DRAFT

RYEDALE LDF

THE RYEDALE  PLAN

Comments of Councillor Paul Andrews

General comments and Introduction

The Structure of this paper.

I am one of three ward members for Malton at RDC; I am also a member of Malton Council and of Habton Parish Council. In the past I have been employed as a solicitor in the public service in senior positions for 23 years or more as a solicitor and am thoroughly familiar with the planning system, both from an officer viewpoint as well as from that of a member. I was Ryedale’s Council Solicitor from 1988 – 1996.

I have previously made comments on the Council’s proposals for the LDF, and I reiterate these, except in so far as they may be inconsistent with this paper, or have been satisfactorily dealt with since their submission. I attach the previous submissions referred to (Ex 1)

This paper is in four parts, being respectively this General Comments and introduction, the Comments on Housing , the Comments on Retail and Comments on Employment. These complement (and do not replace) all previous submissions by concentrating on some specified points.

The previous plan, the inspector’s decision, and the Council’s reaction to the inspector’s decision

The Council’s first submission of its LDF was brought to examination in public in July 2006. Amongst other things, there was a policy statement about the proportions of new housing which were to be allocated between market towns and service villages. The inspector was not satisfied because the exact proportions were not stated. He asked the Council to come back with more specific information, and adjourned the hearing until a day in November. Five minutes before the hearing reconvened on that day, the Council tabled a paper with percentage allocations which no Council committee had seen, and which took the hearing by surprise.

Consequently neither I nor others could accept figures which had been sprung upon the hearing in this way, and subsequently the inspector dismissed the Council’s Core Strategy.

The Council’s political administration took this badly. I was denounced by an officer in public (ex 2), and the Conservative Group Leader, Councillor Keith Knaggs (now the Council’s Leader) made an angry comment in full council on the inspector to the effect that: “Pratt he is by name and Pratt he is by nature”.

There was a gap of two years or so while nothing further happened on the LDF. Eventually, after the Council started work on this, it gradually became clear that they were determined to impose upon the district in general and Malton and Norton wards in particular almost exactly the same policies in regard to housing as in the previous draft core strategy.

In order to justify this they have taken the view (which has been made public in every public “consultation”) that the inspector at the previous examination in public had approved the “settlement hierarchy” and that therefore it was the Council’s view that this should continue to apply.

It has never been explained that, as the inspector was only asked to consider one settlement hierarchy, this did not mean that other settlement hierarchies which were not before him might not have been equally valid.

The impression has been given that the inspector’s decision was based on a mere technical formality and not on substantive issues. This is not so. My interpretation of the inspector’s decision is that he was concerned about two issues:

• The lack of consultation on the exact percentages produced by the Council five minutes before the November 2006 hearing, and therefore the lack of opportunity to consider representations from interested parties who were not aware of these figures;
• The infrastructure available for the Council’s proposals.

I set out below some paragraphs from a previous document prepared for Habton Parish Council, which includes the relevant sections of the inspector’s report to illustrate this:

• At the hearing in July, the Council’s Core Strategy indicated that Malton/Norton would be the “primary focus” for new development, without indicating what this meant in terms of percentage new development or numbers of new homes..

• At the end of the July hearing the Inspector  asked the Council for clarification on this and other matters.

• About ten minutes before the EIP resumed in November, the Council produced a fresh document indicating, inter alia, that 50% of new development should be located in Malton/Norton. This and other figures had not previously been put before any Council committee, and had not been out for consultation.

• We are therefore not surprised that the Inspector found that the RCS was unsound.

• We refer to the following paras of the Inspector’s decision (our numbering:not his):

• Under the terms of Section 20(5)(a) & (b) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the purpose of the independent examination of a development plan document (DPD) is to determine:
• whether it satisfies the requirements of s19 & s24(1) of the 2004 Act, the regulations under s17(7), and any regulations under s36 relating to the preparation of the document;
• whether it is sound.               
  
• This report contains my assessment of the Core Strategy in terms of the above matters, along with my recommendations and the reasons for them, as required by section 20(7) of the 2004 Act.

• My role is to consider the soundness of the submitted Core Strategy DPD in terms of each of the tests of soundness set out in PPS12 (¶ 4.24).

