Inspectors decisions have sadly become more and more legalistoic and abtuse. This is uncessary, even for lawyers.
Judge Sally Hickman shows a simple straightforward explanation of reasoning is possible in this family law case, inspectors take note.
Summary after each section
‘what I have to decide’
what each party is seeking
‘what my decision is’
The announcement of a Mayoral Development Corporation around the new Crossrail Station at Old Oak Common has led to a flurry of development interest, not least from QPR who want to a develop a new stadium led development plus 24,000 homes funded entirely by its shareholders including Lascsmi Mittal. Their plan has the support of the Mayor and the Boroughs.
But they have one problem – a used car salesman. Tony Mendes of Car Giant owns 45 acres of the site and is refusing to sell. He has called the QPRE plan ‘”speculative and presumptive”.
What is he playing at? Clearly he has been taking very good professional advice. You see the only way a site could be compulsorily acquired would be for a public purpose. A stadium for QPR is a private interest not a public one. As Car Giant rightly state “In regards to the threat of CPO, there is no legal basis on which to serve a CPO on Cargiant. We are a willing developer,”
Hence the grand planning dodge of the ‘community stadium’ concept which has arisen in recent years, especially but not exclusively in Green Belt sites, after the SoS decision on Brighton’s Stadium and the inspectors findings on private v public interest in the Dulwich Hamlet appeal (where he agreed with my submission on the matter) . The Mayor could plan and CPO for a ‘premier league standard’ stadium but not one for QPRor any specific club, but then would have to open tender the result – and the site would go to richer Chelsea or even possibly Fulham (with different owners maybe), not QPR. Of course if the site were rezoned it could eventually be CPOd at existing use value, but that is a long way off, and if they already got planning permission in the interim for a housing led scheme there would be no grounds at all for a CPO. I guess the next move for Tony Mendes is to call up the Mayor and ask him to participate in a masterplan for the site and the surrounding area, removing all grounds for a CPO.
Sheepskin Jackets all around.
What a mess Strategic Planning in Oxfordshire is.
Rather than an agreed joint approach to reviewing the Green Belt (a strategic review), setting per district targets in local plans and assessing them we have each district working in parallel – with the aim of agreeing – seperately together – which is little more than an agreement to agree.
What it shows is that having a joint SHMA and then cooperating on individual local plans is not enough, what is needed is joint appraisal of options. Compare for example Oxfordshire with Cambridgeshire (which has district by district targets).
The ‘Post SHMA’ work programme is a mess. The key issue is the capacity of Oxford and how much of that overspills to other districts. Oxford have commissioned a independent review of their capacity and have offered joint management. The other districts are now commissioning their own rival reviews. This study will look at the Green Belt within the City boundary but not outside it, so how it can make meaningful assessment of Green Belt purposes (an intrinsically boundary blind and strategic concept) I dont know. Its rats in a sack.
At the board everyone has a local axe to grind and their is no independent strategic overview. A model of how not to do it.
Clearly Eric Pickoles and Brandon Lewis are altering planning policy to reflect the circumstances in their own South Essex authorities.
“to set out that in exceptional cases, where a local authority is burdened by a large-scale unauthorised site which has significantly increased their need, and their area is subject to strict and special planning constraints, then there is no assumption that the local authority is required to plan to meet their traveller site needs in full.” It adds: “The possible effect is likely to mean that those travellers evicted from the large-scale unauthorised site may not have their needs met in the local area and would need to relocate in order to find a suitable alternative provision.”
Which means of course that the need is shifted to North Essex and Herts.
Making it vup as they go along
Introduce ‘amberfield': a planning class between green and brown
Local growth is impeded as a result of extensive (2-5 year) battles to bring forward land for development. To attract inward investment to the UK we need to provide certainty to investors and signal where we have a future pipeline of land.
Local authorities utilising local plans, should allocate sites deemed favourable for sustainable development as amberfield. Rather than planning classes of green and brown being inhibitors to development, amberfield would enable development. We ask government to concurrently undertake a national brownfield site review.#
How is this any different to allocating a site within phase I of a local plan for development. Allocation has no necessary connection to its land use classification which is purely a matter of land use (statitical). If they cant anser this question pleae consign the report to the bin.
The existence of emerging neighbourhood plans has proved a key factor in the fate of four recovered housing appeals determined by the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.
Three involved the same local planning authority, Mid Sussex District Council, and the same neighbourhood plan, drawn up by Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Parish Council. One involved Wiltshire Council and the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan.
The three Mid-Sussex schemes, each refused by the local planning authority, involved plans by Thakenham Homes for an 81-home development at College Lane, Hurstpierpoint; a proposal by Rydon Homes for 157 homes and 50 acres of informal parkland also at Hurstpierpoint and a housing-led, mixed-use scheme at Sayers Common involving 120 homes, a care home, retail units and offices proposed by Woodcock Holdings.
All these three cases were the subject of separate public inquiries chaired by the same planning inspector who recommended the latter case should be allowed, a stance the Secretary of State disagreed with.
However, he agreed with the recommendations of the inspector in respect of the Hurstpierpoint schemes, one of which – proposed by Rydon Homes – was allowed.
These proposals were allowed as the land involved had been identified for housing in the emerging neighbourhood plan (NP).
The Secretary of State’s decision letter said that “as the council has yet to complete an up-to-date objectively assessed housing needs analysis against which to measure the overall neighbourhood plan proposals, he considers it appropriate, as things currently stand, to tip the planning balance in favour of the emerging neighbourhood plan proposals”.
In the case of Thakenham Homes and the Woodcock Holdings schemes the SoS‘s decision letters made it clear that the fact the emerging neighbourhood plan had identified housing allocations elsewhere had tipped the planning balance.
