Using the Council’s figures there is a 5.13 years supply of housing land or a
surplus of about 86 dwellings. However, on the supply side the Council has
changed its assumptions concerning build rates and lead in times from those
used in its 2012 assessment. Lead in times have been reduced by a year and
the annual rates of dwellings delivered on sites accommodating more than 500
dwellings increased. At my request the Council analysed the lead in times and
build rates on large sites given planning permission since 2000. The
experience at a number of sites does show that short lead-in times are
possible. However, for the most part these sites had a history and in a number
of instances the starting point of the analysis was a renewed or revised
planning permission rather than the original grant of permission. Overall it is
difficult to conclude from this information that average lead in time is not
similar to that assumed in the 2012 analysis. If this were the case then there
would not be a 5 years supply with a 20% buffer.
22. There are no historic sites that have delivered more than 500 dwellings and
although I agree that large sites are likely to be built out by more than one
developer, each attempting to supply a different part of the overall market,
without more evidence, the proper course of action in circumstances where
there is no indication of widespread building industry support for the Council’s
new position, would have been to take a cautious and conservative approach
on build rates. Paragraph 03-0020 of the National Planning Practice Guidance Appeal Decision APP/R0660/A/13/2196044
6
(Guidance) says that the advice of developers and local agents will be
important in assessing lead-in-times and build-out rates by year.
23. Additionally about 40% of the houses that are assumed to be delivered within
five years do not have planning permission. These dwellings would be built at
strategic sites, sites awaiting legal agreements and windfalls. I accept that
there is evidence that justifies the inclusion of windfalls in later years.
However, although some development may be achieved on strategic sites, if
the Council takes a liberal view in granting planning permission in advance of
the adoption of the Core Strategy, their early development is by no means a
certainty. Given the level of objections to some of them, legal challenges
cannot be ruled out and significant infrastructure requirements will
undoubtedly cause delays at some sites.
24. There was a distinct lack of credible hard evidence to justify the projections for
some of these sites and consequently it would be unwise to place too much
reliance on the potential for delivering a significant amount of the housing
requirement from such sources. About half of these sites are not yet the
subject of planning applications and matters such as Environmental Impact and
traffic assessments have still to be determined at some of them, not
withstanding the need to relocate existing occupiers from more than one of the
sites. 18% of the dwelling requirement is meant to come from this source. I
am not persuaded that the evidence confirms that such optimism is justified.
25. Whilst I note that the Council intends to improve the delivery of legal
agreements that are necessary to enable planning permissions to be granted,
until this begins to happen there is no certainty that nearly 20% of the five
year supply could be delivered from this source. In any event legal
agreements will only be executed speedily if all parties wish them to be and
that is not always the case.
26. The 2012 analysis was prepared in full consultation with the development
industry. It appears to have been less involved with the more recent analysis.
There was a workshop held for members of the Housing Market Partnership in
December 2013 but the minutes suggest that it fell far short of approving the
Council’s revised approach. Unlike the position in 2012, the Housing Market
Partnership does not appear to have endorsed the methodology and
conclusions of the updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and
the Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement. This further
undermines the confidence that I have in the findings.
27. Following a consultation on the publication of the Planning Practice Guidance
(Guidance), the Council pointed out that at paragraph 3-037 the guidance
introduced accommodation for older people into the supply of housing. The
Council suggests that six residential institutions (use class C2) granted
planning permission since 2012 would accommodate about 360 elderly
persons, although it does not suggest how many households this
accommodation would replace. The Appellant questioned the legitimacy and
deliverability of some of these schemes, some of which were initially granted
planning permission before 2012. There is also no information as to how this
group was treated when the RS was establishing future housing requirements.
However, such is the likely overall shortfall that I am not persuaded that even
if 360 beds were to be provided in residential care homes over the next five
years and that provision resulted in a similar reduction in the overall dwelling Appeal Decision APP/R0660/A/13/2196044
7
requirement, there would be a five year supply. I conclude that the Council
has not demonstrated a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.
Paragraph 49 of the Framework says that in such circumstances relevant
policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up–to-date.
Friday, 11 April 2014
Friday, 14 February 2014
Interview with Pete McAllister of ICL -Car Leasing
Purpose of survey?
