By Blaby Green Party District Councillor Tony Deakin
Today’s meeting showed clearly Blaby District Council’s current difficult position with respect to considering applications for new housing developments. This was particularly true for application 24/0001/OUT, a proposal to build 185 new houses at a site on Willoughby Road in Countesthorpe. This proposal was previously brought before the Planning Committee in October, with an intention to build 205 houses, but was deferred back to the Planning Officers as concerns were raised about how many new houses were being crammed into the space, and also about the current state of flooding and foul water removal from the local residential area. Local residents reported that the current removal was already inadequate, to the point of raw sewerage on occasion backing up into homes. A proposal for 110 houses on the same site was rejected a number of years ago.
In addition to the concerns noted the proposed development was to be built on land considered as open countryside and outside of the boundaries of Countesthorpe, a location that had already exceeded its commitment to new house numbers as identified in Blaby’s own Local Plan for new housing developments in the District.
Under normal circumstances these alone would be good reasons to refuse the application. However, Blaby at the moment does not have a “5-year land supply”. This means that Blaby does not at present have a pipeline of land available for 5 years worth of house-building. According to the Government’s own rules for house-building (the National Planning Policy Framework or NPPF), this situation means that Blaby’s own guidelines, laid out in the Local Plan, are essentially now to be considered “out of date” and ignored if the proposal put forwards by a developer is considered as “sustainable” and conforms to the NPPF. This position was confirmed by the Planning Officers when I questioned them directly this evening. The NPPF gives a broad definition of the objective of sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Blaby’s Planning Officers are required to recommend that planning permission for a proposed development be given if it has been shown to be sustainable and the disadvantages of completing the development do not significantly outweigh the benefits, irrespective of what Blaby’s own Local Plan states. Blaby’s Planning Officers refer to this position as a “tilted balance in favour of acceptance.” This phrase that is likely to be heard at every Planning Committee meeting for the foreseeable future, because the new Labour Government is set to demand even greater numbers of new houses from District Councils than the previous Conservative administration, and will update the NPPF to make it even easier for developers to get their proposals accepted. I expect to see a flow of proposals from house builders, that have never been part of Blaby’s own Local Plan for development, that may have been previously submitted for consideration but refused, and that may well contain features that would normally warrant refusal.
For a Blaby Planning Committee to refuse an application at the moment, when Planning Officers have recommended acceptance, it must have very solid reasoning, based on rules set out in the NPPF, that demonstrates more disadvantages in completing the housing development than advantages. To not have this reasoning, even when common sense screams that the proposal is wrong, means that the Council will likely face an appeal to the National Inspector by the house builder that it will probably lose. Such a loss could cost Blaby District Council hundreds of thousands of pounds, money that should be spent on services for our residents. You may start to understand how the Planning Committee is fighting with at least one hand tied behind its back.
And so back to tonight’s meeting. In my opinion Severn Trent had not satisfactorily offered a means by which current and future residents of the local area could live without fear of raw sewerage back-flowing into their properties due to an inadequate system of foul water removal. For me, and interpreting the NPPF definition given, the development was unsustainable. I do not believe it is acceptable to give permission for such a proposal on the promise of some system modelling being undertaken at some point in the future, and for these reasons I voted against the proposal. I was one of 4 councillors who voted against, but permission was granted based on the deciding vote of the Chairman of the Planning Committee.
As a councillor I understand the need for more housing and for a 5 year land supply to be restored so that Blaby District Council can once more operate under its own rules. It is hoped that this situation will be the case once the New Local Plan is published in the next 1-2 years, and I will work hard to ensure that this plan offers the best and fairest framework for new housing in Blaby going forwards.
As a Green Councillor I will always push for this housing to be more energy efficient, with a higher proportion of social/affordable homes, targeted to reclaimed brownfield sites where possible, that works for our people and our environment.
The right houses, in the right places, at the right price!
How can you help?
If you would like to support our work further, please consider joining us, unlike the other major political parties we are not funded by wealthy individuals or companies, so we are free to speak without outside influence.