He writes in response to the Article that John Mason wrote in whiche he wondered if certain legal issues, namely a High Court case called CALA II could impact on the Council’s request for Suspension.

Interestingly John spoke of his concern in the Council Chamber even then about the further potential delays which might be caused by the Government having to conduct Regional Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) to finally abolish the Labour Housing targets (RSS).

Andrew talks about the third option that John also put forward which was withdraw and re-submit when the legal uncertainty was over.

Finally Andrew has advice for Local MP, Mark Francois, who is a senior government whip who wrote a letter of support to the Planning Inspector on behalf of the Council.

Over to you Andrew Lainton.
 
“It is not that simple, in CALA II one of the key issues was to do with the law on whether or not administrative degree could overcome the will of parliament.  After Royal Assent the will of parliament will be clearer.

But none the less as the junior minister Bob Neill has consented to there will be no revokation until the SEA process has been completed, consulted on and responded to.

Until then the RSS remains the development plan and the legal requirement for general conformity remains.

A material consideration can never trump a legal requirement, this is not a matter for weighing and balancing.

Suspension now of the examination could be challengable as it would be prejudging the outcome of the SEA consultation, indeed imprudent remarks from Ministers have made a challenge on grounds of the Seaport case (a NI SEA case in the European Courts) inevitable, which will take at least two years to conclude.

What is more statements by government payroll members (such as the local MP who is a whip) that after the royal assent the RSS should be disregarded (see letter) could be regarded as prejudicial to the SEA process, the MP needs to keep a judicial silence as his action is likely to be quoted in court as evidence of government prejudice – he could have led to the RSS being given life until conclusion of judicial process.

If the Inspector suspended the EIP (Examination in Public) it would be prejudging, the outcome of an SEA process and consultation that hasn’t even begun.  She should carry on and determine the plan of the basis of what is and not what might be in six months or two years – indeed they have a legal duty to. 

The situation of EiP examinations lasting over a year – when they used to last only a few days or weeks prior to May 2010 – has become a joke which discredits the whole process.

If Rochford was not happy with this they could always withdraw and resubmit later.

Of course on re-submission if they propose building much less than SHMA assessed need and without ‘duty to cooperate arrangements to cope with the housing they would displace beyond the green belt they would not just have a potentially unsound plan they would (after royal assent) have a potentially unlawful one.”

http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/rochford-asks-for-core-strategy-examination-to-be-suspended-in-light-of-nppf-and-cala/

Related posts:

1. Rochford District Council – Suspension of Core Strategy Councillor John Mason’ s Speech in Full Council on 21...
2. Rochford Core Strategy – Revisited 2011 The Rochford Independent stopped publishing Articles for a time because...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Councillor John Mason’ s Speech in Full Council on 21 July 2011 opposing Suspension

Open Letter 1 following Full Council Decision to request Suspension

Open Letter 2 following Full Council Decision to request Suspension

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation, Councillor Keith Hudson, very kindly sent all Members of the Council two letters on Friday, 29 July.

1. The Council’s Letter requesting Suspension
2. A Letter from Mark Francois MP supporting the request

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1063718/Letter_to_Inspector_re_suspension.doc

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1063718/Letter_to_Laura_Graham_-_from_Mark_Francois_MP_29.07.11.pdf

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1063718/minutes%20rdc%2021072011.pdf

The full story is in the Council’s Letter and the Minutes above.

The Council has quoted three precedents in its letter to Government Planning Inspector Ms. Laura Graham.

From the above Minutes “The situation the Council was in was not unique, the approach being suggested reflecting that taken by Inspectors in some other parts of the country.”

Had these been quoted in the Report making Recommendation which was debated in Council on 21 July I should have liked to have spoken about these before the Council made its written request.

Yes, they were all suspensions but you need to look at the detail.

South Wiltshire Core Strategy suspended August 2010 !!

Cllr John Brady, Cabinet member for economic development, planning and housing, said: “I am delighted the inspector has recognised that we find ourselves in highly unusual circumstances with the abolition of the RSS taking place towards the end of the Examination of the South Wilts Core Strategy. His agreement to suspend his report to allow us time to reassess our situation is most welcome.”

Note in 2010 !! Different circumstances to RDC and before any of the Cala Court Cases.