The survey was a good chance for us to present the way that public money is being spent on a local level. Obviously cars are our business and so it was an ideal opportunity to shine the light on local council spending, revealing those who were most wasteful and frugal. There’s nothing else out there like this report and so I feel we’ve provided something of real value here.
Co-operation of Councils in response?
Most councils were very cooperative and got back to us quickly after the requests were sent out. The ones who owned cars that were very luxurious and not a good use of the public purse tended to respond very close to the legal deadline. There were two councils that refused to give information; one being Nottingham who never responded to any of our communications and Sandwell who said that if they were to give out any information they would be risking the safety of their vehicles. I think in Sandwell’s case that they probably have some very expensive cars under their ownership, but we have no timely way of challenging their response.
What does this tell you about Cheshire East and West?
Cheshire East and West were by far the most uncontrolled in the spending of their residents’ money. They both had Bentleys worth a minimum of £140,900 on their books and the nearest value car given by any other councils was half that at £70,975. In times of austerity spending like this cannot be justified; there are huge cutbacks and job losses going on at the councils and this creates an unjustified and hypocritical divide.
Lessons to be learned for all Councils?
I think that councils should learn from this that they are not immune to the spotlight that is currently being put on public spending. Non-commercial vehicles do not affect the level of service that residents get and therefore should be as economically managed as possible. Hopefully in light of this study councils with higher spends will reassess what they allocate to cars and take a much more humble approach to how their employees transport themselves around.
Obviously you are thinking Councils should lease all vehicles?
Not necessarily, although leasing is our business we’re not forcing it down anyone’s throat as an option that has to be taken. What we’d like to see is more balanced fleets that serve the needs and not wants of councils. Leasing is a much cheaper option per financial year than buying cars outright, therefore it’s up to each council’s budget planners what option they take.
Other thoughts?
I’d like to thank Cheshire East Exposed for having this interview with us, and let readers know that should they wish to see the full findings of our study they can do so by visiting the following page http://www.intelligentcarleasing.com/blog/councils-are-treating-themselves-to-flash-cars-with-your-tax-money/http://www.intelligentcarleasing.com/blog/councils-are-treating-themselves-to-flash-cars-with-your-tax-money/
The survey was a good chance for us to present the way that public money is being spent on a local level. Obviously cars are our business and so it was an ideal opportunity to shine the light on local council spending, revealing those who were most wasteful and frugal. There’s nothing else out there like this report and so I feel we’ve provided something of real value here.
Co-operation of Councils in response?
Most councils were very cooperative and got back to us quickly after the requests were sent out. The ones who owned cars that were very luxurious and not a good use of the public purse tended to respond very close to the legal deadline. There were two councils that refused to give information; one being Nottingham who never responded to any of our communications and Sandwell who said that if they were to give out any information they would be risking the safety of their vehicles. I think in Sandwell’s case that they probably have some very expensive cars under their ownership, but we have no timely way of challenging their response.
What does this tell you about Cheshire East and West?
Cheshire East and West were by far the most uncontrolled in the spending of their residents’ money. They both had Bentleys worth a minimum of £140,900 on their books and the nearest value car given by any other councils was half that at £70,975. In times of austerity spending like this cannot be justified; there are huge cutbacks and job losses going on at the councils and this creates an unjustified and hypocritical divide.
Lessons to be learned for all Councils?
I think that councils should learn from this that they are not immune to the spotlight that is currently being put on public spending. Non-commercial vehicles do not affect the level of service that residents get and therefore should be as economically managed as possible. Hopefully in light of this study councils with higher spends will reassess what they allocate to cars and take a much more humble approach to how their employees transport themselves around.
Obviously you are thinking Councils should lease all vehicles?
Not necessarily, although leasing is our business we’re not forcing it down anyone’s throat as an option that has to be taken. What we’d like to see is more balanced fleets that serve the needs and not wants of councils. Leasing is a much cheaper option per financial year than buying cars outright, therefore it’s up to each council’s budget planners what option they take.
Other thoughts?
