Barnsley Local Plan: Examination in Public (EiP)
Stage 2
Hearing Statement for MM6
Submitted by John H Earnshaw FCIH
(ID 864973)
7th July 2017
Barnsley Local Plan
Stage 2 Hearing Statement
Introduction and Background
Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing and a Housing Professional for over 50 years.
A member of the National Housing Taskforce and was invited, because of my vast and varied experience in housing, to make a valued contribution to the Taskforce…
…which is a sectoral and political coalition by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Housing and Planning, which was established in 2016 to develop clear, workable proposals for both Government and Industry to address the UK’s chronic shortage of housing, with a final report being published in the Autumn of 2017.
•Member (by invitation), of the DCLG/ODPM’s Advisory NetworkGroup on the Evaluation of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder Programme in 2005.
•Making a significant contribution to the ODPM’s implementation handbook – ‘Empty Property – Unlocking the Potential’
•Lectures and talks at Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Sheffield and York Universities to PhD students on Low DemandHousing & Planning.
•Submitted a paper on Low Demand to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Social Housing Conference in Vienna in 2004.
•I currently work as a specialist advisor to the National Community Land Trust Network (NCLTN) across the UK and a member of The UK Housing Panel
STAGE 2 MAIN MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
Main Matter 6 – Is the plan’s approach to the Green Belt soundly basedand consistent w0ith national policy (Policies GB1 & GB6)?
Issue – Do the exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of landfromthe Green Belt?
ANSWER:As a pre-starting point on the background to this matter, I would just like to remind you of some relevant sections from the Barnsley Core Strategy (Adopted by BMBC September 2011) -
and I quote the following -
Forward1.1“Barnsley has changed, and will continue to change ……for the better. This document provides a spatial strategy for the future development of Barnsley up to the year 2026”.
Para 6. Spatial Strategy –para 6.5 “Since it is considered that the planned growth with respect to housing numbers can be accommodated without the need to encroach into the Green Belt, there will be no full scale review of the Green Belt during the plan period”.
Employment sites will only be identified in the Green Belt in ‘exceptional circumstances’ which would justify a localised review of the Green Belt boundaries.
Such exceptional circumstances would include:
- where there is an over-riding need to accommodate what would otherwise be inappropriate development,
- where the development is necessary to deliver the spatial strategy,
- where the development cannot be met elsewhere (on non-Green Belt land), or
- where Green Belt land offers the most sustainable option”.
Par9. Core Policies – CSP 34 Protection of Green Belt
“In order to protect the countryside and open land around built up areas the extent of the Green Belt will be safeguarded and remain unchanged.
LINK:
Recent amendments to the Government’s PPG have also shed some light on the debate as to whether housing and economic needs override Green Belt policy.
Exceptional Circumstances: Case Law
As there is no formal definition or standard set of assessment criteria to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, there has been an increasing amount of case law as local planning authorities attempt to alter the boundaries of the Green Belt, and their justifications for doing so, have become under increasing scrutiny. One of the most established cases is:
Gallagher Homes Limited v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [2014]
In addition, when considering whether to amend the boundary of the Green Belt, the starting point for every local authority is that this decision should only arise after all reasonable and acceptable efforts have been taken to maximise the amount of development within the urban area. Optimising densities and ensuring that all land is appropriately used must be the first response to growth. This would include a review of employment land and other areas or uses that are protected by planning policies, commensurate with ensuring the proper balance between residential, employment and other uses.
Making a Compelling Case
Demonstrating exceptional circumstances requires the presentation of a set of factors that come together to override the normal presumption that Green Belt boundaries should endure. There is no formal definition or standard set of assessment criteria; it is for the local planning authority to determine whether it considers exceptional circumstances exist to justify removing land from the Green Belt and to make that recommendation to the Planning Inspectorate.
"The fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl, by keeping land permanently open;the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”.
I have made yet another Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to BMBC, via What Do They Know, in an effort to find out what their ‘exceptional circumstances’ are!
6.1 What are the exceptional circumstances, as required by the NPPF paragraphs79 – 86, that justify the plan’s proposed revision of the boundaries of theGreen Belt? Can the need for housing and employment development beaccommodated on deliverable sites without releasing land from the GreenBelt?
ANSWER:‘Exceptional circumstances’ - are best demonstrated where a number of factors come together to make a compelling case. This section sets out the strategic factors i.e. Borough wide, that the Council will recommend to the Planning Inspectorate for its consideration as being capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances to justify amending the boundary of the Green Belt as part of its Local Plan.
The primary focus is on:
• Housing Need
• House Prices & Affordability Issues
• Affordable Housing Need
• Starter Homes, Self-Build & Custom Housebuilding
• Imbalance in Housing Mix
PLEASE NOTE: Keep it Green 2014 and myself, have made Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests (copies available), in September 2014 regarding Brownfield site hectares there were in the ‘Barnsley Borough’, including ex-coal board land BMBC has in its land bank land, only to be told, and I quote “Unfortunately, the information on land area is not currently held. The exercise to obtain this information will exceed the appropriate cost limit of £450 so I have to formally refuse this part of your request under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act”.
