Minutes:
Question
The report states and I quote “Analysis of the housing market clearly shows a number of failings with the way the Government has calculated the minimum number of homes a Council must plan for. A case will be advanced to demonstrate exceptional circumstances exist to deviate from the normal application of this Government planning policy reducing the requirement to 769.2 dwellings per annum. We will review and adjust this figure downwards if the future circumstances permit.”
Why then since 2013 every time the housing numbers were increased, this Council never challenged them and just accepted them along with the implications that it had for housing numbers and the 5 year housing land supply?
Answer
Since 2013 the Council has been tenacious and doggedly fought a fairer housing number. All Leaders of this Council have taken the challenge to Governments, Secretary of States, Ministers, through our MPs and directly.
To support our position we have directly engaged with residents to demonstrate the strength of feeling and welcome the support we have received from all Members and Town and Parish Councils in our efforts. This fight must go on and will continue.
The answer to why we are putting forward a case for exceptional circumstances now, is simply that the time is right.
A case for exceptional circumstances to deviate from the Government policy can only be made through the Local Plan itself. This has been confirmed by one of the top planning barristers.
The recommended Draft Plan consultation is the first opportunity for us to put forward our case. Until now we have had estimated housing need based on the Government’s policy and guidance. The outcome of the previous studies, and the current standard method, simply reflects this.
The element of discretion we have within Government planning policy is limited and any argument we made will no doubt be challenged by the development industry. Ultimately a Government Planning Inspector will decide whether the case will be accepted or not.
Supplementary Question
Best of luck with that. I would be more than happy to support you on that.
My question did talk about numbers but linked to numbers is actual locations. When Grazeley was first raised, when it became public four years’ ago I think there is a reference in EM5 which is a question linked to that, the Conservative Leader of the Council then, Keith Baker, stated on 16th December that if the Council’s bid for £250m is successful, along with £5.38m for technical studies, and the plans for Grazeley are approved then another £5m will be raised via CIL and you mentioned £600m a second ago.
Nearly three years’ later on 26 March 2019 the then Conservative Leader, Julian McGhee-Sumner, admitted that he was surprised as just having made a statement on housing ‘Enough is Enough’ to hear that the Government had given them £750k to fast track the proposals which is largely supported. He added that “they had given us money to work out whether it was feasible or not” and he added “that it was not feasible before”.
This would suggest that £600m CIL alone without the extra £255.38m to unlock Grazeley’s potential would make Grazeley not suitable and become a non-starter.
The question is as Grazeley has always been the Conservative’s intention to develop for well over four years, whether they get the requested £255.38m or not, is in the new Local Plan consultation. Is it worth the paper it is written on?
Supplementary Answer
I think it is a rhetorical question.