Pickles Rules on Backlog Formula

A much awaited decision in Cheshire East where Bole wrote to teh inspector to clarify the matter.

the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s approach of including the allowances for each year’s backlog in the overall
sum to which the buffer should be applied as he sees this as double-counting. He considers that it would be more appropriate to add the figures for the backlog once the figure for each year’s need has been adjusted to include the buffer. This would result in a slightly lower total requirement for each year but, nevertheless, one to which he considers that a 20% backlog should be applied.

In other words the formula for OAN is sum (YN+20%)+backlog, not Sum (YN+backlog)+20%.

It didnt matter either way no 5 year supply.

Was refused in a rare case of prematurity and ‘valued landscape’ in NPF terms.  A good decision.

Having carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments at IR10.106-10.115, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR10.116 that the appeal scheme would be acceptable on the proposed site but for the loss of part of the Green Gap that lies between Crewe and Shavington. The Secretary of State acknowledges the Council’s view that growth should not overwhelm the independent character of Crewe, including the desirability of maintaining a separate identity for its satellite villages (IR10.117-10.119). The Secretary of State agrees that it remains the case that the CELP Green Belt proposals are the subject of an examination and now subject to further work, so that the principle of an enlarged Green Belt and the extent over which restrictions should apply are far from settled. However, as the Inspector sets out in IR10.121, the Green Belt proposals seek to maintain and carry forward the policy of separation which has been embodied in the Green Gap policy; and he agrees (IR10.120-10.121) that the Green Gap policy has successfully achieved that, with local support, since 2001. Therefore, having taken full account of all the remaining points set out by the Inspector at IR10.122-10.126, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR10.127 that allowing this appeal in advance of the resolution of the Green Belt issue through the CELP, would undermine the plan-making process.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s