Category Archives: urban planning
This Will be JRd deserves to be
Mole Valley District Council has been forced to abandon a housing plan they have spent two years developing in the face of overwhelming opposition.
Following months of public protests at the prospect of villages across the district being taken out of the green belt, the plan has been pushed aside.
Up to 90 sites were under threat of having their green belt protection removed, with several earmarked for hundreds of new homes.
In a meeting last week, Pippbrook politicians voted in favour of replacing the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan with what is hoped to be an up-to-date and publicly favoured local plan.
Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors made a joint motion to stop all further progress on the housing and traveller plan and to begin work on a local plan as required by the National Policy Framework.
At the meeting on Tuesday October 14, Councillor James Friend, deputy leader of the council, said: “An awful lot has changed since the Housing and Traveller Site plan process started.
“Not only has the estimate of green belt land required for housing reduced by more than half in nine months, but the latest Government guidance now states clearly that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional cases and that housing need, including for traveller sites, does not justify the harm done to the green belt by inappropriate development.
“We want to send a very clear message to our communities, if you need affordable housing in your local area, then champion sites and show us why an exceptional case should be made.
“We want to send a message to developers, intensify your search for brownfield sites, invest in our communities and re-use and recycle land.”
The focus on brownfield sites has been welcomed by many including the Surrey director for Campaign to Protect Rural England, Andy Smith. Mr Smith said: “The statement from Councillor Friend is very welcome especially the plea to developers to locate more brownfield sites for housing.
“But we really need the council to give an absolutely categorical assurance that there will be no shrinking at all of the green belt in Mole Valley and a clear insistence that all the district’s housing requirements will be met on brownfield sites or within existing urban areas.
“It has been stated that green belt will only be used in exceptional circumstances but that was the case in the policy last time and the green belt reassigned was extensive. The protection of the green belt asked for by Government is only strengthened if local councils can take it seriously and I hope Mole Valley will.”
Liberal Democrat Councillor Stephen Cooksey worked alongside Cllr Friend in proposing the motion and believed this allegiance between Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives was the only option in the best interest of the community.
Cllr Cooksey said: “The situation we were in was that the housing and traveller plan was due to go to be approved next year and we did not want this to happen when there was so much opposition and did not comply with the Government standards, and for another local plan to have to be assessed just months later.
“A lot has changed in the two years we have been discussing the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan and it did become evident it was something unwanted by the local community.
“People are very opposed to the green belt building in the area and that is how we came to this joint decision as the views of the local people must be respected.”
Executive member for planning, Cllr John Norcott said they did not want work carried out on the Housing and Traveller Sites plan to be wasted. “The most appropriate way forward is that work on the Housing and Traveller Sites Plan be halted and should be brought forward and expedited,” he said.
“This will allow the council to prepare a local plan which is fully compliant with the national framework and states how many new homes are needed and how many could be accommodated in Mole Valley without compromising the role and purposes of the green belt.
“Much of what has already been done on this sites plan will be rolled forward, so as not to have been a wasted effort.”
Basic stupid errors by Cllr Friend
Firstly the NPPF has always said that Green Belt boundaries should only chnage in exceptional circumstances.
Guidance has also always said that housing need does not represent very special circumstances to overidie the Green Belt, note the tests are different teh very special circumnstances test only applies to planning applications not Green Belt reviews in local plans. The Reigate Inspector clearly said it was the wrong test when this was brought up, and even Boles did not challenge that aspect of his report.
The new guidance simply repeats boles letters to Regtae which also clearly said this was no change in policy.
All that is new is that it is an option for LPAs to not meet need in full by exercising the duty to cooperate, but first you have to legally ask someone else to take your need, have they done so no.
Also if housing need assessments have dropped you reduce the land to be removed, you dont scrap the plan.
Apologies with my blog being down, and me being in Indonesia, could not break the amendment to the SHMA guidance over Green Belt reviews two weeks ago.
The wording is identical to the letters that were issues in the ‘reigategate’ saga. I.e Green Belts can be seen as a ‘constraint’ when deciding whether to meet OAN in full.
I said at the time despite denials this was a subtle change in policy designed to send the signal to LPAs to delay decisions on Green Belt reviews until after the next election. People poo pooed it at the time but no-one is saying this isn’t stealth change in policy now.
However an LPA still has to demonstrate through the DTP that if they arnt meeting OAN in full that they have asked other LPAs to meet it, have worked positively and proactively with them, and assessed whether the meeting of the need in a displaced location is the best SEA location. If they cant they will still be found unsound as plans as a whole still need to meet OAN in full. That policy has not changed.
In other words Pickles is taking advantage of the delays inherent in the DTC system to punt decisions past the general election with the same inevitable result.
It seems to be having an effect with Guildford, York and Mole Vally all stalling.
Three thing that haven’t changed.
1) The Gallagher case requirement to split the decision on what the OAN is and whether it should be met
2) the requirement for plans to be evidenced to be sound – so the ‘boles doctrine’ of LPAs having to decide themselves not inspectors to carry out Green Belt reviews remains, but no LPA in the country as far as I can see is still holding out to not do one apart from in London (different system- London Plan does not have to be sound) and if they did there would be insuficient evidence to support a sound plan and of course failure to meet the SEA requirement to consider relaistic alternatives
3) The requirement to meet the exceptional circumstances test (not the VSC test) on plan reviews, and housing need is material to this it is not to VSC.
4) the requirement to meet displaced OAN through the DTC.
This of course is being used by Pickles, togther with the Lyons Review to claim that Labour now is threatening the Green Belt. The case of course is that planning approvals in the Green Belt have doubled since the NPPF and (pickles measures them by applications not number of units tut tut) whilst labour is planning Garden Cities (To take diplaced need from the Green Belt) which in the lonmg run would lead to far less Green Belt loss. The situation remains, Pickles Policy is to meet OAN without a national new town policy, and as long prediucted in this blog this has and will require major chunks of Green Belt deletions. Pickles Legacy.
Note: Labours ‘right to grow’ in the Lyons review is implemented – as recommended on this blog – as a natural extension of the DTC and SEA best option. LPAs would only have a right to grow if the urban extension was the best strategic option – sensible. The only difference would be to have the SoS have back up powers to put in place joint plan making structures where LPAs fight like raats in teh sack – as at Oxford and Luton – entirely sensible and inevitable whatever party wins the election.
So actually there is hardly a papers width between the parties on the issues – apart from pickles Niave view that one days everyone will get together and agree under the DTC, and his opposition to the one policy that will save the Green Belt – Garden Cities. Pickles as ever is the hand maiden of needless sprawl.
My wordpress account was hacked, some spam added, and I was blocked.
The key event in recent weeks has been the shift in emphasis in Green Belt Guidance.
I will blog about this shortly.
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.