I’d like to thank Cheshire East Exposed for having this interview with us, and let readers know that should they wish to see the full findings of our study they can do so by visiting the following page http://www.intelligentcarleasing.com/blog/councils-are-treating-themselves-to-flash-cars-with-your-tax-money/http://www.intelligentcarleasing.com/blog/councils-are-treating-themselves-to-flash-cars-with-your-tax-money/
Friday, 17 January 2014
Alsager Action Group Report on Cllr Jones attending Meeting
Town Council Planning Committee: 14th January 2014
Attendance of Michael Jones, Leader of Cheshire East Council
Resident’s Issues raised with Councillor Jones
Residents asked a number of excellent questions around the following major
issues:
The ‘unfairness’ of Alsager being targeted for 50% growth in housing
allocation
The lack of employment in Alsager as a Key Service Centre
Poor infrastructure already, let alone to underpin such growth
No serious Infrastructure Plan from Cheshire East Council to address
these infrastructural issues
The ‘imposition’ of the projected development on White Moss Quarry
that did not take account of factual evidence
The reference to moving sports facilities from the MMU site in the Core
Strategy (Para. 15.185) and the removal of the reference to onsite
educational provision as a potential use for this site.
Why had the Local Plan taken so long?
If it is due to be submitted, as claimed by Councillor Jones, by the end
of February what are the numbers for Alsager in terms of housing?
When challenged, Councillor Jones declared himself to have no
financial interests or assets within Cheshire East; nor was he a Mason.
A request was made by the vice chair of ARAG requesting his
attendance at a further meeting " which would be organised by us " at a
time and place to allow a further opportunity to those unable to gain
access to Tuesday nights important meeting. This would allow further
questions to be put to him and his officials, by those deprived of the
opportunity to do so on Tuesday, on issues and concerns about what is
likely to be a fundamental change to all our lives in Alsager.
Cllr Jones gave us an assurance that he would be willing to do so,
although he later said “so long as the Town Council agreed to its
arrangements”.
Councillor Jones’s Responses
There is an allocation of land at Radway Green for employment
purposes and the objective is to ensure that real jobs in manufacturing
are generated and the land not just allocated for Distribution Centres
off the M6. He referred to the creation of ‘3500 jobs’ and ‘real jobs for
young people’. It remains unclear as to how these intentions would be
underpinned by any Council strategy to make them a reality.
He referred to the Sedgefield and Liverpool methods for ‘catching up’
on the housing backlog over 5 years or 20 years respectively. It is our
view that this is a red herring as it has always been clear that the
Government advocated the Sedgefield shorter methodology
He agreed that the housing allocation for Alsager was ‘unfair’ and
referred on more than one occasion to the alleged 100% increase in
his own ward as if this were a justification.
He stated that there were ‘serious issues with White Moss Quarry’
and that the Council would be looking closely at these issues. He was
also reminded about the decisions that had been taken about WMQ as
recently as 2008 when it was argued there was a shortage of
aggregate recycling.
He confirmed that Cheshire East Council will ‘fight’ the Dunnocksfold
Road site appeal
He stated that ‘We would never support 3000 houses’ in Alsager
When questioned about the infrastructure issues, especially roads and
transport, he offered to ‘come and work with you’ to address these
issues.
When asked about the delay in producing the Local Plan Councillor
Jones blamed the Local Government Review which had led to the
creation of Cheshire East out of three previously separate local
government bodies.
Questioned about the MMU site, Councillor Jones offered the
following contradictory responses. On the one hand, MMU own the site
and - oddly and not very convincingly – it was alleged that MMU was
responsible for the wording of the Core Strategy document which
removes the reference to education on the site and the removal of the
sports pitches and facilities to Crewe. On the other hand, he declared
that the pitches and facilities including the Dance Hall ‘will stay’
and this is ‘non-negotiable’. He stated clearly that ‘the Pitches need
to stay in their entirety.’
Councillor Jones claimed that a ‘robust’ Local Plan would be
submitted to the Department for Communities and Local
Government for assessment by the end of February.