• Assessment of Soundness
• At the opening of the hearing sessions of the Examination, the Council made a brief statement confirming compliance with the requirements of s19 & s24 of the 2004 Act [CD100].  These requirements essentially form part of the procedural and conformity soundness tests, which I address below.  In addition, the Council has undertaken its own Self-Assessment of Soundness of the Core Strategy [CD78], which covers these particular tests. 
• Section 1.3 of the Planning Inspectorate’s Guide [CD203] sets out the process of assessing the soundness of development plan documents and the potential outcomes of the examination process.  This Guide indicates that the scope for making changes to the submitted Core Strategy is somewhat limited, particularly where they may have implications for the sustainability appraisal and  consultation processes already undertaken.  I have approached my examination of the Ryedale Core Strategy on the assumption that it is fundamentally sound, unless the evidence presented to the Examination demonstrates otherwise, in line with the guidance in PPS12 (¶ 4.24).   
•                       
• Preliminary remarks
• Having carefully considered the issue of soundness, including the representations made at the submission stage and the discussions at the first session of hearings, I had some serious reservations about the soundness of particular elements of the submitted Core Strategy.  I was also aware of the letter from the Department of Communities & Local Government of 11 August 2006 following the publication of the Inspectors’ reports on the first two DPD examinations, where the Stafford and Lichfield Core Strategies were found to be unsound.  My concerns about the submitted Ryedale Core Strategy centred on the following shortcomings:
• Many of the Core Policies are very generalised and do not include sufficient local distinctiveness and guidance for subsequent development plan documents.  Furthermore, there are relevant policy elements within the text and tables of the Core Strategy which are not included within the actual policies themselves;
• The submitted Core Strategy lacks sufficient explanation about the housing strategy, in particular, the means by which overall housing provision will be made, including the amount/proportion of development at the various settlements in the hierarchy, and lacks a housing trajectory and explanation of how housing provision will be  delivered over the plan period and in the interim period before the Housing Sites DPD is finalised;
• The submitted Core Strategy lacks any specific targets or indicators for the purposes   of monitoring the performance of the strategy and its policies.
• At that stage, I thought that most of the information necessary to rectify these shortcomings was included in the text and tables accompanying the Core Policies in the submitted Core Strategy or in supporting information and evidence already presented to the Examination.  I therefore prepared a Briefing Note [CD204] and invited the Council to consider these points, in line with the guidance in Annex D46 of PPS12.  The Council prepared a revised document with their suggested changes to address these elements of unsoundness, which was discussed at a further hearing session of the Examination.   
• However, as a result of these discussions and having examined the suggested changes, it became apparent that the scale, nature and extent of the changes required to make the submitted Core Strategy sound could materially affect the policies and substance of the original document.  Furthermore, these changes might prejudice parties other than those who had made representations on the submitted document, since they have not been subject to the same participatory processes as the original plan.  In some cases, the changes introduced new material into the document, some of which may not be fully supported by the evidence presented to the Examination and could undermine the sustainability appraisal already undertaken.  In terms of the guidance in PPS12 and the Planning Inspectorate’s Guide, it would be inappropriate to recommend such extensive changes in my binding report.  However, these changes could form the starting point for an amended Core Strategy.    
• As submitted, Policy CP1 confirms that the primary focus for new development will be Malton/Norton, followed by Pickering and the market towns of Kirkbymoorside & Helmsley, and lastly the key Service Villages identified in the Spatial Strategy.  It also indicates where new development may be permitted within these and other settlements and in the open countryside.  It is not intended to be a sequential approach to locating development, but is a broad indication of the locational priorities, leaving the detailed location and apportionment of development to the various settlements to be addressed in subsequent DPDs.  However, Policy CP1 adds little to the Spatial Strategy in terms of detailed guidance for subsequent DPDs.
• Although the Spatial Strategy and Core Policy CP1 identify the broad locations for new development and define a settlement hierarchy, I consider there is insufficient detail and guidance to determine the distribution of future growth between the Principal & Local Service Centres and Service Villages.  In my view, the Core Strategy should provide sufficient direction to subsequent DPDs in terms of land allocations, otherwise it will be these DPDs that establish the distribution of new development, rather than the Core Strategy.  I recognise that the Council has not completed all the work necessary to identify options and site allocations for development, but without some clear guidance from the Core Strategy, there is an inadequate basis on which to make such allocations.  There is a need to provide a clear indication of the pace and level of development at the various settlements to show how the various land-uses and developments integrate and deliver the overall vision and demonstrate the soundness of the implementation strategy.  This is a fundamental shortcoming in terms of soundness, and renders this element of the submitted Core Strategy unsound, particularly in terms of Soundness Tests 4a, 6 & 7. 
• I have therefore considered whether it might be possible to amend Policy CP1 to provide further guidance on the levels of development likely in the settlement hierarchy.  Some proportions were suggested in the representations and discussed at the hearings, and the Council’s latest suggested changes attempt to address this shortcoming [CD110].  The suggested percentages reflect the underlying Spatial Strategy and the relative position of the settlements in the hierarchy, but the specific figures are not fully supported in the evidence, documents and statements already submitted to the Examination.
• As the Principal Service Centre and primary focus for development, it is appropriate for most new development to take place at Malton/Norton, reflecting the underlying strategy of the plan and the intentions of the draft RSS.  Background papers for the RSS EIP [CD29a] suggest that Malton/Norton is expected to accommodate at least half of the District’s total housing provision, but there is little independent evidence to fully justify this figure and there has been no general assessment of whether this level of provision could be accommodated at this market town.  As the next largest Local Service Centre, Pickering could be expected to take a lower share of the new development, with perhaps a lesser amount at the smaller Local Service Centres of Kirkbymoorside & Helmsley, and even less at the Key Service Villages. 
• However, although this approach would reflect the Spatial Strategy, there is insufficient evidence to justify precise figures, even with some flexibility in the terminology.  Moreover, there has been no assessment of the implications of these provision levels in terms of housing, employment or other development for particular settlements, either individually or over the plan area, nor any assessment in terms of options or sustainability appraisal.  Local communities were not aware of these specific levels of development at the various settlements at consultation stage and could, understandably, feel prejudiced. 
• In these circumstances, further consultation and supporting work would need to be undertaken before such indicative figures could be established in policy terms.  Since the required changes to Policy CP1 are so extensive and are not fully supported by the existing evidence base, I cannot recommend them in this binding report at this late stage in the process.

