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?
Monday, 30 December 2013
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.
Friday, 27 September 2013
county matters" planning applications
Meanwhile, a further 26 councils are set to be placed in special measures on the basis of taking too long to determine major "county matters" planning applications, which broadly relate to minerals and waste, over the two-year period, the figures show.
These are: Derbyshire, Peterborough, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire, Barnsley, Peak District National Park, Lancashire, Buckinghamshire, Northumberland, Devon, Dorset, Leicestershire, Hertfordshire, Bath and North East Somerset, Bexley, Bury, Calderdale, Cheshire East, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Hull, Kirklees, Wigan, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
published by the DCLG in June says that local planning authorities at risk of being placed in special measures in the first year of the policy "will be given an opportunity to fill any gaps in the data reported to the department before any designations are confirmed".
These are: Derbyshire, Peterborough, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire, Wiltshire, Barnsley, Peak District National Park, Lancashire, Buckinghamshire, Northumberland, Devon, Dorset, Leicestershire, Hertfordshire, Bath and North East Somerset, Bexley, Bury, Calderdale, Cheshire East, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Hull, Kirklees, Wigan, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
published by the DCLG in June says that local planning authorities at risk of being placed in special measures in the first year of the policy "will be given an opportunity to fill any gaps in the data reported to the department before any designations are confirmed".
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
Special Measures for Cheshire East?
DCLG names councils in line for special measures
By Tuesday, 30 July 2013
The Department for Communities and Local Government has revealed the identities of more than a dozen district councils which face being placed in 'special measures' for taking too long to determine major applications.
RTPI members:
The department today published showing which councils are set to be subject to special measures that allow developers to bypass their planning departments.
Under the controversial policy, local authorities determining fewer than 30 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks between July 2011 and June 2013 are to be placed in special measures.
According to the department’s interim figures, based on performance between July 2011 and March 2013, 10 district councils are in line to be placed in special measures on the basis of making fewer than 30 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks.
These are: Halton, Barnet, North East Derbyshire, Tandridge, Cherwell, Lambeth, Fylde, Daventry, Horsham and Blaby. They must improve their performance in the final quarter of the two-year period to escape a special measures designation.
Meanwhile, a further four district authorities – Adur, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, and Worthing – face being placed in special measures because they have seven quarters of missing data, according to the figures.
Under the special measures policy, if data for seven or eight quarters are missing, an authority will be designated automatically.
Meanwhile, a further 13 authorities face being placed in special measures on the basis of taking too long to determine major "county matters" planning applications, which broadly relate to minerals and waste.
These are: East Riding of Yorkshire, Barnsley, Kirklees, Northumberland, Hertfordshire, Wigan, Doncaster, Peak District National Park, Cheshire East, Bath and North East Somerset, Bury, Hartlepool and Telford and Wrekin.
Under the controversial policy, local authorities determining fewer than 30 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks between July 2011 and June 2013 are to be placed in special measures.
According to the department’s interim figures, based on performance between July 2011 and March 2013, 10 district councils are in line to be placed in special measures on the basis of making fewer than 30 per cent of major applications within 13 weeks.
These are: Halton, Barnet, North East Derbyshire, Tandridge, Cherwell, Lambeth, Fylde, Daventry, Horsham and Blaby. They must improve their performance in the final quarter of the two-year period to escape a special measures designation.
Meanwhile, a further four district authorities – Adur, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, and Worthing – face being placed in special measures because they have seven quarters of missing data, according to the figures.
Under the special measures policy, if data for seven or eight quarters are missing, an authority will be designated automatically.
Meanwhile, a further 13 authorities face being placed in special measures on the basis of taking too long to determine major "county matters" planning applications, which broadly relate to minerals and waste.
These are: East Riding of Yorkshire, Barnsley, Kirklees, Northumberland, Hertfordshire, Wigan, Doncaster, Peak District National Park, Cheshire East, Bath and North East Somerset, Bury, Hartlepool and Telford and Wrekin.
Planning minister Nick Boles said: "It’s quite right that communities and developers looking to provide homes and jobs are able to see how efficiently applications are processed by their council.
"This list helps people go compare, and see how their council is performing, and allows councils to see where they need to improve to provide a better planning service to their communities."
An exclusive anaylsis of official data published earlier this month by Planning had suggested that were in line to be placed in special measures.
The final designations are likely to be made by the DCLG in September or October once information for the whole two-year period becomes available.
The Local Government Association today hit out at the special measures policy.
Mike Jones, chairman of the LGA's environment and housing board, said: "This is an unnecessary and fundamentally flawed approach that will do nothing to help growth. Councils say yes to 87 per cent of applications of this type, and have been focusing on working with developers to iron out problems, improve development and make the right decision rather than turning down an application to meet a deadline.
"Councils are now being told long after the fact that they should have been focusing instead on a ticking clock.
"It means that rather than important decisions being made by elected representatives in a forum where local people can have a say, they will instead be made behind closed doors by an unelected bureaucrat from Bristol. This is a massive blow to transparency and a major step backwards for the planning system in this country."
The tables are available .
"This list helps people go compare, and see how their council is performing, and allows councils to see where they need to improve to provide a better planning service to their communities."
An exclusive anaylsis of official data published earlier this month by Planning had suggested that were in line to be placed in special measures.
The final designations are likely to be made by the DCLG in September or October once information for the whole two-year period becomes available.
The Local Government Association today hit out at the special measures policy.
