Open letter to Graham Jones, leader of West Berks Council, in response to hidden consultation on West Berks website Options

[Richard Garvie]

Graham,

The original LDF submission is posted here: http://consult.westberks.gov.uk/portal/pla...d=1266958890400 . The changes in the wording of certain bullet points on the LDF will alter the text from Phased delivery of up to 1,450 homes, of which at least 35% will be affordable to "phased delivery of up to 1,500 homes" (see page 8 of attached document). What is to stop the racecourse developer from diluting the percentage of affordable homes within the development after the removal of this text?

It is all very well saying that proposing to dilute the percentage of affordable homes and actually being given permission to do so are completely different things. At the same time, with any alterations to planning policy, there will always be temptation in the future of incentives to award change in consent etc. A few million extra in s106 payments, and suddenly a reduction in affordable housing as part of this development may not appear to be so bad to the councillor taking the decision.

Because the consultation is hidden away and has not been publicised, very few people will know about it. The way the consultation is being carried out, respondents are only allowed to make submissions regarding the legality and soundness of the changes to the text in this document therefore making it almost impossible to stop these alterations. To me, it appears that the 35% inclusion of affordable housing was a carrot to get the development included in the housing strategy, and the plan now is to remove the commitment in the LDF to allow the developer to potentially reduce the percentage of the affordable housing allocation.

I do appreciate you taking time out of your day to speak to me this morning, but as leader of the council I would expect you to know about this consultation at the very least. As leader of the council, it is you who should be directing the officers as to housing policy in the area, not the other way around. If nothing is done to stop this, it will be yet another example of unelected officers railroading their own policy changes through knowing that they are unaccountable to anyone. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the public are becoming increasingly frustrated at the level of poorly though out development in West Berkshire.

I look forward to hearing back from you later today, as I am sure you will appreciate that timing is of the essence with regards to the consultation.

Regards,

Richard Garvie

[Jayjay]

Good letter, but could you confirm that Graham Jones did not know about the consultation? I could understand he may need to check dates and exact figures, but to not know about the consultation I find unfathomable.

[Richard Garvie]

Good letter, but could you confirm that Graham Jones did not know about the consultation? I could understand he may need to check dates and exact figures, but to not know about the consultation I find unfathomable.

Whilst talking to him this morning, it would seem that he was not aware of the consultation. He admitted that he did not know the figures off the top of his head regarding percentages of affordable housing to be included and the total number of homes either, but assured me he would look into it today and come back to me. He agreed with me about how important it was to protect and include affordable housing to prevent those in employment from migrating away from the area as this will only cause greater problems in years to come. His argument seemed to be that although quotas could be removed from the LDF, actually altering the quota in a planning document isn't guarenteed. This is why I pointed out that temptation to "take the money and run" in the future regarding additional s106 payments would present itself, should the affordable quota be reduced.

He did point out that other members should be better informed on this and apologised that nobody had replied to correspondance on this. The fact that the portfolio holder for this area of policy (Alan Law) has no clue either and passes the buck to the officers makes me ask why that Executive Member is paid an additional £8,000 of taxpayers money.

My suggestion would be to change the text on the LDF to: "Phased delivery of upto 1,500 homes of which 35% are affordable". This allows the increase in homes on the site (only a few extra) but still forces the developer to retain the minimum commitment.

[Richard Garvie]

OK, so I DID recieve a reply (better not post it), but I will summarise for you.

* Core Strategy is due to be examined by an Independent Inspector in a public forum at Shaw House in November, he says the changes will be debated and responses submitted will be considered (although the councils website suggests that only comments regarding "legality" and "soundness" of these changes will be considered).

* Apparently the council have awarded planning permission for 1,500 units, only 30% of which will be affordable so this is why the 35% quota is being removed (as I actually understand it, the 35% applies to the original proposal of 1,400 and when it was increased, the affordable quota became diluted). As a result, West Berks have suggested to the inspector that the change to the LDF is made to reflect the consent given when the increase in units was permitted.