When questioned about the housing allocation for Alsager contained in
this Local Plan he repeatedly refused to respond. He claimed that there
were legal reasons why he could not say anything more publicly about
this or about White Moss Quarry
Town Councillor Questions
Following the public participation session Council members of the Planning
Committee were offered the opportunity to question Councillor Jones
Councillor Hough raised a number of questions with Councillor Jones
including reference to the ‘duty to cooperate’ with other Local
Authorities. Unfortunately this quickly turned into an aggressively
‘political’ and somewhat incomprehensible wrangle initiated by
Councillor Jones on this occasion
Councillor Shirley Jones raised the issue of wastewater and poor
performance by United Utilities in the Town. This would be a significant
issue for any further development and it is to be noted that even the
Cheshire East Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates capacity
issues in wastewater
Councillor Longhurst pressed Councillor Jones on the MMU issues
as his statements in the public session could not be supported from
Cheshire East documents that had been published in November. He
also referred to the fact that CE officers are justifying acceptance of
sites that had been previously rejected because of the ‘benefits to the
housing land supply’. This ran counter to the advice from the
Inspector’s Report on Sandbach Road North which stated that ‘the lack
of a five year supply of housing land does not provide an automatic
‘green light’ to planning permission’.
Conclusion
It is likely that many residents will have found the meeting to be unsatisfactory
and unconvincing. In part, this may be attributed to the inappropriate venue
and the crowded room but also because the responses from Councillor Jones
were very much those of the ‘politician’. At times he appeared to be
aggressive, patronising and unnecessarily confrontational.
Residents may have welcomed some of the statements and reassurances
that he offered but it remains to be seen whether there is any substance
behind the rhetoric. Those who attended will have reached their own
conclusions about the credibility of the assurances offered.
There must be a degree of scepticism that there will be a ‘robust’ Local Plan
submitted for assessment by the end of February, given the experiences of
this process to date and the quality of the existing documentation.
We can, however, all hope that this is the case and that this ‘robust’ plan
provides an intelligent, reflective and analytical framework for the future of our
community.
Attendance of Michael Jones, Leader of Cheshire East Council
Resident’s Issues raised with Councillor Jones
Residents asked a number of excellent questions around the following major
issues:
The ‘unfairness’ of Alsager being targeted for 50% growth in housing
allocation
The lack of employment in Alsager as a Key Service Centre
Poor infrastructure already, let alone to underpin such growth
No serious Infrastructure Plan from Cheshire East Council to address
these infrastructural issues
The ‘imposition’ of the projected development on White Moss Quarry
that did not take account of factual evidence
The reference to moving sports facilities from the MMU site in the Core
Strategy (Para. 15.185) and the removal of the reference to onsite
educational provision as a potential use for this site.
Why had the Local Plan taken so long?
If it is due to be submitted, as claimed by Councillor Jones, by the end
of February what are the numbers for Alsager in terms of housing?
When challenged, Councillor Jones declared himself to have no
financial interests or assets within Cheshire East; nor was he a Mason.
A request was made by the vice chair of ARAG requesting his
attendance at a further meeting " which would be organised by us " at a
time and place to allow a further opportunity to those unable to gain
access to Tuesday nights important meeting. This would allow further
questions to be put to him and his officials, by those deprived of the
opportunity to do so on Tuesday, on issues and concerns about what is
likely to be a fundamental change to all our lives in Alsager.
Cllr Jones gave us an assurance that he would be willing to do so,
although he later said “so long as the Town Council agreed to its
arrangements”.
Councillor Jones’s Responses
There is an allocation of land at Radway Green for employment
purposes and the objective is to ensure that real jobs in manufacturing
are generated and the land not just allocated for Distribution Centres
off the M6. He referred to the creation of ‘3500 jobs’ and ‘real jobs for
young people’. It remains unclear as to how these intentions would be
underpinned by any Council strategy to make them a reality.
He referred to the Sedgefield and Liverpool methods for ‘catching up’
on the housing backlog over 5 years or 20 years respectively. It is our
view that this is a red herring as it has always been clear that the
Government advocated the Sedgefield shorter methodology
He agreed that the housing allocation for Alsager was ‘unfair’ and
referred on more than one occasion to the alleged 100% increase in
his own ward as if this were a justification.
He stated that there were ‘serious issues with White Moss Quarry’
and that the Council would be looking closely at these issues. He was
also reminded about the decisions that had been taken about WMQ as
recently as 2008 when it was argued there was a shortage of
aggregate recycling.
He confirmed that Cheshire East Council will ‘fight’ the Dunnocksfold
Road site appeal
He stated that ‘We would never support 3000 houses’ in Alsager
When questioned about the infrastructure issues, especially roads and
transport, he offered to ‘come and work with you’ to address these
issues.