Surrey Heath Core Strategy suspended (est. March 2011)

“The planning inspector considers that there is insufficient justification to support the Council’s departure from the South East Plan’s housing requirement for the Borough. Bearing in mind the substantial level of housing need identified in the SHMA, the inspector considers this to be a potentially serious failing. In response, Surrey Heath has requested a suspension of the examination to enable more work to be undertaken.”

Again different circumstances to RDC. And before Cala II.

Luton/South Beds Core Strategy Examination suspended ( est. July 2011)

http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/the-legal-problem-that-got-the-lutonsouth-beds-core-strategy-examination-suspended/

Reading the above link and according to Andrew Lainton “The final point is a killer. The Joint committee had proceeded on the basis that the abolition of the RSS was material. At the time Mr Village wrote his letter we didn’t know the outcome of the Court of Appeal in Cala II. Now we do know.”

“The lesson is clear any LPA which has submitted a DPD taking into account the proposed revocation will be contrary to CALA II.”

Note before Cala II.  This looks critical according to Andrew Lainton who is a planning consultant.

This is the critical Para 24 from Cala II;

“It would be unlawful for a local authority preparing, or a Planning Inspector examining, development plan documents to have regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies”.

My thoughts below;

Essentially, if the Inspector agrees to the suspension, she could be viewed as being in direct contravention of the principle established in the Cala II Appeal [para 24] as she would, in effect, be encouraging the authority to have regard to the proposal to abolish the Regional Strategy.

Should prove very interesting !!

Related posts:

1. Rochford Core Strategy – Revisited 2011 The Rochford Independent stopped publishing Articles for a time because...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Christine was elected in May to also represent the Hawkwell West Ward in the second of the two seats. I have been naturally acting as her mentor and I am pleased to tell you that she is already acting for residents and making efforts to influence change in the District.

But we have come to the point where we have to publish an Open Letter which both explains our current views of the Rochford Core Strategy alongside that of emerging Government policy which we believe will not deliver the promises made at elections.

Here is the Letter.

Dear Editor

The District Council decided at Thursday’s Council meeting on 21 July to ask the Government’s Planning Inspector to Suspend the Public Examination of the Rochford Core Strategy until December 2011.

But before the vote many Councillors showed a direct interest in the views of Rochford District Residents on strategic planning.

Residents across the district have been opposed for years to the housing targets imposed by the Labour Government and were promised big changes by the Conservatives. 

However we think that many residents are unsure as to what the Conservative Party policies are both nationally and locally.

On national policy the Conservative Party promised at the General Election to do away with regionally imposed Government house building targets and replace these with local targets set locally by residents under the philosphy of Localism. 

But the Conservative Government has suffered a remarkable failure to abolish the regional targets inherited from the previous Labour Government.

And then came along in the last Conservative Budget, Planning For Growth which at least one Planning Inspector expects to see now incorporated into strategic planning or core strategies.

“On the final day of the Examination in Public for the Central Lancashire Core Strategy , the planning inspector announced that he is likely to find the Central Lancashire Core Strategy unsound and will be recommending that it be amended to include the adopted RSS housing targets as a minimum. In making that recommendation he had regard to the Government’s growth agenda which recognises the clear link between housing development and economic growth.”
  
In launching the Planning for Growth Directive the Conservative Government also said “Local planning authorities should therefore press ahead without delay in preparing up-to-date development plans, and should use that opportunity to be proactive in driving and supporting the growth that this country needs.”

How strange that a Conservative controlled Council, like Rochford District is asking a Planning Inspector to Suspend decision making on its Core Strategy when the Conservative Government tells them to “press ahead without delay”. 

Even stranger in the light of Conservative Government policy that the Rochford Core Strategy has not been examined as to whether it delivers Planning for Growth.

But the Thames Gateway strategic housing studies quoted at Thursday’s Council meeting generates, according to the Council’s Portfolio Holder, a requirement for over 13,000 new houses!!

It is no suprise that these figures are being rejected by all parties.

The evidence for the local Conservative alternative 3800 new homes over 20 years seems to reside in the almost 1200 people who are on the Council’s Housing Register where if each housing development delivers 30% affordable homes that neatly comes out at 60 per year over 20 years out of a total of 190 per year over 20 years. Certainly one Member quoted that figure to me during the debate.

The risk is that if you project the decision of the Planning Inspector for Central Lancashire then the minimum number of houses for Rochford District may go back to 250 per year (the Labour or RSS target) or 5000 over the same 20 years. And according to a leaked Government documents perhaps by an additional 20% to 6000 !!