* He goes on to say that any developer can request to change consent on viability, but this doesn't have to be granted. HOWEVER, if the 35% text in the LDF remained, the developer in this case would have to honour it as long as that text was there. Once the text is gone, they could dilute it as much as they want if they did a deal with the council. isn't the problem in West Berkshire a LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING??? Why on earth have they awarded consent with 30% affordable quota when their own LDF demands a 35% quota on this site???

* He says that following the adoption of the Core Strategy and assuming that Policy CS3 is amended as per the proposed changes then any new application for development would have to comply with the adopted policy. Well, that's easy to say once you remove the minimum quota of affordable housing!!!

If I wish to comment further, I can contact Mr Lyttle apparently... I think I'll just try and campaign against this change myself. I would encourage everyone who feels strongly about affordable housing to submit a response to this consultation, even if they fiddle it so that the comments cannot contribute to the overall decision, at least the inspector will see that there is strong local feeling.

Richard

[Richard Garvie]

Obviously this is the spiel that he has been fed by the officers. Reading again, it would appear that they have realised now that the LDF calls for 35% affordable housing on this site, but as they awarded planning permission for 30% they need to remove the taxt so that the planning app conforms to the LDF. If there was a clear plan, and people weren't just making things up as they go, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Richard Garvie]

Confirmed on Newbury Today that 86 affordable units have been cut at the Racecourse development, as the council went against it's own LDF document and gave consent on an application which only had 30% affordable housing, which is why the Council are desperately trying to change that part of the document. Described by West Berks as "minor changes" on Newbury Today!!!

[Darren]

Maths was never my strong point but...

The article says the amount of affordable housing that was indicated would be 35% - about 500 units.
The legal requirement under the planning permission is 30% - about 439 units.

When I left school, 500-439=61.

Where does your 86 come from?

[Richard Garvie]

The commitment in the LDF was 35%, but West Berks gave consent for the development to have only 30%, hence the fact the changes to the LDF on the racecourse development are now required (covering their tracks, if you will).

1500 divided by 100 times 35 = 525 (that is how to work out 35% of 1500)

Quote from the article on Newbury Today:

"Meanwhile, some West Berkshire residents have raised concerns that under ‘minor changes’ to the planning strategy, submitted by the council, a statement which indicated that 35 per cent of the development at the racecourse - about 500 homes - would be affordable housing has been deleted.
Council spokesman, Keith Ulyatt, has confirmed, however, that when permission for the racecourse development was granted a legal requirement was put in place which requires 30 per cent of the units (about 439) to be affordable."

525 - 439 = 86 (which equates to the amount of affordable units removed from the Racecourse development).

Can I just add that although the current consent requires 30% of affordable housing at the Racecourse development, with no text in the LDF regarding MINIMUM percentages, the Racecourse developers can reapply at a later stage to reduce the commitment.

[Richard Garvie]

Finally, some of our local councillors are picking up on what I've said from the off:

http://newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14784

[Richard Garvie]

Just for the record, 450 units would be 30% of 1500 units. 35% of the previous 1450 units would be 507.5. The planning approval gave consent for 439 units, which is LESS than 30%!!!

[user23]

There are 11 posts in the thread, 8 from Richard sometimes replying to himself and then again in order to "bump" a thread no one seems interested in to the top of the list.

[Richard Garvie]

It's more of a point to the NWN what the facts really are. If I didn't post them, they would just take West Berks at their word!!!

[Simon Kirby]

There are 11 posts in the thread, 8 from Richard sometimes replying to himself and then again in order to "bump" a thread no one seems interested in to the top of the list.

Au contraire. Richard has brought an apparent bit of jiggery pokery to the attention of the NTC planning committee which has made the story significant enough to get a news item in front of the newburytoday readership. Of course NTC just embarrass themselves when the anonymous councillor says

that the paragraph referring to affordable housing at the racecourse in the core strategy should have therefore been altered from 35 per cent to 30 per cent, rather than be completely removed.

because the point of Richard's protest is quite rightly that the core strategy was fine and the decision of the planner to ignore the core strategy and grant planning permission on the basis of less than 30% affordable housing requires an explanation because it has the distinct appearance of grubbiness.

