Wirral Local Plan Green Belt: Inspectors Find Plan 1,600 Houses Short

The inspectors have found the plan 1,600 houses short

The arguments at the EIP raged around deliverability with opponents claiming, there was no evidence on deliverability on many key sites. Before the submitted draft of the local plan it had not included many urban sites such as Wirral Waters on deliverability grounds. At the examination they claimed something would turn up, despite some sites requiring up to 19k in subsidy. a previous draft of the plan had claimed up to 4,700 GB sites would be needed

The EIp panel found

We have reviewed the extensive evidence before us and hearing discussions in respect of allowances, site allocations and other deliverable areas (‘ODAs’). In broad terms we are satisfied that some sites and ODAs will likely deliver as the Council anticipate, although others may not.

This is less than useful from the panel, what are your findings> Thouigh the numbers suggest they have discounted much. The real change is to OAN with an extended plan period to 2040. With the revised outurn the shortfall is 1,600

Remember the Leverhulme appeal sites only accounted for 800 dwellings

They recommend an ‘ear;y review policy’

We note that NPPF paragraph 68.b) requires the identification of broad locations for years 11-15 of the plan period ‘where possible’. There is also a statutory requirement for a local plan to be reviewed every five years. ‘So effectively theya re saying that a GB review will be needed within 5 years.

It is notable to compare these findings with Solihull where the inspector was very clear the plan needed extra GB sites – though the circumstances are different in that Solihull clearly miscalculated capacity on their main housing site at the NEC.

This is not a good look for the planning systme and EIP menchanism. Weeks of argument about GB lead to no decision on GB and an overoptimistic strategy without funding will almost certainly lead to teh same arguments in 5 years time. Isnt this what safeguarded land is for? If a plan cannot gaurentee GB boundaries for 18-20 years whay include land in GB now – and take it out within 5 years. That would conflict with the NPPF aim that GB should be permanent.