If you can't find something, enter keywords in the search facility to find articles.
March 2016
The news that the Taylor Wimpey planning application for 140 houses to the rear of Jacqueline Road, Field Head was unanimously rejected by Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council’s planning committee will be welcomed by both Field Head, Groby and Markfield residents. But experience has shown that housebuilders don't take refusal lightly. They invest heavily in acquiring land for development and have deep pockets with which to finance the legal battles which almost invariably follow.
If they wish to lodge an appeal against the decision the company has more than just petty cash in the bank to fund the expenses. They ended the financial year year with net cash of £223m after returning £308m to shareholders. In the last few weeks the company reported an annual gross profit of £788m, an increase of 26.9%. Gross margins improved to 25.1%. and the result was a profit before tax and exceptional items of £604m, up 34%.
Discussing the results Pete Redfern, Chief Executive said : ”We’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of new acquisition opportunities and the quality of those, we’ll continue to chase them but they have to be good, and we get harder and harder in our assessment of what it needs to be. And that’s about its planning pedigree, it’s about the quality of the financial gain we can have for working that strategic site, it’s about the quality of the products and the plots that come from it. “
It will come as no surprise that it is the quality of the financial gain from developing the Jacqueline Road site that is important to the company, after all business is business and that's what they have to take account of. The estimated £1million they may have to pay to mitigate the impact of the development of the site will be no deterrent as this will be built into the selling price of the houses. And if ultimately they overturn the refusal of planning permission and have to pay out what the various agencies have asked for the sums could be significant.
For example, it is estimated that the proposed development would result in the generation of the 34 pupil places which can not be accommodated at nearby schools. A contribution has therefore been requested for £406,426.74. A Secondary School contribution request of £423,307.71 has been made for Markfield South Charnwood High School, and a Post 16 sector contribution request of £89,294.90 has been made for Groby Community College.
It is considered that the development would result in an additional 339 patients to the local health centre. The Markfield surgery is currently at capacity and an increase in GP sessions would be required, so a total of £70,925.58 is requested. There's more including a request of £47,503 from Leicestershire Police.
But the discussion of how much they should pay if they eventually get planning permission is for another day. For the moment, no doubt, the company will be considering the reasons for recommending refusal.
The Planning Officer's conclusion is that the development would significantly exceed the housing requirement for Markfield as set out in the Borough's Core Strategy. The council is currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, and this is important. Whilst the proposal would bring some social and economic benefits through the supply of housing it is not considered to outweigh the harm to the landscape setting of the village by developing a greenfield site outside of the settlement boundary within the National and Charnwood Forests. This would conflict with the environmental strand of sustainability resulting in harm.
In the final paragraph outlining the reasons for recommending refusal the report is more limited and says that the site lies outside the settlement boundary for Markfield and Field Head and the proposal would lead to an unsustainable landscape impact. It would also cause detriment to the character of the designated National and Charnwood Forests.
With a chronic national shortage of housing there is probably someone, somewhere, assessing the outcome and putting together a case on which to challenge the decision. But on the other side of the argument the local community, with less deep pockets, will have its own plans for ensuring that the refusal is ultimately upheld if it should go to appeal.
February 2016
The changes that the Coalition Government made to the planning system were designed to streamline the whole process and sweep away over 1000 pages of planning guidance and replace it with 65 pages. Despite all this, at a local level producing a plan for the future within the Hinckley and Bosworth area seems to have taken a huge effort in human resources. The documentation and the process for approval is daunting, and the Borough Council has recently announced the latest stage and the latest consultation.
It's the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document – Main Modifications Consultation, which runs until Friday, 18 March 2016. Readers who want to see what it's all about can read more at www.hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk/siteallocations. The consultation is to allow everyone to consider the modifications proposed by the Inspector who examined the Borough Plan and to read additional modifications proposed by the council but on which it is not inviting comments.
There's a lot to read but tucked away in the documentation is a potential windfall for the opponents of the Taylor Wimpey planning application at Jacqueline Road, Field Head.
A new sustainability appraisal supplement(SAS) re-assesses sites in settlements where the housing requirement has already been met, and that includes the Taylor Wimpey site. In simple terms it appears to conclude that no greenfield site around Markfield can be considered sustainable at the moment and none should be allocated without further investigation through the local plan review. To approve the Taylor Wimpey application and grant planning permission would therefore seem to be contrary to the Council's declared policies.
Cllr Peter Batty, Chairman of the Parish Council, who raised this with the legal team that will represent the parish said “In a nutshell, we believe that the Borough Council are left with no alternative but to refuse this application or potentially leave themselves wide open for a Judicial Review that they would almost certainly lose. Equally, we believe that this will whip the carpet out from under Taylor Wimpey’s feet for any appeal at least until the SAS is completed (at least a year) which in any case could slam the door on this site if it supports the position stated in the Main Modifications proposals.”