Do you have any particular reason to attack the poster?

[user23]

Do you have any particular reason to attack the poster?

I didn't "attack the poster", I just pointed out what was happening here.

[Iommi]

I didn't "attack the poster", I just pointed out what was happening here.

What is your opinion of the content of his complaint?

[user23]

What is your opinion of the content of his complaint?

I haven't read it the majority of it. Annoyingly it kept popping up at the top of the list as he kept replying to himself though.

[Iommi]

I haven't read it the majority of it. Annoyingly it kept popping up at the top of the list as he kept replying to himself though.

Is that really an issue? To me it just looks like updates in an on-going story. A story that looks quite suspicious on the face of it. What do you think?

[Guest_Newbury Expat_*]

Is that really an issue? To me it just looks like updates in an on-going story. A story that looks quite suspicious on the face of it. What do you think?

I agree, I've been following with interest but as Richard has been adept at summarizing the issue, I didn't see the need for questions or tangential posts and appreciated the updates.

1,500 houses in the Racecourse vicinity is a sizeable development and will have a big impact on Newbury as a whole (with the repurcussions on traffic, parking, jobs, etc) so is of interest.

The fact is, a strategy, that is printed (and I assume was put together by the council or at least approved by it) was not adhered to during the planning approval phase. This jars with Richard and no doubt others especially as it those who would most benefit from the original intent who will lose out. Why have a strategy that you can control to the extent that you have approval power if it is then subsequently ignored?

Far better to say, guidelines or recommendations which come across as less binding. The word strategy implies intent, a forward looking statement, thoughtfulness - all of which seem to have fallen by the wayside in this instance. I wonder if these changes escape unnoticed regularly, in which case even better that someone shouted about this.

Richard, please do continue to post on this topic which is developing and, at least in my mind, warrants updates.

[Iommi]

Yes, perhaps there is good reason to have a review of recent planning decisions to see what other 'over-sights' there might be!

[Richard Garvie]

The only reason to call for a review of decisions as a whole is that like the racecourse development, there are some serious questions that need to be looked at. Why were certain councillors campaigning for the Sandleford site??? Why was parkway given the go ahead without any significant thought into improving capacity and flow at the Robin Hood roundabout and what is the thought process into allowing the development at Faraday Road development without a complete ovehaul of local infrastructure. Talking of Park Way, where did the affordable housing quota go to??? Also, there was a study done saying that there was no need for additional supermarket retailers in West Berkshire, yet since then Tesco have a new store on the A4 after value retailers ASDA and Morrisons were turned away, both of whom would have provided sizeable sums of money to improve our local area in s106 payments.

Pincents Hill is likely to be approved at planning appeal even though elected members voted against it. Did anyone from Planning work with the developers to put together a project that would sail through an appeal??? That's what the developer seems to be hinting at. Then there is the case of 350 houses being approved in Theale, against the wishes of the whole community. The initial plan for 750 homes was rejected by members but the appeal sailed through relatively un-noticed by residents. I wasn't here at the time, but how can a planning application like that slip through the net??? Finally, the Padworth waste facility being approved without a link road or any thought to the crossing at Aldermaston station and the small bridge.

The problem in West Berkshire is lack of thought process and the plans they do come up with (such as the pavillion) are way out of touch with the average member of the public, yet they can't admit defeat. They just railroad these things through!!! Maybe there is a genuine explanation for all of these decisions, but if not we deserve to know why these decisions have been made. The Racecourse development is just the straw that broke the camels back. Why on earth would they accept an application that was below the quota suggested by the LDF document that had been drawn up before that application went in???

Neither the Libs or the Tories want an enquiry, nor do the officers. This is why there is now a clear decision to be made by the electorate. Vote for the Tories or the Lib Dems and nothing will change. Vote for Labour, the independents, the greens etc. and at least power will again be in the hands of people who want to be there to make a contribution, not just for the "status" of being an elected member.