Mike Jones, chairman of the LGA's environment and housing board, said: "This is an unnecessary and fundamentally flawed approach that will do nothing to help growth. Councils say yes to 87 per cent of applications of this type, and have been focusing on working with developers to iron out problems, improve development and make the right decision rather than turning down an application to meet a deadline.
"Councils are now being told long after the fact that they should have been focusing instead on a ticking clock.
"It means that rather than important decisions being made by elected representatives in a forum where local people can have a say, they will instead be made behind closed doors by an unelected bureaucrat from Bristol. This is a massive blow to transparency and a major step backwards for the planning system in this country."
The tables are available .
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
real reasons for Bentley investing in Crewe
Martin Winterkorn, chairman of the Volkswagen group, said the investment, which will take place over three years and include apprentice training, confirmed that the UK was a competitive place to build cars.
“We believe in the UK as a competitive location for industrial production. We believe in the people in Crewe,” he said. The company said it would add 400 to its 4,000 strong workforce and create at least 600 jobs in the supply chain.
Wolfgang Schreiber, chairman of Bentley, said Crewe, the northwest England home of the brand since 1946, had beaten competition from Bratislava, in Slovakia, where Audi SUVs are made.
He praised unions for agreeing to move to longer shifts on a four-day week to make the plant cost-effective. “Made in Britain” was still important for customers, he said.
The car, expected to sell for at least £150,000, will help keep the plant running at capacity.
The company intends to use “plug-in hybrid” technology in the new model, incorporating a battery that can be charged, as well as a fuel tank, to improve fuel-efficiency. This could then be added to the other four Bentley models.
Bentley hopes to build 3,000 SUVs a year – about a quarter of total production. In the first half of this year it delivered 4,279 cars to customers, up nine per cent year on year. More than 80 per cent of these were exported.
Bentley’s announcement follows similar decisions by “premium” brands Jaguar Land Rover, McLaren and BMW to invest in UK factories, reinvigorating an industry considered to be on its last legs just a decade ago and steering its focus towards high-end manufacturing and away from volume vehicles. Jaguar, owned by Tata of India, is also moving into the fast-growing sport utility vehicle market.
“One sector that we know is sprinting ahead in the global race is our booming automotive industry,” David Cameron, prime minister, said at the Bentley factory.
Hybrid, electric and other “green” vehicles are a focus of the government’s automotive strategy. Danny Alexander, the treasury secretary, said on Tuesday that the aim was to make the UK “the world’s hub” for low-emission technology.
SUVs and compact vehicles have become one of the luxury car industry’s most profitable segments, and coveted marques such as Porsche have trod a fine line between diluting brand image and broadening their customer base by stepping away from their traditional sports car image to tap rising demand.
Porsche’s Cayenne, the company’s first SUV, began production in 2002 and today accounts for more than half the company’s global sales.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
Eric Pickles
In a decision letter issued today, the communities secretary granted permission for developer Gladman Developments’ proposed scheme to build up to 270 homes and a convenience store/team room at Nantwich, Cheshire.
The developer had lodged an appeal against Cheshire East Council’s non-determination of the outline application in November 2012.
Following a public local inquiry held in March 2013, inspector Jennifer Vyse recommended that the appeal be allowed and permission granted.
In today’s decision letter, Pickles agreed with his inspector’s conclusions and granted permission for the development.
The secretary of state found that, despite the publication of a strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA) this year, "it cannot be demonstrated that there is a five year supply of deliverable housing land".
The letter said: "In these circumstances the council’s housing land supply policies are out of date, and paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework is therefore engaged."
The decision letter said that the council had made a short oral submission to the inquiry on housing land supply in which it confirmed that, in the circumstances of this appeal, "it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land; that it was not seeking to change its case in the light of the 2013 SHLAA published shortly before the inquiry; that it offered no challenge to the evidence of the appellant on this matter".
Since the appeal was lodged, Cheshire East Council gave the go-ahead to a separate outline application from Gladman Developments, for a development of up to 240 dwellings on the same site.
Pickles concluded that the quantum of development proposed in the appeal scheme "would have no greater impact than that already approved for this site" and that the 30 additional dwellings "would not materially impact on highway capacity and safety".
Pickles approves 270 Cheshire homes
By Friday, 19 July 2013
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has granted permission for 270 homes on 10 hectares of agricultural land in Cheshire, finding that the local council's housing land supply policies are out-of-date.
The developer had lodged an appeal against Cheshire East Council’s non-determination of the outline application in November 2012.
Following a public local inquiry held in March 2013, inspector Jennifer Vyse recommended that the appeal be allowed and permission granted.
In today’s decision letter, Pickles agreed with his inspector’s conclusions and granted permission for the development.
The secretary of state found that, despite the publication of a strategic housing land availability assessment (SHLAA) this year, "it cannot be demonstrated that there is a five year supply of deliverable housing land".
The letter said: "In these circumstances the council’s housing land supply policies are out of date, and paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework is therefore engaged."
The decision letter said that the council had made a short oral submission to the inquiry on housing land supply in which it confirmed that, in the circumstances of this appeal, "it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land; that it was not seeking to change its case in the light of the 2013 SHLAA published shortly before the inquiry; that it offered no challenge to the evidence of the appellant on this matter".
Since the appeal was lodged, Cheshire East Council gave the go-ahead to a separate outline application from Gladman Developments, for a development of up to 240 dwellings on the same site.
Pickles concluded that the quantum of development proposed in the appeal scheme "would have no greater impact than that already approved for this site" and that the 30 additional dwellings "would not materially impact on highway capacity and safety".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)