But there is an alternative if only the Council would look at its own figures. The Portfolio Holder for Planning stated that our District’s new housing requirement was determined by local needs.

I have an Officer Report of Rochford District Council which sets out our local housing needs for affordable homes which in turn seems to generate the total build figure dictated by the Government (30% of all housing developments must be affordable homes by virtue of Government Policy).

I referred to this report when I was challenged in Council to advise what new housing figure I would wish to see but only two other Councillors had apparently seen this.

The Report headed “Information Re The Approval of the new Allocations Policy” dated 21 June 2011 states;

“Under the new banding system,there will be 593 applicants who it is deemed have no housing need.” 

That leaves by numerical deduction from the total number of applicants on the Council’s housing register that are eligible to be housed at 576.

So RDC has no need to build affordable houses for 593 Applicants only 576 to meet our local needs.  

Bearing in mind that 3800 houses over 20 years seems to relate to the whole housing list of 1200 then because there are only 576 who need homes that seems to suggest just 29 affordable houses need to be built each year for 20 years rather than 60 which is 50% against a total number of houses of 1920 over 20 years rather than 3800.   

Looking at it again for clarity the total over 20 years, based on the 576 being 30%, generates 1920 new houses instead of 3800 proposed by the Council against the previous housing targets of 5000.

So my figure is 1920 based on real housing needs in the Council’s Housing Register whilst the Council still sticks to 3800 based on what we see as incorrect numerical evidence which surely the Inspector for Rochford must reject. 

But in rejecting this must she just replace that with 5000 or 6000 based on the new Government’s policy in replacement for the previous targets? That is what seems to be happening in Central Lancashire. 

No Change………… but Change was promised at the General Election.

With the Council proposing to plough on with figures that will inevitably be rejected our party could not support the waste of time and money that would result in following the recommendation put forward.

The latest Court Case referred to by the Inspector for Rochford says ( her letter dated 2 June 2011);

“”You will be aware of the recent High Court judgement in the Cala Homes case. At paragraph 24 it says “It would be unlawful for a local authority preparing, or a Planning Inspector examining, development plan documents to have regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies”.”"

The words which still ring in my ears are “It would be unlawful for a local authority preparing………..to have regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies.”

But the Council is continuing to do that and just asking for a Suspension of the Public Examination does not, in our opinion, change this act of continuing to prepare its Core Strategy having regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies, as it evidences from its published Core Strategy Timetables, from being unlawful to lawful.

Personally, seeing that this position remains I do not think that the Inspector should agree to the Suspension because in doing so she would surely be facilitating something contrary to general direction of Court, in having seen the Council’s intention to continue on an unlawful course despite what the Court ruled, “that it is lawful to continue to have regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies in preparing a Core Strategy.” 

If agreed the Suspension will prevent further input from residents as to their views on emerging Conservative Government Policy as it affects house building and just prepares the ground for the inevitable rejection of the Council’s current proposals by the Planning Inspector on resumption and decision making following suspension.

An Unsound decision will be disastrous for Rochford District.

What the Council needs to do is return to the public as soon as possible with proposals backed by a local housing study that residents will accept and request a Re-Examination.

If the Council does not do this then I fear the ultimate  imposition of 5000 or even 6000 new homes when we may only need 2000 if the Council’s Housing Register figures are correct.

Yours

Councillor John Mason

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Government has today, 12 November, published the consultation paper on the New Homes Bonus (NHB) which is described in the paper as “an effective fiscal incentive to encourage local authorities to facilitate housing growth“.

The Consultation closes on 24 December.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Government’s ambitious plans to let English councils decide where new housing is to be built were thrown into confusion last night after Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, lost a court battle over his decision to scrap the the previous administration’s regional targets.

Upon taking office in May Pickles wrote to local authorities to announce his intention to “rapidly abolish regional spatial strategies” and instructed councils to start devising their own housing targets. The result was that local authorities cancelled plans for 189,000 new homes.

Today courts ruled this was illegal with a judge accepting that primary legislation should have been introduced, giving MPs the opportunity to debate an issue crucial to future planning in England.