History, Procedure and Consultation

This section deals with two matters, namely the procedure and public consultations which the Council carried out in respect of both retail and other issues. You will see that retail issues have on the whole been dealt with separately from the other issues, such as housing and employment.

As I understand, there is a difference between a “consultation” and a “promotion”.

 A consultation is a “bottom up” process whereby the public are asked to put forward different options for consideration, and to consider those and such options as are also put forward for consideration by the authority, and each option is given fair and equal consideration, whether it comes from the authority or not.

A “promotion” on the other hand is a “top down” process, whereby the authority or company promotes its own views or products or developments. One form of a promotion is to invite the public for their views on a given option or product or development without giving any alternatives equal or fair consideration.

It will be seen that Ryedale doesn’t seem to understand the difference and that all the public consultations which have taken place on the LDF have been more in the nature of “promotions” than “consultations”.

Retail

About 75% of the shops in Malton Town Centre are owned by a single landlord, the Fitzwilliam Estate (FWE). The shops in the town centre have in recent years fallen into decline as a consequence of competition from Clifton Moor, York, Monks Cross, York and Safeways (now Morrisons) in Malton.

There are also difficulties in renting many of the shops to national multiples (not supermarkets) because their historic size does not satisfy the requirements of the multiples.

In order to correct these difficulties, in August 2007 FWE submitted a planning application to redevelop the Cattle Market Area with a 1600 sq.m net floor space upper range convenience foodstore (ie. a Waitrose type trolley style store) and 7 comparison outlets, of the right size to attract national multiples to establish new comparison shops. FWE proposed to invest £20M in this project.

This project was initially opposed by the auctioneers who run the Livestock Market, and there was considerable public outrage at the idea of the closure of the Livestock Market to accommodate the FWE proposals.

As one of the three ward members for Malton, I approached the auctioneers and the manager of the FWE estate to see if a compromise could be arranged whereby the Livestock market moved to another site within the town, so as to enable the FWE project to proceed. I met Council officers and discussed this with them, and suggested the FWE project should be linked to a relocation of the Livestock Market.

At about this time, there were two public exhibitions on proposals for Malton Town Centre: one by FWE, promoting their own proposals, and the other by WSP who had been instructed by the Council to present a series of options for public consultation. None of these options included the FWE proposals. This seemed odd, because at that time the FWE proposals were the only ones which were seriously under consideration.

As I understand, WSP had been instructed by the Council to do a study on Malton Town Council in August 2007. As appears below, it had a very long period of gestation.

In late February 2008, the Council released the first report by WSP in regard to a future strategy for Malton Town Centre. Ward members were given no advance notice of this, and the report was delivered to all members one week before the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee at which it was to be discussed.