When asked about the delay in producing the Local Plan Councillor
Jones blamed the Local Government Review which had led to the
creation of Cheshire East out of three previously separate local
government bodies.
Questioned about the MMU site, Councillor Jones offered the
following contradictory responses. On the one hand, MMU own the site
and - oddly and not very convincingly – it was alleged that MMU was
responsible for the wording of the Core Strategy document which
removes the reference to education on the site and the removal of the
sports pitches and facilities to Crewe. On the other hand, he declared
that the pitches and facilities including the Dance Hall ‘will stay’
and this is ‘non-negotiable’. He stated clearly that ‘the Pitches need
to stay in their entirety.’
Councillor Jones claimed that a ‘robust’ Local Plan would be
submitted to the Department for Communities and Local
Government for assessment by the end of February.
When questioned about the housing allocation for Alsager contained in
this Local Plan he repeatedly refused to respond. He claimed that there
were legal reasons why he could not say anything more publicly about
this or about White Moss Quarry
Town Councillor Questions
Following the public participation session Council members of the Planning
Committee were offered the opportunity to question Councillor Jones
Councillor Hough raised a number of questions with Councillor Jones
including reference to the ‘duty to cooperate’ with other Local
Authorities. Unfortunately this quickly turned into an aggressively
‘political’ and somewhat incomprehensible wrangle initiated by
Councillor Jones on this occasion
Councillor Shirley Jones raised the issue of wastewater and poor
performance by United Utilities in the Town. This would be a significant
issue for any further development and it is to be noted that even the
Cheshire East Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates capacity
issues in wastewater
Councillor Longhurst pressed Councillor Jones on the MMU issues
as his statements in the public session could not be supported from
Cheshire East documents that had been published in November. He
also referred to the fact that CE officers are justifying acceptance of
sites that had been previously rejected because of the ‘benefits to the
housing land supply’. This ran counter to the advice from the
Inspector’s Report on Sandbach Road North which stated that ‘the lack
of a five year supply of housing land does not provide an automatic
‘green light’ to planning permission’.
Conclusion
It is likely that many residents will have found the meeting to be unsatisfactory
and unconvincing. In part, this may be attributed to the inappropriate venue
and the crowded room but also because the responses from Councillor Jones
were very much those of the ‘politician’. At times he appeared to be
aggressive, patronising and unnecessarily confrontational.
Residents may have welcomed some of the statements and reassurances
that he offered but it remains to be seen whether there is any substance
behind the rhetoric. Those who attended will have reached their own
conclusions about the credibility of the assurances offered.
There must be a degree of scepticism that there will be a ‘robust’ Local Plan
submitted for assessment by the end of February, given the experiences of
this process to date and the quality of the existing documentation.
We can, however, all hope that this is the case and that this ‘robust’ plan
provides an intelligent, reflective and analytical framework for the future of our
community.
Monday, 30 December 2013
Cllr Jones Declaration of Interests
http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1125&T=6
Just going through Cllr Jones Register of Interests I thought I'd pick up a few points.
Section 1.
Cllr Jones is a director of Sanderson Knight Properties
Section 3.
Cllr Jones has shares to the value above £25000 in both RBS and Lloyds TSB;
Both banks were nationalised by the previous Government and RBS famously had Fred Goodwin in charge.
Their share prices collapsed at the time of the financial crisis so did someone lose a lot of money?
Section 4.
Cllr Jones claims he has a tenant receiving Housing Benefit in Crewe (note his spelling of receiving)
but in Section 5 Cllrs are to give the address of land or property they own in the Borough (sufficient to
identify the location) but he only states SKP (his company) owns properties but the only address given is his
own home address even though in Section 4 he states he has a tenant in Crewe so surely properties he owns
in Crewe and Nantwich should be listed?
Just going through Cllr Jones Register of Interests I thought I'd pick up a few points.
Section 1.
Cllr Jones is a director of Sanderson Knight Properties
Section 3.
Cllr Jones has shares to the value above £25000 in both RBS and Lloyds TSB;
Both banks were nationalised by the previous Government and RBS famously had Fred Goodwin in charge.
Their share prices collapsed at the time of the financial crisis so did someone lose a lot of money?
Section 4.
