 billion worth of savings as it seeks to balance the books. Financial markets were knocked as a result, with the value of the pound and gilts dropping noticeably as the Prime Minister spoke in Parliament. The pound slid by 1.14% to 1.358 against the US dollar on Wednesday. Sterling had risen to a fresh three-year high against the dollar on Tuesday. The currency also fell by 0.8% to 1.155 against the euro, striking its lowest level since April. Meanwhile, the yield on Government bonds, called gilts, jumped in the face of concerns among investors. The yield on 10-year gilts rose by 0.17 percentage points to 4.63%, while the 30-year gilt rose by 0.22 percentage points to 5.45%. Both of these were the sharpest increases since US President Donald Trump's tariff plans shook up financial markets in April. Gilt yields move counter to the value of the bonds, meaning that their prices were lower on Wednesday because of the change. The rise in yields also means it will be more expensive for the Government to pay off debts, putting further pressure on its finances. Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, said: 'UK bond yields have taken a step higher as we progress through Wednesday, and Prime Minister's Questions has not eased concern that the bond vigilantes are circling. UK bonds are tanking today. 'If yields continue to rise at this pace for the next few days, the PM and Chancellor will have to decide if they want to have a sensible fiscal policy whereby public sector debt is reined in, or whether they want to please the Labour backbenches, who don't seem worried by rising debt levels and forget that we are in a new era, where bond investors can shun sovereign debt in favour of less risky, less indebted corporate debt. 'Overall, this could be the start of another fiscal crisis for the UK.'
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs back foreign investors owning minority stakes in UK newspapers
Foreign investors have stepped closer to buying part of the Telegraph, as MPs backed relaxed laws on foreign ownership of UK newspapers that will allow them to own up to 15%. The Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of a change to the law by Labour which would allow foreign firms to buy minority stakes. It is the latest turn in a tumultuous two-year takeover process for the 170-year-old newspaper business. It comes after the previous Conservative government put a block in place amid fears the Telegraph could be bought by a majority-owned UAE company, Redbird IMI. The investment vehicle is a joint venture with US financiers. The regulation was approved by 338 votes to 79, majority 259. Labour was boosted in the voting lobbies by four Reform UK MPs, including its leader Nigel Farage (Clacton), and seven Independent MPs. Meanwhile former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a vocal critic of China, was among those to vote against it. The Liberal Democrats, who forced the vote over fears foreign ownership would compromise editorial independence, also opposed it. The result will give the green light to Redbird IMI, with the cap in place now being supported by MPs. RedBird Capital, the US junior partner in RedBird IMI, agreed a deal in May to buy a majority stake in the newspaper for £500 million. Abu-Dhabi's IMI will look to buy a minority stake as part of the consortium. RedBird has investments in AC Milan, film production giant Skydance and Liverpool FC owner Fenway Sports Group. It is also understood that the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) – which owns the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, the i, and the Metro – is also looking to buy a stake. This is in addition to Sir Len Blavatnik, who owns the Theatre Royal Haymarket in the West End, who is considering a minority stake, according to Sky News reports. The rules were introduced after Redbird IMI looked to buy the Telegraph Media Group (TMG) from the Barclay Brothers. Then-Conservative culture secretary Lucy Frazer told a Society of Editors Conference in April 2024: 'I had concerns about the potential impacts of this deal on free expression and accurate presentation of news and that's why I issued a public interest intervention.' Culture minister Stephanie Peacock told MPs last month that appropriate safeguards had been introduced. She said: 'Government need to balance the importance of creating certainty and sustainability for our newspaper industry with the need to protect against the risk of foreign state influence by setting a clear threshold for exceptions within the regime at 15%. We believe that we have done that effectively.'
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Fears AI factcheckers on X could increase promotion of conspiracy theories
A decision by Elon Musk's X social media platform to enlist artificial intelligence chatbots to draft factchecks risks increasing the promotion of 'lies and conspiracy theories', a former UK technology minister has warned. Damian Collins accused Musk's firm of 'leaving it to bots to edit the news' after X announced on Tuesday that it would allow large language modelsto write community notes to clarify or correct contentious posts, before they are approved for publication by users. The notes have previously been written by humans. X said using AI to write factchecking notes – which sit beneath some X posts – 'advances the state of the art in improving information quality on the internet'. Keith Coleman, the vice president of product at X, said humans would review AI-generated notes and the note would appear only if people with a variety of viewpoints found it useful. 'We designed this pilot to be AI helping humans, with humans deciding,' he said. 'We believe this can deliver both high quality and high trust. Additionally we published a paper along with the launch of our pilot, co-authored with professors and researchers from MIT, University of Washington, Harvard and Stanford laying out why this combination of AI and humans is such a promising direction.' But Collins said the system was already open to abuse and that AI agents working on community notes could allow 'the industrial manipulation of what people see and decide to trust' on the platform, which has about 600 million users. It is the latest pushback against human factcheckers by US tech firms. Last month Google said user-created fact checks, including by professional factchecking organisations, would be deprioritised in its search results. It said such checks were 'no longer providing significant additional value for users'. In January, Meta announced it was scrapping human factcheckers in the US and would adopt its own community notes system on Instagram, Facebook and Threads. X's research paper outlining its new factchecking system criticised professional factchecking as often slow and limited in scale and said it 'lacks trust by large sections of the public'. AI-created community notes 'have the potential to be faster to produce, less effort to generate, and of high quality', it said. Human and AI-written notes would be submitted into the same pool and X users would vote for which were most useful and should appear on the platform. AI would draft 'a neutral well-evidenced summary', the research paper said. Trust in community notes 'stems not from who drafts the notes, but from the people that evaluate them,' it said. But Andy Dudfield, the head of AI at the UK factchecking organisation Full Fact, said: 'These plans risk increasing the already significant burden on human reviewers to check even more draft Notes, opening the door to a worrying and plausible situation in which Notes could be drafted, reviewed, and published entirely by AI without the careful consideration that human input provides.' Samuel Stockwell, a research associate at the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security at the Alan Turing Institute, said: 'AI can help factcheckers process the huge volumes of claims flowing daily through social media, but much will depend on the quality of safeguards X puts in place against the risk that these AI 'note writers' could hallucinate and amplify misinformation in their outputs. AI chatbots often struggle with nuance and context, but are good at confidently providing answers that sound persuasive even when untrue. That could be a dangerous combination if not effectively addressed by the platform.' Researchers have found that people perceived human-authored community notes as significantly more trustworthy than simple misinformation flags. An analysis of several hundred misleading posts on X in the run up to last year's presidential election found that in three-quarters of cases, accurate community notes were not being displayed, indicating they were not being upvoted by users. These misleading posts, including claims that Democrats were importing illegal voters and the 2020 presidential election was stolen, amassed more than 2bn views, according to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate.