Shadow Communities Secretary, Caroline Flint said the court ruling “raises embarrassing questions about the way Eric Pickles ripped up plans for desperately needed new homes. The coalition’s housing policies are doing little to meet the aspirations of the hundreds of thousands of families who want to live in a decent home”.

Editor’s Comment

I hear that PINS has yet to issue guidance and that Planning Inspectors in the middle considering Public Examinations are not necessarily going to follow the letter issued by Steve Quartermain at the DCLG on behalf of the Government.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1765467.pdf

This is my analysis of the position in Rochford District vis a vis the decision of the Courts for Cala Homes and, presumably, Colonnade, who named RDC into their action. 

I would be really surprised if these two companies have spent many tens of thousands of pounds on such actions if they could be meekly turned aside by a letter from DCLG saying that a Bill will be published shortly. Think about it !!
 
Here is my view on the RDC position.
 
The amendment to the Core Strategy represents, we were previously told by RDC, was a real REDUCTION in the number of houses that were to be imposed under the RSS Housing Targets.
 
The authority for the change or rather REDUCTION by RDC was cited as the revocation of the RSS in the Statement sent to the Planning Inspector in July. 
 
So if the authority for the change is not lawful yet then so is the proposition for the changes which are now being consulted upon.
 
The publication of a Bill changes nothing, such changes can only lawful on Royal Assent and this will not be before the end of the Consultation (30 November 2010) or the beginning of the re-opening of the Public Examination which the Planning Inspector says will be in January 2011.
 
Technically it must be UNSOUND if considered by the Inspector before Royal Assent because conceivably in a democracy and the fragility of an untried Coalition the Bill may not be approved in the passage required through both the Commons and the Lords.

It will be interesting to read considered legal opinions as they are published.

First from the http://www.plan-it-law.com/ web blog run by planning lawyers Mills & Reeves

“The judgment is out in this case. Mr Justice Sales decided today that Cala won on all grounds of their challenge.  The result is that the revocation of RSSs by the Secretary of State on 6th July was unlawful.  It must follow that the decision is quashed, thus reviving RSSs.”

“In practical terms therefore, until the abolition expected in the Localism Bill takes effect, RSSs are back again and form part of the development plan, relevant to planning decisions, unless there is a successful appeal by the Government.”

“If you’re interested in the reasoning, it follows a well-trodden path that statutory powers cannot be used to frustrate the purpose of the legislation – in this case, to have nationwide RSSs.  Also as RSSs are “plans or programmes” under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, any alterations must follow the procedures for SEA.”

“Quite simple really.”

David Brock

and from the same site later………

“So in effect the position is intended to be as it was before Mr Pickes letter of 6 July – although presumably the weight to be attached to that particular consideration should not be quite as great now that it is clear RS cannot be dispensed with across the board by the Secretary of State but must await the deliberations of Parliament.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Apart from asking about how residents would be informed about this important communication the question went on to ask;

Please explain what changes have been made and how these will effect Hawkwell, Hockley, Hullbridge and the very nearby parts of Ashingdon which comprise of the Central Area?

The Officer dealing with questions said that the answer was in writing in front of everyone so he would not read it out.  Pat realising that the last part of her question (above) had not been answered and despite putting her hand up the Chairman failed to acknowledge her request to speak.  John Mason stepped in and asked the Chairman to explain why this part of the question had not been answered.

Shaun Scrutton said that he had not answered it because the questioner could read about the changes at the places in the answer. He did not propose to read everything out.

John advised the Chairman that it was not good enough and with the Portfolio Holder Councillor Hudson sitting almost next to him, he felt that an answer in summary of the effect on the Central Area should be given.

Mr. Scrutton who went on to say that he could only read out Policy H2 and H3.

John still felt that this was unhelpful and uninformative and asked the Chairman to ask Pat if she was satisfied with that as an answer.

Pat said No and all Shaun Scrutton did was to ramble through a list of locations, numbers and dates.

At that point Pat and John both gave up.

This is what Pat James said afterwards;

“It is a shame that so few members of the public attend but I believe the public are becoming more and more dissatisfied by Officers and Councillors failing to be open or at times appear interested in the public’s opinion resulting in their questions not fully answered or worse ignored when raised.  It is becoming increasingly clear to me that there is a secrecy surrounding the issue of houses in Hawkwell and elsewhere that Officers do not wish to be  questioned on by the public and will only give replies and answers to questions that they wish the public to know about.  Thus avoiding many important questions raised by concerned members of the public who will be directly affected by an increase of housing and loss of green belt.”

