Tory MP inadvertantly admits Tory planning policy to blame for planning approvals

This week saw the latest controversial planning application to hit our area approved, with permission granted to build 330 new homes on the site of the iconic Tall Trees hotel (read the Evening Gazette report here).

The initial determination was deferred in December to allow the council the opportunity to take legal advice on the suggested grounds for refusal. At this week's meeting, enough councillors changed their mind to see the application approved, after the opinion of Alan Evans QC stated "...the merits of the Council’s reasons for refusal are weak and that they would be very unlikely to be defended successfully on appeal."

Furthermore, Alan Evans QC continued: "I also think that the Council is in territory where it would be at significant risk of an award of costs on the basis of unreasonable refusal". (You can read the full legal opinion here).

Whilst I have been a critic of the Tories' new planning rules from their inception, and indeed they were one of the major reasons for my resigning from the Conservative party (see here), hitherto our local Tory MP has refused to criticise the new rules.

However, in today's Darlington and Stockton Times, the mask slipped.

Although Mr Wharton, Tory MP for Stockton South, "refused to respond" to my call for him to speak out against the damaging planning reforms his government has introduced, he did comment:

"The reason Stockton Council keeps passing planning applications is because of the failure to meet its five-year supply."

Even on the face of it, Mr Wharton's comment is laughable - the idea that Stockton Council is solely to blame for approving the recent planning applications because it hasn't been approving enough planning applications is absurd and contradictory. Perhaps Mr Wharton can tell us which applications received were not eventually granted permission because, in nearly three years on the planning committee, I cannot recall a single one.

More seriously, whilst we do not know if it is ignorance of the detail of the Tories' NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) that led to his remark, or whether it was a genuine Freudian slip, it was the NPPF which deliberately tied councils' hands when a five-year housing supply cannot be demonstrated.

Although councils have long had to publish a five-year housing target, it was only with the advent of the NPPF that a failure to meet these targets had any repercussions.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan are "absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date", the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

As Alan Evans QC makes perfectly clear, it was the fact that the council's policies were 'out-of-date' which was the overriding factor in reaching the opinion he did.

So how about it Mr Wharton? Why don't you put aside your blind party loyalty, stop taking local residents for fools, and call on the government to immediately amend, or abandon, its catastrophic NPPF?

It can bully its planning committee, but Stockton Council can't bully me

On 11:19 on Christmas Eve I received an e-mail (below) from Stockton Council's legal services department notifying me that they were investigating a complaint that I had breached the Members Code of Conduct by highlighting the council's attempts to bully and manipulate those councillors who sit on its planning committee (see my blog post here).

Back in June, Stockton Council's planning committee voted overwhelmingly, and somewhat surprisingly, to reject a controversial application to build 159 properties on land at Urlay Nook, Eaglescliffe.

As is now par for the course, the developer lodged an appeal whilst simultaneously submitting another planning application which was virtually identical to their previous failed bid.

The week before the committee was due to hear the second planning application, back in November, officers at Stockton Council circulated a legal brief to members of the planning committee which advised if councillors were to approve the revised application it "would probably result in the withdrawal of the appeal". Not only that, it claimed it would make "good sense" to approve the application in order to "extricate the council from the very difficult position it now faces". (read the report in the Evening Gazette here).

Now, there are only two possible reasons for council officers circulating the legal opinion it its entirety as they did - a move they concede was "unusual" and which they admit they couldn't give another single example of when they had done likewise. It was either a display of quite breath-taking incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the result of the forthcoming vote.

I had no hesitation in publishing the legal brief in its entirety, and would do so again without a moment's thought.  Too many council officers seem to have forgotten that the only reason they have a job at all is to serve the residents of the borough. To my mind, such a job description does not include trying to rig votes in favour of wealthy landowners and developers contrary to the wishes of residents.

But what irked me the most about the letter I received last month regarding the investigation was not its content - which hardly came as a surprise - it was the timing.

Nearly 7 weeks had elapsed since I published the brief without a single word from the council that any investigation would take place, or was even being considered. Then, on Christmas Eve of all days, and at the instigation of David Bond, the council's Director of Law and Democracy, the letter was e-mailed to me.

Not only that, when I replied to the e-mail just 10 minutes later, both David Bond and Jonathan Nertney - the principal solicitor who signed the letter - were both out of the office until the new year, at least according to the automated messages I received back.

Now, I suppose it's possible sending me the letter by e-mail was Jonathan's last act of the day before, very quickly, setting his out-of-office and skipping out of the office? Or perhaps he and/or David Bond are so utterly spiteful that they thought it a good idea to delay sending it until Christmas Eve, irrespective of the fact they weren't even working that day? Who knows? It doesn't matter.

Stockton Council might have been successful in its bullying of the planning committee - the revised application being approved in November as officers wished (see here) - but they are making an huge mistake if they think they can bully me in the same way.