The fourth case involved plans from developer White Lion Land for a 77-home scheme, together public open space and a community building, at Malmesbury, Wiltshire. The inspector who held the recovered appeal had recommended it should be allowed.
Pickles disagreed. His decision letter pointed out that the appeal site was towards the bottom of the list of 25 sites for housing during the neighbourhood plan assessment. The neighbourhood plan is due to be examined later this month.
Pickles said that in these circumstances “the immediate benefits of releasing the appeal site as a contribution to meeting overall housing demand in the wider area are insufficient to justify the release of this site so soon before the examination of the neighbourhood plan proposals”.
If a neighbourhood plan is advanced and the proposal is large this can tip the planning balance against a proposal, however as para 14 of the NPPF stands if there is not an objective assessment of need this should tip teh planning balance in favour of the scheme, after all there is a presumption in favour of development. How is an emerging neighbourhood plan different from an merging local plan? What is the incentive to get on and produce an objective assessmeny of need? Another prematurity legal challenge coming on I fear.
Hilary Benn yesterday at the CPRE annual lecture confirmed that a labour government would bring back ‘brownfield first’ one of thefew NPPF policy changes they would make. Is this practical or possible?
The problem is that the policy was always poorly framed and as such undoubtedly helped slow the rate at which land was allocated for housing. There is nothin g to stop LPAs now including brownfield first in local plans if they have 5 years supply. The fact that few have or can shows there was an underlying problem that has not gone away.
The problem was that the original policy was framed as if there was a ‘stock’ of brownfield land.it is not it is a flow where new sites are coming on stream all the time and some brownfield sites wont come on stream for many years. The 5 year supply however is framed as a flow, and it is the flow of brownfield sites which matter.
There are a few hypothetical changes a government of whatever colour could make.
1) It could be made compulsory rather than optional – little difference few if any authorities have gone ‘greenfield first’ if there are available and viable brownfield alternatives.
2) It could be made to apply at S78 appeals, so if the 5 year supply gap could be closed by alternative viable and available greenfield sites you would go to those sites first. But this really should already apply as sites dont need to have consent to be part of the five year supply, they simply have to be suitable, viable and available within 5 years.
3) Have a real push on making brownfield sites viable and available through state action. The only real option which would maintain flow of housing sites.
So beware those that cry brownfield first when they really mean abandoning or weakening policy on 5 years supply.
One thing that has been apparent in the public debate is that the stock of brownfield sites is not as great as often porpoised and often in the wrong places. perhaps the CPRE now regrets its ‘waste of space’ campaign having only identified 105 sites. They would have been much better hiring someone to do spectral analysis of satellite images cross refereneced to business rates records to identify abandoned sites and buildings.
Tens of thousands of new homes have been built on green fields despite ferocious local opposition because of controversial planning reforms.
The contentious measures, which threaten to change the face of rural England forever, have proved ‘catastrophic for the countryside’, says a damning new report.
Planning permission had been given for a staggering 27,000 houses on greenfield sites against the wishes of local authorities in the last two years alone, it found.
Tens of thousands of new homes have been built on green fields despite ferocious local opposition due to controversial planning reforms
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), which compiled the dossier, said developer were getting the go-ahead to build properties on profitable countryside ‘through the back door’.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), introduced by the Coalition in March 2012, council chiefs were instructed to ‘significantly boost housing supply’ in a bid to tackle the property crisis gripping the UK.
Local authorities were ordered to identify a five-year supply of land to meet demand for new properties in their area.
Huge competition for homes that do come on the market has created a housing bubble in London and the south-east, inflating prices and locking hard-working families out of the property market.
The campaign group said that of 309 planning applications for developments of 10 or more properties on greenfield land which were rejected by councillors, 72 per cent were overturned on appeal by planning inspectors.
In one case, an appeal for a 154-house development in Calne, Wiltshire, which had been vigorously opposed by local people, was approved against their wishes because inspectors said the need for new homes outweighed the environmental benefits of the countryside.A UK farmer’s opinion on building on greenfield sitesPlanning permission had been given for a staggering 27,000 houses on greenfield sites against the wishes of local authorities in the last two years alone
The CPRE demanded a shake-up of the reforms claiming there were problems with how the targets for housing were set, including a lack of guidance for councils and a system which overstates demand.
The group called for changes to the planning policy to prevent developers bypassing local democracy to get the go-ahead for building in the countryside, and to ensure brownfield land is favoured over greenfield sites.
John Rowley, planning officer at the CPRE, said: ‘These figures show that current policy is encouraging unnecessary house building in the countryside against the wishes of local people. The consequences are proving catastrophic for the countryside.
‘We need to see a more transparent and less punitive system which does not allow unrealistic housing targets to override local concerns.
‘The Government should remove the automatic presumption for development where there is no five-year land supply.
‘Councils must be provided with detailed guidance on housing targets, and brownfield land must be prioritised so that unnecessary greenfield development is not so blatantly and regularly allowed through the back door.’
27,000 units sounds a lot,even over two years but we are short of over 180,000 units a year. If the NPPF alone was to deliver the shortfall in housing it would be permitting 7or 8 times this number. The fact that the housebuilding industry does not have this capacity is the real failure of teh developer led planning system.
err Cemeteries are an appropriate use in Green Belts ‘as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;’ How does this in any way harm Green Belt purposes, there is no risk of sprawl or coalescence. Following recent caselaw traffic congestion hardely enters into the weighing and balancing equation. Should be a simple and straightforward approval. If not would be a completely racist decision which would be contrary to the Equalities Act.