Cllr Jones claims he has a tenant receiving Housing Benefit in Crewe (note his spelling of receiving)
but in Section 5 Cllrs are to give the address of land or property they own in the Borough (sufficient to
identify the location) but he only states SKP (his company) owns properties but the only address given is his
own home address even though in Section 4 he states he has a tenant in Crewe so surely properties he owns
in Crewe and Nantwich should be listed?
Saturday, 21 December 2013
Lyme Green Report
Concerning Elected Members part in the Lyme Green Scandal - From the Lyme Green Report
Elected Members Code Of Conduct.
....At appendix 4 part 2 a relevant extract is referred to. For ease of reference it is repeated here - "Members should uphold the Law and, on all occasions act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place with them."
Although I am satisfied that elected members (based on the evidence I received) did not expressly instruct or exercise undue influence upon officers to evade the FCPRs or EU Procurrement Law, (4 paragraphs now blanked out)
I think it is important for all Councillors culturally to remember what the code of conduct says (see appendix 4 part 2) and be seen to be applying those principles.
Compliance with the law or the Council's internal Governance and therefore upholding it, is not inconsistent with "getting things done". Properly prepared programmes and well managed projects, taking account of what needs to be complied with, can also facilitate "getting things done".
Elected members are entitled to rely upon clear and relevant advice from their professional officers, but also need to respect the Council's position to act lawfully and within its own governance, particularly if they are Portfolio Holders and when necessary convey that message clearly.
Having read this section concerning Councillors or portfolio holder(s) I think it is indicated that elected members did tried to influence officers to evade EU procurement laws and a Portfolio Holder tried to get Officers to act unlawfully within the Council's own governance.
Who was this Councillor/Portfolio holder and how have they managed to keep their part in this quiet when Officers have had to leave the Council (often with a payoff to keep quiet)? No training or disciplinary action against taken against them and for all we know they have totally got out of this scott free. Openness Cllr Jones? I think not!
Elected Members Code Of Conduct.
....At appendix 4 part 2 a relevant extract is referred to. For ease of reference it is repeated here - "Members should uphold the Law and, on all occasions act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place with them."
Although I am satisfied that elected members (based on the evidence I received) did not expressly instruct or exercise undue influence upon officers to evade the FCPRs or EU Procurrement Law, (4 paragraphs now blanked out)
I think it is important for all Councillors culturally to remember what the code of conduct says (see appendix 4 part 2) and be seen to be applying those principles.
Compliance with the law or the Council's internal Governance and therefore upholding it, is not inconsistent with "getting things done". Properly prepared programmes and well managed projects, taking account of what needs to be complied with, can also facilitate "getting things done".
Elected members are entitled to rely upon clear and relevant advice from their professional officers, but also need to respect the Council's position to act lawfully and within its own governance, particularly if they are Portfolio Holders and when necessary convey that message clearly.
Having read this section concerning Councillors or portfolio holder(s) I think it is indicated that elected members did tried to influence officers to evade EU procurement laws and a Portfolio Holder tried to get Officers to act unlawfully within the Council's own governance.
Who was this Councillor/Portfolio holder and how have they managed to keep their part in this quiet when Officers have had to leave the Council (often with a payoff to keep quiet)? No training or disciplinary action against taken against them and for all we know they have totally got out of this scott free. Openness Cllr Jones? I think not!
Sunday, 27 October 2013
Safeguarded Land
Two opposing views on safeguarded land; the Government says we don't need it but Cheshire East is putting it in Local Plan; Confused.
Nick Boles ,Minister for planning said during parliamentary debate;
There is nothing in the Localism Act 2011, in the NPPF or in any aspect of Government planning policy that requires someone to plan beyond 15 years. So, anybody who is suggesting that there is any requirement to safeguard land or wrap it up in wrapping paper and ribbons for the future development between 2030 and 2050 is getting it wrong. There is no reason for it and my hon. Friend can knock that suggestion straight back to wherever it came from.
http://yorkconservatives.co.uk/planning-minister-poses-problems-for-labours-local-plan-in-york/
But Michael Jones Leader of Cheshire East and the deputy Leader quoted;
Nick Boles ,Minister for planning said during parliamentary debate;
There is nothing in the Localism Act 2011, in the NPPF or in any aspect of Government planning policy that requires someone to plan beyond 15 years. So, anybody who is suggesting that there is any requirement to safeguard land or wrap it up in wrapping paper and ribbons for the future development between 2030 and 2050 is getting it wrong. There is no reason for it and my hon. Friend can knock that suggestion straight back to wherever it came from.
http://yorkconservatives.co.uk/planning-minister-poses-problems-for-labours-local-plan-in-york/
But Michael Jones Leader of Cheshire East and the deputy Leader quoted;
This six week consultation will also cover the new safeguarded sites included in the latest draft document, two of which are in Wilmslow - one off Upcast Lane and the other off Prestbury Road.
