The ORA has received information that the soon-to-be-but-not-yet-overturned RSS (Regional Spacial Strategy) that demands a minimum number of houses be built in Swindon has been dealt a serious blow. Maybe developers who cite these RSS numbers as justification for building swathes of new houses will have to review their stances?
Dear All
When one looks as the Wiltshire AMR (incidentally why are figures for North Wiltshire -West Swindon- blanked out as they always built above their levels, whereas Swindon built below); and takes into account the statement in that AMR that West Swindon is regarded as overfill for Swindon (which authority has reduced its housing figures by almost fifty per cent.) there does not appear to be a case for development in West Swindon?
Swindon really is provocative in adopting the attached resolution when they are planning to build 1700 houses at Tadpole Farm (first choice of sites to the West of Swindon by the North Wilts/Swindon Group). Perhaps we should put in a counter claim for rapid deterioration of Wiltshire roads used by their residents from their Northern Expansion (10,000) for which the planned road was never built.
Dear All
This is good news, is it not?
When one looks as the Wiltshire AMR (incidentally why are figures for North Wiltshire -West Swindon- blanked out as they always built above their levels, whereas Swindon built below); and takes into account the statement in that AMR that West Swindon is regarded as overfill for Swindon (which authority has reduced its housing figures by almost fifty per cent.) there does not appear to be a case for development in West Swindon?
(N.B. AMR = Annual Monitoring Report. Completed by the Local Planning Authority annually, showing how many houses have been built against their target and where.)
I have pointed out to them already that Swindon always builds to the boundary line.
Best wishes
Mollie Groom
Second Cala Homes Challenge Fails (07-02-2011)
Cala Homes has lost its legal challenge to overturn the Government's position that the forthcoming withdrawal of Regional Strategies should be a 'material consideration’.
Mr Justice Lindblom makes reference to Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, which provides:
“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
Reference is made to other case law where the power and judgement of the decision-maker is emphasised: It is for the decision-maker to weight up what is a material consideration.
Mr Justice Lindblom said: “Whenever a government embarks on wide-ranging reform of the planning system some inconsistency in day to day decision-making is liable to arise and to persist until the reform is enacted as law. This perhaps is inevitable. Even when the scope of the changes is clear, and a timescale for their being enacted is set, the uncertainty will not be entirely dispelled. Ministers and those who advise them will be aware of this. The Secretary of State will be conscious of the need to ensure, so far as he reasonably can, consistency and predictability in decision-making. From time to time he will publish guidance designed to promote this objective. The Current PPS1 (“Delivering Sustainable Development”) is an example. The Secretary of State’s role in all this is, essentially, political and proactive. It goes beyond his statutory powers to call in applications, to recover appeals and to make directions under the General Development Procedure Order. Writing to local planning authorities to guide them in the handling of proposals submitted to them is another step he can quite properly take. This may be seen as one facet of the general supervision of the planning system exercised by the Secretary of State."
Result:
Not that we know whether Mr Pickles ever lost much sleep about the CALA challenge, but no doubt he will feel roundly vindicated by the judgment. At a wider level, planning by Ministerial diktat (which at one level at least, now appears to be endorsed as just a fine and proper thing to do), does seem to fly in the face of a ‘localism’ agenda – but perhaps that’s just being picky. Mr Pickles would no doubt argue that he has given local communities the right to choose if they accept Regional Spatial Strategies. However it would appear that one outcome of this, is that we have simply replaced one level of ‘imposed planning’ with another.
Whilst we still have Regional Strategies for now, if a planning authority or Inspector feels it appropriate to add weight to the fact that Regional Strategies are to be abolished he can do so as it is a material consideration.
Also, see here for a report on the original decision that led to this appeal.