My view is that, if they (BMBC) could be bothered to go out and get the information on Brownfield Sites, then they will find out that they can quite easily do what you advocate in your question above in 6.1
It’s plainly obvious to all, that ‘they’ve’ seen this beautiful, highly desirable piece of Green Belt land known as MU1 and thought ‘WOW’, if we can take this land out of the Green Belt, it would solve all our problems on ‘employment and housing sites’ for the next 15 to 20 or so years and we can all benefit from that!So what are we waiting for, let’s get ‘things’ moving!
Exceptional circumstances could have been listed at the outset, instead of all these hidden agendas and jiggery-pokery by the Council.
They are all in my opinion, overwhelmingauthoritative and substantive evidence based reasons, why the proposal, by Barnsley MBC to remove Green Belt, as stated in the Barnsley Local Plan, under site MU1, should remain untouched!
1. House of Commons (Library) Briefing Paper (00934, 5th January 2016) on Green Belt by Louise Smith -
2. DCLG - Consultation on Proposed Changes to National Planning Policy
3. Landmark Chambers. Green Belt issues: Recent developments
Heather Sargent - 17 October 2016
4. Gallagher Estates Ltd v Solihull MBC
5. The Gunning Principles
6. R (on the application of Moseley (in substitution of Stirling Deceased)) (AP) (Appellant) v London Borough of Haringey (Respondent)
7. LAND AVAILABILITY
Lead organiser: Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)
The greatest long-term constraint on housing supply in the UK is the availability of suitable land at prices that make it possible to build. If we are to deliver the homes we need, reform of the planning system is imperative; this will require striking an ‘intelligent’ balance between releasing the land we need and protecting the countryside that is such an integral part of the UK’s identity.
8. DCLG - Local Planning Authority Green Belt: England 2015/16
9. RTPI – Green Belt Briefing
Can Green Belts be changed?
The designation or de-designation of green belts should only be made in exceptional circumstances through local plan reviews. This policy position allows local planning authorities to retain the same coverage of green belt but change the boundary by de-designating existing areas and designating other areas they deem more appropriate.
10. PM to re-affirm green belt pledge despite plans to ramp up housebuilding
“They can take land out of the green belt in exceptional circumstances but they should have looked at every other alternative first,” she said, including building on brownfield land, releasing surplus government land, increasing the density of projects in towns and cities, or partnering with neighbouring councils.
NOTE: Perhaps more enlightened future discussions on the Government’s White Paper on Housing might shed some light as to how they intend to repair the ‘broken housing market’ in order to secure a better way of planning for housing!
6.2 Has the capacity of areas within existing settlement boundaries been robustlyassessed and what evidence underpins this? What evidence justifies therelease of Green Belt land for housing and employment development?
ANSWER: The short answer is ‘No’ and ‘None’
Please see - BMBC Allocations Deliverability Assessment
MU1 - Land South of Barugh Green Road
file:///C:/Users/pc/Downloads/Barratt%20%20David%20Wilson%20Homes%20(Paul%20Butler)%20Site%20Schedule%20(1).pdf
2016 SHELAA – Site within area likely to contain geological constraints of mining cavities.
No availability information, but thought likely to be in private and/or multiple ownership.
Planning History - No recent relevant planning applications.
COMMENTS –
Huge initial infrastructure requirements.
Former mining area, including bell pits. Has remediation been factored into viability matters & deliverability timescales.
A link road to provide easy access to and from the M1 is proposed nearby junction 37 - Is this link road needed in the first instance. If so, is the funding in place to deliver the required infrastructure upon the commencement of development?
Due to anticipated lead in times (infrastructure) and annual delivery rates it is considered that the site won’t deliver homes for the first 5 years of development and then will deliver circa 120 homes per year maximum over the remaining plan period.
Understood that there is developer interest in the site. Not multiple developers though.
OTHER COMMENTS - No evidence has been presented by BMBC that the constraints identified by them and the delivery constraints identified by PBP are viably resolvable. It is understand that there is developer interest, it is considered that housing development could commence circa 5 years from the adoption of the plan. The maximum number of homes to be delivered each year will be circa 120 homes, if 3 selling outlets are present.
There is concern that this won’t be the case, however, this figure has been included in the assessment in order to provide an optimistic outlook.
Therefore an opportunity exists to strengthen the existing Green Belt boundary through utilising the clearly defined boundaries of the M1 motorway and operational rail line.
So now to recap, we’re now simply looking to ‘strengthen’ the existing Green Belt boundary through utilising the clearly defined boundaries of the M1 and operational railway line.
Figure 4.3 UB2a Resulting Land Parcel
Plan shows development already over “defensible boundary” of M1
Barnsley West Consortium’s website and which prove that they were both in touch (see above re: meeting in 2013) with BMBC much earlier than was stated in their reply -
LINK:
1. You can also contact the Barnsley West Consortium by contacting the project's planning,master planning and community engagement team at the address below. Your enquiry will then be redirected to the most appropriate member of the team.