This report was discussed at a special meeting of P&R on 5th March 2008. This recommended, inter alia, the use of Wentworth Street Car Park for a supermarket comprising a size of about 24,000 sq.m net shopping area. The Report was short and contained no tables, data or calculations – remarkable for a report with such a long gestation. There was a huge public outcry: the public gallery was full. As a result, the Committee decided to set up a “Strategy Group” to discus the Town Centre Strategy generally. This met on several occasions. It comprised a core group of the three ward members and the leaders of each of the Council’s four political groups, and a larger group which included representatives of FWE, the auctioneers, the Town Council, local business and others.

The larger group wanted to discuss a wider range of options than those included in the WSP report, including the FWE proposals and the relocation of the Livestock Market. However, the chairman of the group, Councillor Tony Hemesley would not allow this (Ex 3). The last meeting of the Strategy Group took place in June 2008. The Strategy Group was never formally wound up, but it was stated that further discussion would be through the Malton and Norton Partnership. This never happened. Once again, the Council would consider no option other than those of their own choosing.

At the end of August 2008, there was a public “consultation” on the Council’s proposals for the LDF. This was organised by WSP and cost about £50,000, as I understand. The proposals put forward were restricted to the recommendations set out in the previous WSP report, which revolve around the use of Wentworth Street Car Park as a supermarket. Other options such as the FWE scheme were given little comment. It was not a consultation but a promotion. About 1500 people attended, of whom about 500 responded to written questionnaires. Of these, in spite of the resources committed to this promotion, only 47% agreed with the Council’s proposals on retail, whilst 43% were against them. The Council has taken this as an endorsement of their proposals on retail.

In September 2008, the Council received a draft of a study by RTP entitled “Ryedale Retail Capacity Study Update 2008”. This did consider more than just the Council’s proposals. It dismissed the Council’s proposals for Wentworth Street Car Park as not representing “a short term development opportunity”, and went on to recommend the FWE proposals for the Cattle Market. This report was not produced to members until late March 2009 – see below.

Following the demise of the Strategy Group, I called a meeting of representatives of local business, FWE, local land owners, the auctioneers, the Town Council and a County Councillor. They decided to put forward an alternative plan for Malton Town Centre, and after several meetings they came up with “The Malton Revitalisation Plan. This included the FWE proposals, the relocation of the Livestock Market to the Showfield, together with a new four way grade separated junction between the A 64 and Broughton Road, and enabling  housing development between Broughton Road and Pasture Lane to pay for this. They invited the Council’s Chief Executive to two meetings to discuss this. These meetings took place in about November 2008. It was agreed that the “Revitalisation Plan” would be reported to Council, but at the last minute this was refused, and there was an exchange of letters instead (Ex 4). It will be seen from this that it was agreed that the Town Centre Strategy would be considered through the LDF process – which would have allowed the Revitalisation Plan proposals to be compared with any other competing options – including the Council’s.

In the meantime, FWE had withdrawn their planning application and had decided to rely instead on a submission to the LDF.

It should be emphasised that throughout these events I made it clear to everybody that I was not committed to the Revitalisation Plan or to any other competing plan – what I wanted was for the Revitalisation Plan to be treated fairly and judged in exactly the same way as any other option.

Nothing further was heard from the Council on the Revitalisation Plan.

Wentworth Street Car Park and the Cattle Market are both outside the Commercial Limits of Malton specified in the saved provisions of the old local plan. The redevelopment of either site would be a departure, and departures automatically had to be referred to GOYH. This could have led to a call in and a full planning enquiry. However, in March 2009, the Secretary of State issued the “Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 (ex 5). This completely changed the rules. Under this only the very largest supermarket proposals were required to be referred to GOYH, and there was also a corresponding policy change which restricted cases which could be called in for public enquiry, once referred, to proposals which would have more than a local impact. This order seems to have been treated as a green light by the Council’s political administration, so as to enable them to grant whatever consents please the Council without having regard either to the commercial limits under the existing local plan or anticipated challenge to proposals in the LDF.

The Council no longer needed to honour the undertakings given in the correspondence in ex4.

So, in March 2009, the Council issued a second WSP report on “A Strategy for Malton Town Centre”. This was for discussion at a meeting of P&R Committee on 2nd April 2009 (ex6), which had an agenda of about 200 pages. The report was not included in the agenda, although it was summarised there. Instead the report came in the form of a CD which itself contained more than 200 pages, and the RTP draft report of September 2008 (referred to above) was annexed as “Appendix D”.  This “appendix D” contains the retail capacity figures which WSP’s report relies on. Yet WSP still maintained their recommendation in favour of Wentworth Street Car Park – in spite of RTP’s contrary recommendation and Page 22 of WSP’s own report (ex7) which would seem to suggest that Wentworth Street Car Park is not even in the opinion of WSP the best location for a new supermarket in Malton.

