5 year shortfall

[mdigweed]

Has anything been raised by Basildon Council regarding its 5 year shortfall. This area is where many recent appeals have been overturned (source www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1184164/struggle-sites). If Basildon do not have plans to cater for this (the last details I have are that they have a 717 house shortfall for 5 years) then Pickles is likely to want to overturn local decisions as has been the case in a number of locations.

I was drafting a letter for the 13 Dec appeal but any ideas how to addres this

Martin

[rosegriffin]

We have raised the question with Tony Ball when he has come to our meetings and I agree that it is about time that we had an update on the situation . We need to know how far the council has got with its Local Plan. I have to speak to them about the Appeal so will raise the question and print a response.

Thanks for putting together a letter for the Appeal.

Comments for the 24th February Appeal have to be sent, in triplicate, to the Planning Inspectorate, by 13th December. They are to be addressed to:
Alan Ridley,
Planning Inspector,
4/02 Kite Wing,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square,
Bristol BS1 6PN

Please quote reference APP/V1505/A/13/2204850 and Little Chalvedon Hall Farm, on all correspondence. I also suggest that you send your letter by recorded delivery. Alternatively you can enclose with our letter which will go out the first week in December.

The Planning Inspectorate will send one copy of your letter to Basildon Council and the other to Meridian Strategic Development.

In any case, if you don't mind we would be grateful to receive a copy of your letter [e-mail]

Best wishes
Rose

[wattsicle]

This plan may go someway to helping reduce the shortfall:

www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10817599.You_must_live_in_Basildon_for_seven_years_to_get_a_council_home/

[rosegriffin]

And here is Tony Ball's response:

On 17.09.13 the Council's Development Control and Traffic Management
Committee (DCTM) considered application 13/00140/OUT for residential
development and a neighbourhood centre on land at Little Chalvedon Hall
Farm. The report to DCTM acknowledged that Basildon Council is not able to
identify a five year supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to
provide five years worth of housing against housing requirements, with an
additional buffer of 5% (to increase choice and competition in the
market).The report noted that this means that permission should be granted
unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a
whole, or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should
be restricted. Land designated as Green Belt is one such policy of the NPPF
which indicates that development should be restricted. In reaching their
decision DCTM were aware that the 'presumption in favour of sustainable
development' did not apply to the application by virtue of the location of
the site in the Green Belt. Whilst this was the case the report to DCTM
made it clear that the lack of housing supply is a material consideration
in the determination of the application and most importantly that it is
capable of constituting a ‘very special circumstance’ to justify departing
from Green Belt policy.In the case of application 13/00140/OUT DCTM
concluded that the proposed development would result in significant and
demonstrable harm by reason of inappropriateness and would conflict with
three of the five Green Belt purposes. In reaching their decision DCTM
considered that the delivery of housing would not clearly outweigh the harm
to the Green Belt such that it could be considered that very special
circumstances existed to justify planning permission being granted.The
decision on application 13/00140/OUT was a matter of balance and judgement
and your contributor is correct to identify that in some cases the
Secretary of State has attached more weight to the delivery of housing as a
very special circumstance for departing from Green Belt policy than to the
harm that the development would cause to the Green Belt purposes. The fact
that the Secretary of State is entitled to reach an alternative decision to
a local authority does not mean that Basildon Council will defend its
decision to any lesser extent.It is also worth noting that the Secretary of
State does not always find in favour of the appellant and has recently
dismissed appeals for residential development in the Green Belt where a
council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. You will be
aware of the Secretary of State's decision at Thundersley (26.06.13), which
he dismissed, dismissed where the Council has a significantly lower housing
land supply than Basildon (only 0.7 years worth of supply). On 14.11.13 an
appeal was also dismissed by the Secretary of State (contrary to the
Planning Inspector's advice) for a residential development in the Coventry
Green Belt where the Council could only demonstrate between 1.4 years and 3
years housing land supply.In summary, appeals for Green Belt development
have been dismissed where councils have a worse housing land supply
position than Basildon Council. Basildon Council currently has a housing
land supply of around 4 years and remains of the position that greater
weight should be attached to the harm that the development would cause to
the Green Belt and its purposes than to the absence of a five year housing
land supply.
Cllr Tony Ball
Leader of Basildon Borough Council