The Barnsley West Consortium, c/o Spawforths
Leeds, West Yorkshire, WF3 2AB
Consultation Hotline: 01924 876 876
It has been established by the council (no evidence though as yet), that there is a significant lack of deliverable land within the main urban area to meet the identified development needs for the next 15 years.
They have also concluded that there is insufficient employment land and buildings to meet the needs of the population, and there is also a lack of quality homes.
This reflected in the fact that the Barnsley West site has now been included in the Draft Local Plan and dealt with under planning policy reference "Site MU1"
Looks like they’ve got ‘it’ all planned!
6.3 How does the distribution of Green Belt releases affect different settlementsand different parts of the plan area?
ANSWER:I ask the question “why is there not the same enthusiasm by BMBC (and its developers), to develop other Green Belt sites in the eastern part of the Borough i.e. Bolton-upon-Dearne, Goldthorpe and Thurnscoe etc, when the A1(M) is so close by to these forgotten towns”?
It might be some or all of the following factors:
- A much ‘poorer’and less wealthy area since the decline of the mining industry, leaving many people having to sell their homes or to reducelarge rent arrears, due to loss of a job.
- The Dearne area (the former Dearne UDC administrative area up to 1974), never properly recovered since those days, as I lived and worked in that area, before moving to the Pennine side of Barnsley in 1975.
- The properties in the Dearne area are generally smaller houses, which will attract much smaller revenues such as Council Tax.
But, if you were to drive out of Barnsley along the A635 towards neighbouring Doncaster, you will pass through Goldthorpe (where incidentally, the Aldi Distribution Centre has been recently located) and on to the Dearne Valley Parkway towards the beautiful village of Hickleton, which sadly, is just inside the Doncaster MBC boundary.
Barnsley MBC (and it’s developers) could do similar things with ‘their’ villages in the Dearne area, if they stopped this ‘obsessive urge’ of only considering developing the west side of Barnsley for Employment and Housing and get site MU1 well and truly out of their minds!
6.4 Does the plan have regard to the need to promote sustainable patterns ofdevelopment, including channelling development towards urban areas insidethe Green Belt boundary and towns and villages inset within the Green Belt?
ANSWER:Please see 6.3 above first!
I personally read and listen to what the so called ‘Master Planners’ say and I am truly amazed as to how they interpret what communities say, into what they want to hear!Thereare three good examples below of ‘planner talk’, with very little ‘local’ knowledge, desperately trying to convince all and sundry what’s best for them in an effort to get the ‘development business’ from the council at all costs!
Barnsley West Map -
LINKto Barnsley West document - - and more interesting maps.What does the ‘latest version’ look like and who’s seen it?
I don’t think in all my 50 years or so in housing and regeneration, that I’ve heard so much ‘misinterpretation’ as to what a community says to the council and its developers and to what is recorded and printed and I’ve been ‘Expert Housing Witness’ – for many H.M.R.P. Compulsory Purchase Orders, including – The City of Manchester (Toxteth Street, Openshaw) Compulsory Purchase Order 2008 and The Urban Regeneration Agency (Edge Lane West, Liverpool) Compulsory Purchase Order (No.2) 2007.
6.5 Is the Green Belt Review based on a consistent, logical and clearmethodology and is it clear how general areas were scored in relation to theircontribution to Green Belt purposes? Is it clear how resultant parcels wereidentified and assessed?
ANSWER:This is yet another ‘hired’ consultant to do a job - Ove Arup & Partners, Leeds - with very limited ‘local’ knowledge of this complex Green Belt area of Barnsley, compared to the people who live here and have lived here for many, many years.
CASE STUDY 1 – Long Standing Higham Resident
I have been in contact with a resident of Higham of nearly 90 years, whose whole life has been centred around the village. He recalls the years before open-casting off Hermit Lane was started, when he played as a schoolboy in the 1930s in the wood which was on that site. After restoration of the open-cast site, it was declared Green Belt, for the benefit of all. His children used the playing fields behind their own home. Butterfields Farm, which originally owned all the land in question, was sold and demolished to make way for the new estate on which he and I live, and where his daughter still lives. This development stayed close to the village itself and soon became an integral part of it. Unlike this new proposal, it managed to retain the rural village character which is so important to its residents. The plans for additional industrial units which are of dubious need and size, as well as the Redbrook link road and a huge number of high-value dwellings, would change the entire character of the villages of Higham and Barugh Green, as well as depriving residents and visitors of much-loved and valued green space. My neighbour does not wish to see this. He also has grave concerns about the flood risk increasing. Higham has at least seven wells, which indicates how near to the surface water already is. There is evidence of flooding in gardens on my estate, indeed within my own garden. Until and unless the cause of this problem is identified and dealt with, no consideration should be given to further development of any kind. At present, individuals manage their own property – an indication of the kind of rural community attitude displayed. Any interference with the natural watercourses and reduction in soak-away land should be delayed until proper and relevant surveys are carried out.