The meeting of P&R on 2nd April is summarised in ex6. It will be seen again just how intransigent the Council is when it is suggested they should consider other options.

Subsequently the Council on 12th May 2009 granted planning permission for an extension to Morrisons and for a new Lidl at Robsons Garage, Norton. The additional retail capacity for these two developments exceeded the recommendations of RTP. RTP subsequently issued a surprising supplementary report in December 2009, suggesting that their figures had not been exceeded.

For a more in-depth discussion of all the relevant reports, please see the section of this paper  relating to Retail.

Housing

There are three options: the dispersed option (ie expand existing development limits all over Ryedale) ; the market towns option (concentrate all new development in the Market Towns) or the Market Towns/Service Village option (concentrate all new housing in the Market Towns and 10 service villages).

These are dealt with in the Housing Section of this paper.

The housing issue relates directly to the Council’s strategy for improving the junctions to the A 64. Two of the three existing junctions are unsatisfactory, and there is no junction between the A64 and Broughton Road. Of the two unsatisfactory junctions, the one at York Road only allows access and egress in one direction, and the other, at Brambling Fields, has only three out of the four slip roads that it needs. The consequence is that huge lorries – particularly those travelling to and from the Bacon Factory at Norton – have to drive through the town centre, instead of leaving Malton/Norton by the junctions.

Over the years, repeated attempts have been made to obtain government funding for work on the Brambling Fields and York Road junctions, but these have failed. More recently, there have been promises of money (I believe some was promised by Yorkshire Forward and this  is no longer available), and the Council has tasked itself to find the balance from development contributions under Section 106 Agreements for highways improvements and other matters.

The view has been taken by the Council’s political administration that it is far more possible to extract large amounts of money for development contributions out of large developments in the towns than from small dispersed developments in the countryside. That is why I think the Council has continued to pursue the market towns and service village option.

I think it is fair to say that both Malton and Norton town councils would like to see the two junctions improved and a new one between the A64 and Broughton Road. However, they don’t want to see this happen, if the enabling development is likely to completely change the character of the towns, or result in a huge influx of people which is too big for the community to absorb, or in the worsening of traffic congestion in the town centres.

 Accordingly, Malton and Norton Town Councils have both asked the Council to restrict the number of new homes to 1,000 over the next 15 years. Ryedale, on the other hand, want Malton/Norton to have between 50% and 100% of all new houses over this period. This means not less than 1,500 houses and not more than 3,000 houses.

A Report by Jacobs called “Malton and Norton Strategic Transport Assessment” dated February 2010 recommends “Option 4(a)” which includes 2,165 new houses, and I believe that is the number the Council’s political administration has in mind.

This is much worse for the towns than what was recommended in the previous draft LDF Core Strategy.

The Council conducted a full public “consultation” in July 2009. Once again, every effort was made to explain the Council’s reasons for their proposals, but little space was given for the alternatives.

There were separate exhibitions in some villages, and a full exhibition in the Milton Rooms at Malton. Each exhibition showed the sites of proposals which had been put forward under the LDF. There was also a chart with the three options, inviting viewers to place sticky circles on the option of their choice. In the villages, this chart was prominently displayed. In the Milton Rooms, however, there was no sign to the chart; all the stands were linked together and arranged in a closed semicircle with rows of other half semi-circles behind, with the stage at the back; the chart was on the back of one of the stands in the semi-circle close to the stage; all the plans for Malton/Norton were exhibited on the fronts of the stands in the semi-circle; the backs of the same stands (including the one where the chart was exhibited) and the other stands exhibited the plans for the villages. There was no direction sign, prominent or otherwise, pointing to the whereabouts of the chart or even indicating that there was a chart. It does not take much imagination to see how many people from the villages might prefer to see most new development in the market towns, and the prominence of the chart in the village exhibitions would attract considerable response. Unfortunately, as the chart in the Milton Rooms was unlikely to be seen by many interested in Malton and Norton, it is not surprising if the number of people in favour of the Market towns/service villages option were in a majority.