A question on the Core Strategy from Councillor Myra Weir was ruled out of order and was disqualified by the Chair because she was not a member of the public.  Councillor Hazlewood also raised question and was refused by the Chairman.

Mr Alan James then interjected by saying that if Councillor Weir could not ask the question then he would and asked if it would be answered.  The quote of the week is that “infrastructure  in the Central Area is reasonable”.

The impression given was that the matter was in consultation and that no questions would be answered and that the debate could be held with the public at the Public Examination Hearings in January before a Planning Inspector.

There were only 14 people other than District Councillors and Officers present and one of these was the Press!!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Core Strategy in a Nutshell can be seen in two documents; the first a table of numbers which was produced by The Hockley Residents’ Association (Chair, Brian Guyett) and the second a graphical representation of the district showing the same thing as produced by Rochford District Council.

If you don’t like what you see for your immediate locale then think of moving out fast !!

There was a very poor turnout of Members for the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 14 October to discuss amendments to the Core Strategy. One assumes seasonal maladies for most of the large number of absences. Even then I think that there were only 5 speakers; Councillors Hudson, Cutmore and Glynn for the Conservatives, Chris Black for the Lib Dems, Michael Hoy for the Greens and me, John Mason as an independent for Hawkwell West. 

Background

When the new Coalition Government gave local councils the power to re-state their own house building targets Rochford District Council had the opportunity to make a strategy and plans to meet local needs and respond to what local residents wanted. David Cameron keeps telling us that local views will be followed and he urges us all to get involved in his new idea, The Big Society.

The residents of Rochford District have embraced involvement in local issues for decades and long before David Cameron thought that his new Government would give power and choices back to local residents as something new.  I think that he thought that this would be new because Conservative run local councils have in the process of creating a Core Strategy said that this is nothing to do with us; we have to do it by Law because of the Government; if only we were in power then things would be different.

The only problem is they are now in power and nothing has changed.  In fact the Cabinet Member who was solely responsible for using the new local power stated at the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14 October that the Council had to follow  the housing needs study that has been put forward by the Thames Gateway by Law instead of a new local housing needs study for Rochford District as proposed by The Green Councillor for Hullbridge and myself.

Well there has been an amendment to the Core Strategy. Rochford District Council did not want a Public Consultation on this but has been forced by Ms Laura Graham, the Government Planning Inspector, to conduct a consultation between 18 October 2010 and 30 November.

What has changed? 

Not much which is disappointing given that residents wanted less development in the centre of the district, Rochford, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Hockley because of the difficult systemic bottlenecks and the limited capacity of local roads for increased traffic. Residents wanted more development on brownfield sites and where possible these brought forward in preference to green field development.

What we get is the same number of houses across the whole district , 3,800 but spread over a longer period, another 5 years, to 2031 which results under Government rules for less affordable homes, 50% less, being delivered each year at a time when mortgages are not available to the most demanding group, the 34′s which is said to drop off in later years.

The only residents that have been listened to it seems are those in Rayleigh where their protests have been ably represented by the 5 Liberal Democrat Councillors for Rayleigh who won at the outset a reduction from 1800 houses to the mid 700′s with 150 being deferred until the last 5 years by which time that need will probably have been extinguished by windfall developments over the first 15 years.

Also in the last 5 years, 2026/2031 are the 500 for Hullbridge and 250 for Great Wakering.

What are the chances of the Council listening to you?  Very little.  But your representations get looked at by Ms Laura Graham, The Government Planning Inspector, again at Hearings starting on 17 January 2011 which, if you do participate in the Council’s Consultation, might give you the right to speak.

If she hears enough from many residents then she might order some changes.

The Central Area of the District, Rochford, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Hockley has in the plan around 1000 new dwellings to be built in just 10 years with no prospect of any systematic improvement to the road capacity being made by such developments.

So why are Hullbridge and Great Wakering deferred for almost 20 years leaving the poor infrastructure in the central part of the district to take all of the early development?

