Cornwall Council has today voted
to consult on a new draft of the Cornwall Local Plan with a housing target of
47,500 for the period 2010-2030. Later in the year, a version will be presented to central government for an examination in public.
Sadly, much of the debate has been less
about what is right for Cornwall , and
more about what figure we could get past central government.
I would like to give a full update
on what has happened today and what has happened in recent months.
In the last Council, I argued for
a housing target of around 38,000. With the support of (retired) councillor
David Biggs, I challenged the flawed ONS projections – and the veracity of
other data – which had been used by planning officers to justify higher housing
numbers in the region of 48,000-54,000.
Our philosophy was that areas
which wanted higher growth should take those decisions for themselves through
Neighbourhood Plans.
The target of 38,000 won the
support of the members of the old Planning Policy Panel – but was rejected by
the Conservative-led Cabinet. This was the second time that Cabinet had ignored
its advisory panel and pushed for a higher number than we had recommended.
In early 2012, Full Council finally
agreed a figure of 42,250 for the public consultation, which took place prior
to the May elections.
Since then – in my role as
Chairman of the Environment, Heritage and Planning PAC – I have sought to engage
members in the work on the Local Plan,
I hosted an informal meeting of
the PAC to which all members were invited. Options presented to that meeting
included the 38,000 authored by myself and David Biggs, the previous Council’s agreed
42,250 and the officers’ recommended figure of 47,500 contained within the
recent Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment – which equates to the
Government’s so-called “objectively assessed need” as required by the National Planning
Policy Framework.
This meeting also received an
analysis of how Core Strategies and Local Plans had fared, once submitted to a
planning inspector for public examination – a process which all Plans have to
go through.
It made sober reading and
confirmed that localism is truly a farce. The Coalition has a massive growth
agenda and pretty much every single Plan with a target set below projections
from the ONS have – after significant delays – been forced to accept higher
numbers. It is a disgrace, but it is also a reality.
At that meeting, over two-thirds
of the members present indicated that they – some begrudgingly – intended to
support the higher figure, because they perceived there was little or no chance
that a lower target would be accepted at examination.
Given the prevailing will of the
members of the unitary authority, I told members that I would independently
present detailed evidence for an alternative lower target to the Inquiry.
And that is what I still intend to
do.
I think it is accurate to say that
most members of the Environment, Heritage and Planning PAC would have preferred
a lower target – but they worked up two options for Cabinet and Council, as
requested by members – namely the view of the previous Council and the
officers’ recommendation.
No lower options were presented to
the PAC and, last week, I was surprised to see the Conservative Group – the
majority of whom had argued for higher numbers in the last Council – put
forward an amendment to Full Council for 33,000 properties for the period
2010-2030.
MPs and prospective MPs had been
making political hay in recent days with press releases and tweets – implying
that the Government would accept a target of 33,000, though there was absolutely
no evidence that this was indeed the case.
The proposal was not even for
33,000 new units.
It was for 33,000 properties,
“though no area will be allocated a lower than their extant consents” – which
will automatically add another 3,000 to the target – and that local members
could “request … that a higher number be allocated” which – given recent
debates – would add thousands more to the total.
The MK group voted against this
poorly worked up proposal masquerading as a target of 33,000. And one thing is
sure, if it had been agreed, the final figure would have been much greater than
the 38,000 that was not supported in the last Council.
The MK group also did not support
the target of 47,500. In the final vote, we abstained because no alternative
proposal had been tabled, which could be supported, and a consultation document
needed to be agreed.
During this consultation, the MK
group will continue to challenge the Coalition Government to allow Cornwall
Council to set its own housing target – and to work up detailed evidence for a sustainable
lower housing target which we will present to the public examination.
No comments:
Post a Comment