In  responding to consultations, the public are wont to use qualifications and express views which don’t quite fit the questions, and it is difficult to come to a precise interpretation as to whether their answers can be classified as a “yes” or a “no”. In the Council’s view, the views expressed by people who completed the questionnaires was a majority endorsement of the council’s proposals. I asked the Head of Planning if I could go through the replies with him and try and agree figures with him. He refused to see me, because I insisted on bringing the Chairman of the Malton and Norton Towns  Partnership with me, and he was only prepared to talk to members.

In my view, this was not a “consultation”: it was a “promotion”.

The approval of the Council’s Preferred Options (Retail and Housing).

This was brought to an extraordinary meeting of full Council on 15th December 2009 (see notes ex8). Prior to the meeting members had been promised sight of a transportation assessment. The first draft of this had arrived at the beginning of November. I wrote requesting a copy and received a reply dated 23rd November (ex 9) acknowledging that the Council had this document at the date of the letter, but refusing to make it available. The report was still not available on 15th December. Instead a copy of an emailed letter of that date from county highways (ex10) was tabled five minutes before the meeting. This said that the traffic in a version of “Scenario 4” would be perfectly acceptable. This letter gave no indication of what “scenario 4” comprised – let alone the version of it referred to.

It will be seen from the notes in ex 8 that the Council proceeded to approve the plan without adequate information in regard to the impact of traffic on Malton and Norton.

The “draft final” Malton and Norton Strategic Transport Assessment (“STA”) was not distributed to members until March 2010. There was an immediate public outcry against it, as it was only then that people were able to see the number of new houses (2,165 for Malton and Norton under Option 4(a)), together with all the other supermarket and other development proposals shown in the table on Page 11 (ex 11). This resulted in a closed meeting with the Town Councils which ended in disagreement. No report has since been made on the outcome of public consultation on the STA, and it has never been adopted by the Council.

A further in-depth discussion on the STA will be found in the paragraphs on “highways” in the section of this paper dealing with Retail.

It is quite clear that once again Ryedale are being completely intransigent and unwilling to listen.

The approval of the draft Ryedale Plan for consultation.

On 2nd August 2010, the Council had an extraordinary meeting to debate the draft Ryedale Plan. This document comprises about 150 pages and 9 sections, and deals with the future of the district over a 15 year period. We reached Section 4 (housing), and I then proposed an amendment that consideration of the LDF be deferred until the Council had an agreed highways strategy. This amendment was defeated. We then got as far as half way through Section 4 (housing) when a closure motion was moved. This was agreed, and so the consequence is that the entire plan has been authorised for consultation before any highways strategy has been agreed, and without any debate on any of the economic policy or other issues.

Further, when the meeting went on to discus the Sustainability Report, the Council’s leader told members that,  if they agreed the Plan, it followed that they must also agree the sustainability report. As a consequence, there was no debate on whether or not the policies in the plan which members had already agreed were in fact sustainable.

During the meeting and at a previous meeting on 29th July 2010 (the one which authorised the sale of WWSCP by tender) members were invited to ask questions. These were taken before any debate was allowed. Over an hour was taken at each meeting in answering these questions. However the minutes summarised both question sessions in ver y brief terms to the effect that members had asked questions and these had been satisfactorily answered. When the minutes of both meetings came forward for approval, some members voted against, and many more abstained because of the brevity of the minuted note.

The aftermath

Since this decision, the Council have acted as though the Ryedale Plan is now in force – regardless of the next stage – the examination in public. They are even jumping the gun in regard to the DPD.

Wentworth Street Car Park was put up for sale by tender on 29th August 2010, and a successful planning application is expected to be received and determined in a developer’s favour in January 2011.

Planning consent for Aldi at the Clothing Factory Site in Norton was finally granted on 28th September 2010, despite the fact that it is outside the commercial limits and the consent was granted contrary to the recommendations of both the Council’s consultants and of officers.

Planning consent for 186 new houses at Westfield Nurseries, Norton was also granted on 28th September 2010. This site is outside the town’s development limits.

Commenting on the fact that the Westfield Nurseries application was a departure, the planning officer informed members that he anticipated that there would be several other planning applications for large sites coming forward in the next few months which were also departures.

It is quite clear that the view is being taken that since departure applications no longer have to be referred to GOYH, the Council can do as it pleases, without regard to any of the proper procedures it chooses to ignore.

Conclusion

It would seem from the above that this LDF like the last one has not been properly consulted upon, nor have members properly taken sustainability or infrastructure considerations into account, and the Council is now acting in a way which can only be described as irregular.

PAUL ANDREWS 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010