I spoke with Cllr Michael Jones, Leader of Cheshire East Council, last week regarding the safeguarded sites.
He said "Safeguarding land has come about after a meeting with a planning inspector on the Local Plan who said to be robust we must provide Safeguarded Land. I am very clear that as far as I'm concerned safeguarding land is something which I find particularly difficult to understand.
"We are looking to consult on that obviously but also I want to know about how we're looking at the process of, how can I strategically tell you what it's going to be like in 2030 or further. So I have a problem with that and what I'm looking to do is establish a logic. I can say that at the moment the Strategic Planning team have told me, and I absolutely know it's true, that they've been told to put safeguarded land in by the government.
Sunday, 20 October 2013
Planning Appeal Sandbach
Just a few points raised in appeal judgement;
Planning Policy Background
9. Nonetheless I cannot agree that the draft Local Plan should attract considerable
weight as suggested by the Council. There are many Secretary of State and
Inspector appeal decisions which regard draft plans at a similar stage as
carrying less weight. The Council’s own plan has been afforded little weight in
the earlier months of 2013, and although the plan has moved on to an extent,
it has not moved on substantially. For these various reasons I consider that
the draft Local Plan can still attract no more than limited weight in this case.
Planning Policy Background
9. Nonetheless I cannot agree that the draft Local Plan should attract considerable
weight as suggested by the Council. There are many Secretary of State and
Inspector appeal decisions which regard draft plans at a similar stage as
carrying less weight. The Council’s own plan has been afforded little weight in
the earlier months of 2013, and although the plan has moved on to an extent,
it has not moved on substantially. For these various reasons I consider that
the draft Local Plan can still attract no more than limited weight in this case.
Housing Land Supply
18. Both main parties agree that the starting point for the calculation of a 5 year
land supply should be the housing requirement set out in the former North
West Regional Strategy (RS).......
Hence the
housing requirement currently stands at 1150 dwellings per annum (dpa) for
CEC. This is 5750 over 5 years. Following the advice in the NPPF requires the
addition of either a 5% or 20% buffer (a matter I deal with later). The matter
of previous underachievement and the subsequent backlog is also material.
some strategic sites are dependent on enabling infrastructure being
put in place, and interdependent with it, such as at Basford East. I admire the
Council’s confidence that all will run well and that infrastructure will be
provided on time, but it cannot yet be assured. I recognise that the NPPF, in
seeking to ensure that sites identified in the 5 year supply are deliverable
cannot require complete certainty, but it does set a high benchmark of realism
for the assessment. To be considered deliverable sites must be available now.
I do not accept that a site in need of enabling infrastructure such as a link road
can reasonably be assessed as being available now even if there is a clear
intention to deliver that road in conjunction with housing. It may become
available in 2 or 3 years time, but until then it would be unwise to place too
much reliance on the potential for delivering housing from such sources.
Similarly there is a distinct lack of credible hard evidence that the projections
for Leighton West and other sites are achievable or realistic.
30. I turn now to the question of the backlog. It is agreed that the housing
requirement has not been met for a number of years. The backlog is,
cumulatively, some 1266 dwellings between 2003 and 2012, which takes into
account the earlier years when there was some exceedence of targets. There
is an additional shortfall in the year to March 2013 of about 500 dwellings,
bringing a total in the region of 1750 to 1800. It is well known that there are 2
schools of thought on how to deal with a backlog – the so called Liverpool and
Sedgefield methods. Liverpool spreads the backlog over the plan period (in
this case to 2031 for the draft Local Plan) and Sedgefield over 5 years. There
is no expressed preference for either method in the NPPF.