Here is what I had to say at the Extraordinary Council Meeting;

1. Green Belt

a) para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation.

b) Windfall sites will be too late to save green belt which has already been built on.

c) There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over first 15 years yet according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30) dealing with housing need states that based on the housing waiting list the greatest demand for housing was in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District’s total. There is something wrong here.

d) The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of “previously owned homes” and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman’s Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.

e) Noting that there is a high demand from the 34′s and noting that the paucity of mortgage funding it is surprising that the Affordable Housing quantum is being reduced from 131 per annum to just 60 which is more than a 50% reduction 

2. Highways and infrastructure

Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district- the infrastructure cannot cope with existing traffic – there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.

Is it time to cut and run from the area?  Perhaps………..you have been warned and hopefully you have a choice !! 

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We have made considerable progress and are pleased to announce funding by the “Big Lottery Fund” to carry out The Plan.

This means we will be asking Everyone in Hawkwell what their needs and wishes are; we have carried out two small surveys recently and the results have been enlightening but this leads up to The Big One!

We will be holding Residents Workshops in a place near you in September so that, following on from the feedback we get from YOU the residents, we will create and circulate every house in Hawkwell with a comprehensive questionnaire:  the answers we get to the questionnaire will be analysed and submitted to the Local Authorities for appropriate action.

The Residents Workshops will be on the following dates, starting at 7:30pm:-

 Hawkwell Baptist Church Hall, Rectory Road Tuesday 14th September

 Ashingdon and East Hawkwell Memorial Hall Wednesday 22nd September

 Belchamps Scout Centre, Holyoak Lane  Thursday 23rd September

Please attend the meeting at your nearest hall and phone 01702-201834 and please tell Eddie you’ll be coming!  Alternatively email Lionel. ( libarratt [at] yahoo.co [dot] uk  It is vital that we get the views of all residents so we can put your needs and wishes to the local authority.

Regards
Eddie Short – Chairman (01702-201834 ) Lionel Barratt – Secretary ( libarratt [at] yahoo.co [dot] uk )

By the way, we will be launching a website soon to give information and receive views from the people of Hawkwell so look out for the hawkwellplan.org.uk  website!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On 27 July the Motion was defeated by the block vote of the Conservative Administration and consigned to the bin.

But on 2 August the Government Inspector charged with deciding whether the Council’s housing policy and strategy for 20 years is SOUND or UNSOUND raised exactly the same type of questions formally with the Council.

Here are some extracts.

“On the basis of what is said in your letter, I am of the view that such changes could not be regarded as minor, albeit that the main thrust of changes would relate to the timescale of delivery rather than the overall quantums. These changes will therefore need to be subject to consultation and SA [SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL]. The consultation period would need to be a minimum of six weeks and fulfil any requirements in the SCI [STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT].”

“I consider it would be of considerable benefit to the examination and its participants if these matters could be set out comprehensively in a Topic Paper.The paper should explain what account has been taken of the matters set out in PPS3 paragraph 33 and summarise the chain of reasoning for the revised figures by reference to any relevant documents such as the principal sources of evidence for the EEP, Strategic Housing Market Assessment documents (SHMA), Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment documents (SHLAA) and any other relevant main sources (links to relevant sections of the evidence documents would be welcome).”

“In the absence of a requirement to meet targets in a higher level policy, are there any exceptional circumstances (PPG2 paragraph 2.6 [GOVERNMENT GREEN BELT POLICY] to justify altering Green Belt boundaries in relation to housing and employment provision.”

From http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/corestrat_letterinspector2aug.pdf

But the Council in its response seems set to try and defy the Government Inspector and NOT have any further full public consultation on the changes. Here are some extracts.

“From the Council’s perspective it is disappointing to see your conclusions about the proposed changes to the Core Strategy being considered as significant changes and that a further consultation should be carried out to gather views prior to consideration at the examination.”

“It seems entirely reasonable for the examination when reconvened in September to consider affordable housing and the proposed changes that result from the consideration of the implications of the revocation of the East of England Plan. Without there being a need for a further round of consultation.”

“Whilst in the final analysis I will advise the Council of the need to comply with your conclusions about reconsultation, I would be grateful for some further thoughts and advice on this matter, not least in relation to the delay in receiving your final report.”

From http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/corestrat_response_rdc.pdf

But if the Council continues in its wish to rush things through without another full public consultation then The Government Inspector left the position open with the Council to negotiate with formal objectors to the affordable housing policy.
 
“If any of the proposed changes will have a bearing on affordable housing policies, it may be expedient to prioritise consultation on those changes and negotiate agreement of those making representations on this topic.”

So what I have done is become a formal objector on Affordable Housing within the timescale of 17 August to support the Government Planning Inspector so that the new housing policies can be properly assessed and explained with reference to a local housing needs study that was asked for in our Motion.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Once the promise to revoke the RSS Housing Targets was enacted by Eric Pickles on 6 July, District Councils had the chance to make sure that the views of the majority of residents put forward in public consultations on their respective LDF/Core Strategies were acted upon.

But Rochford District Council has decided not to reduce the Labour house building targets but to just spread the same number over another 5/6 years. No green belt is saved. 

What could be a reason for building more houses than are required to meet local needs?

How many other Councils will also fail to act up and down the country? 

Please email me at john [at] onlinemail.me [dot] uk about what your district council is doing so a country wide picture is formed.

Here is the evidence.  Judge for yourself. 

The Conservative Party Green Paper on Planning in February announced policy which actually has the clear objective of increasing the delivery of housing and other development.

Here are the direct quotations which support that view.

House building

In our previous green papers we have explained at length how and why we will be rejecting the current Government’s counterproductive housing targets, and instead offering local authorities a powerful council tax matching incentive to encourage new house building. We believe this incentive will prove strong enough to produce the scale of house building the country needs. However, we will keep the level of this council tax incentive under review in order to ensure that it does deliver.

A framework of incentives for development

We have already set out in a previous green paper our commitment that when your community builds more homes, central government will match pound-for-pound the extra money that your area gets through council tax for six years – and when your community attracts more businesses, we’ll let your area keep the increased business rates for six years.

Specifically, to encourage the building of affordable housing, we have decided that every new affordable housing unit that is built will earn the local authority in question 125% of the council tax raised by that unit, annually for a period of six years, to be paid through our Matching Fund.10This will induce councils to promote the development of affordable housing (by means of their local plan).

Shortly after the General Election articles in the Press confirmed;

 “It is Tory policy to encourage housebuilding by matching authorities’ council tax income from new developments.”

Then came the Con/Lib Coalition Government’s first Budget on 22 June 2010.

Budget 2010 – implications for planning

It was announced, inter alia, “Consider the most appropriate framework of incentives for local authorities to support growth, including exploring options for business rate and council tax incentives, which would allow local authorities to reinvest the benefits of growth into local communities.”

We now await formal announcements on the delivery of the Matching Fund Scheme from DCLG Ministers, either Grant Shapps or Greg Clarke.

But this is what we can expect in financial terms from the Times (12 June 2010).

Mr Shapps said: “An authority that ensured 10,000 new homes are put up could be in line for £100 million over six years.”

(http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article7148429.ece)

Doing the math (£100,000,000 divided by 10,000 homes = £10,000 which in turn = £1666.

This is the Council Tax per year which compares quite nicely to Rochford District Council Band D and validates the math.

“From RDC’s Web Site The Council Tax for 2010/11 was agreed by Council on 16 February 2010. The total average Band D Council Tax for Rochford residents will be £1,518.63.”

So there is no misunderstanding in my mind on the financial incentive to build more houses than you need especially at the time of further cuts because the article was quoting a Minister on just 12 June.

This is big money.

At the 190 dwellings per annum that the Council has passed this could mean for the first 5 years of the Core Strategy this is on Band D a bounty sum of £1,442,100.

To finish my post from the same article in the Times.

“Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, has told The Times that he will reward local authorities that give planning approval to housing developments by matching the council tax revenue collected from these homes. The money will continue for six years, with extra provided for affordable homes for first-time buyers.

Mr Shapps is determined to overcome those who object to new developments, despite allowing local people more say under the “revolutionary” planning overhaul”

Comment

The new Con/Lib Coalition Government will hardly be congratulated by residents when they realise that promises have been reneged on and they still cannot have their say on and be listened to  on anything that really matters locally despite all the spin on The Big Society and Localism and Decentralisation.

It is still about top down Government forcing its will on residents.

How is it that I can claim that?

• Well the Zero Council Tax decreed by Government for 2011/12 creates a Council Deficit of £1.5m over 5 years.
• And the bounty paid for building new houses over 5 years is £1.4m.
• So the deficit forces the Council to build the houses on green belt that you do not want.
• So if there was no decreed Zero Council Tax then the houses could have been cut back to local needs and aspirations.

That is the huge cost of the Zero Council Tax in 2011/12.

Is that what you wanted?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.