31. In this instance, however, the Council suggests that it would be appropriate to
spread the backlog over the period of the RS, to 2021, or 9 years. The reason
offered is that the backlog has been calculated by reference to RS figures from
its publication, and the performance during the subsequent years has been
measured in that light, so that it would be logical to complete the intended RS
cycle. I do not agree with that suggestion. The intention of the NPPF is clear –
it is to “boost significantly the supply of housing”. That aim would not be best
served by being too relaxed about the need to recover the backlog. I agree
with the Appellant that every effort should be made to deal with the backlog in
as short a time as possible. For that reason I subscribe to the Sedgefield
method. So any calculation of housing land supply must include the provision
of the backlog (at present) of about 1750 dwellings.
35. If, therefore the housing land supply figures are re-worked with new
assumptions the following situation becomes apparent. The 5 year
requirement is 5750. To that must be added the backlog of about 1750,
making a total of 7500. Adding the 20% buffer brings a total requirement of
some 9000 dwellings over 5 years, or 1800 per annum. The fact that such a
figure has rarely been reached in the past is not a reason for suggesting it is an
inappropriate target. Significantly boosting supply surely implies that
ambitious targets are appropriate.
36. The Council suggests that it can show a supply of something over 9000
dwellings in any event. However, I have already observed above that I
consider the Council to be too optimistic. There is uncertainty surrounding the
Local Plan itself. A large proportion of its identified supply is on strategic sites,
and in my judgement delivery there is unlikely to come forward as quickly as
the Council contends. Given that projections are inevitably estimates based on
landowners’ and developers’ current thinking, on the understandable desire to
‘talk up’ the chances of delivery, and on professional judgement, it would not
be a worthwhile exercise to try to deal forensically with every site in this case.
37. Both main parties to this appeal have provided expert assessments and the
difference on strategic sites is marked – for the Council a delivery estimate of
some 4000 dwellings, and for the Appellants not much more than 1100
dwellings. The outturn is likely to be somewhere between the 2, and I consider
that a realistic figure is likely to be closer to the Appellants’ figure than the
Council’s. However, for the purpose of this exercise I propose to allow leeway
to the Council and assume a delivery on strategic sites of some 3000 dwellings.
That removes about 1000 from their estimated supply, and brings it to about
8000.
38. There are other detailed differences between the Council and the Appellants in
relation to the likely delivery from, for example, sites awaiting the signing of
S106 agreements. One of these is the former Albion Chemical Works, which
has been subject to a resolution to grant planning permission for some years,
and has acknowledged delivery difficulties. The Council is optimistic of early
delivery, but there is no concrete evidence to back up that optimism. Again it
would be an academic and uncertain exercise to seek to examine each site in
detail in this instance. Suffice to say that my judgement more closely aligns
with that of the Appellants, and these further consequential reductions in likely
supply would bring the ultimate total to a lower level. I consider a figure of
7000 to 7500 to be realistic, but at the top end of the scale.
39. I am therefore satisfied of the following:
• There is a housing requirement, including backlog and buffer of some 9000
dwellings over 5 years or 1800 per annum;
• There is currently a demonstrable supply, taking a generous approach to
Council estimates, which is likely to be in the region of 7000 to 7500
dwellings at most.
• The demonstrable supply therefore equates to a figure in the region of 3.9
to 4.1 years.
40. As noted in paragraph 49 of the NPPF, therefore, the Council’s policies relating
to housing supply cannot be considered to be up to date, and there is a
requirement to consider applications in the context of a presumption in favour
of sustainable development. This is dealt with in more detail in paragraph 14
of the NPPF. It is worth pointing out that even had I applied a 5% buffer
(which I do not regard as appropriate) the Council’s supply would still fall below
5 years on the optimistic scenario I have used. Before carrying out the balance
required by the advice of the NPPF I will turn to the other issues.
Final Conclusion
87. The Council is unable, on my assessment, to demonstrate a 5 year supply of
deliverable housing sites. This is a substantial material consideration in favour
of the proposal. In addition the affordable housing to be provided is of
significant benefit. There is conflict with the development plan as described
above, but the harm identified, to landscape, loss of BMV land, and the loss of
outlook for local residents do not amount to significant and demonstrable harm
which would outweigh the benefits of the scheme. In this instance there are
material considerations which outweigh conflict with the development plan. For
the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)