I will always stand up for residents, acting in their best interests, saying what they want me to say and doing what they want me to do. If Stockton Council have a problem with that, then they will just have to find a way to learn to live with their disappointment.

How Stockton Council is trying to manipulate its own planning committee

Yesterday evening, I was passed some papers evidencing how officers at Stockton Council are shamelessly attempting to influence the way elected councillors vote at next week's planning committee.

In June this year, Taylor Wimpey had an application to build 159 homes on Urlay Nook Road, Eaglescliffe overwhelmingly rejected by the council's planning committee, by some 9 votes to 2, contrary to the recommendation of council planning officers.

Predictably, Taylor Wimpey submitted an appeal against the decision (as reported in the Northern Echo here). In addition, Taylor Wimpey simultaneously submitted a near identical planning application for the same site, which is due to be determined by the planning committee next week.

The application is once again recommended for approval by council officers (you can find their report here). But officers couldn't leave it at that and run the risk of councillors again heeding residents' concerns and refusing the application for a second time; they decided to try and stack the deck in the developer's favour.

This week, council officers circulated to members of the planning committee a legal brief ostensibly relating to the appeal on Urlay Nook (which isn't due to be heard for some months yet). This document in essence states the council has no realistic prospect of winning the appeal and suggests the planning committee can "extricate the council from the very difficult situation it now faces" by approving the application at next week's committee meeting.

Not only that, the brief was circulated to members with a covering note saying that councillors are not allowed to discuss this matter with anybody outside of the planning committee and warned them (threatened them?) that to do so would be a breach of the Members Code of Conduct. Furthermore, members were told they are not even able to refer to the legal brief in next week's committee meeting; any discussion would need to take place in camera (i.e. in secret).

Well, so what?

The only possible explanation for this brief having been circulated to members prior to the planning committee meeting next week is that it is a deliberate and downright grubby attempt to unduly influence your elected representatives, to cajole them to approve the planning application contrary to common sense and the wishes of residents.

To my mind the public have an absolute right to know about such underhand manipulation of the planning committee, whatever hollow protests the council may come out with over the coming days. If I am subsequently found to have breached the code of conduct by putting this into the public domain then fine; a slap on the wrists is a price worth paying every single time to shine a little light on the way Stockton Council goes about its business.

The papers circulated to members of the planning committee can be found below. Share them with your friends, your neighbours, your family and help the truth to get out.

Ingleby Manor free school plus 350 new homes approved

It has today been announced the 750-place free school and 350 new homes can now be built after the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government granted planning permission after this was refused by Stockton Borough Council.

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The announcement will prompt mixed feelings with residents - supporters will obviously be delighted; opponents to the housing distraught; and many will fear the effect of the new school on the current schools in the locality, particularly Conyers and Egglescliffe.

 

However, the announcement has been overshadowed by criticism of the government's centrist approach in driving forward new housing developments, no matter how unwanted or unneeded, (and which I blogged about just yesterday here), and the grubby way in which the announcement has been delayed for perceived political gain.

 

On three occasions, opponents to new housing schemes have requested the Secretary of State "call-in" the approvals granted by Stockton Council to review the decision.  On three occasions, the request has been refused, on the grounds the applications weren't sufficiently large to merit the government's intervention.

 

However, this particularly planning application was recovered, according to a letter dated 26th September 2013 from the Department for Communities and Local Government, "because it involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units".

 

Now bearing in mind the applications to develop the Morley Carr Farm, Green Lane, and Mount Leven Farm sites were each far in excess of 150 units in size, why weren't these called in?

 

The only rational conclusion is that the 'right' decision (as far as the Conservative party is concerned) was made in those cases and permission granted. The only application to build new housing in Stockton South (James Wharton's constituency) to be refused was Ingleby Manor, and this remains the only one to have seen the government step in and overrule a decision taken by locally elected and accountable councillors.

 

I spoke yesterday about how the residents of Yarm and Eaglescliffe had been betrayed by the Conservative party's approach to planning and craven, cynical desire to see hundreds of new homes built in more Conservative-leaning parts of Mr Wharton's marginal constituency; today we can add Ingleby Barwick to that list.

 

And who has been the cheerleader-in-chief of today's announcement? You guessed it, James Wharton MP.

 

As though this didn't smell enough already, it gets worse. The public inquiry in this matter closed on 28th June 2013, with the inspector, Paul Griffiths, indicating the decision would be made within 6 weeks. So we waited, and waited, and waited...

 

Lo and behold, and as I predicted at the time, the announcement was made today, some three months later, on the eve of the Conservative party conference!

 

That said, I suppose it's pleasing to see the Conservative party can still display some loyalty to its troops, as Mr Wharton receives his reward for bringing forward pro-EU Cameron's Referendum Bill...



Why I left the Conservatives part 1: The National Planning Policy Framework

In the first of a series of posts on some of the specific policies that pushed me to leave the Conservative party, I am going to focus on the one which has arguably caused more damage in Yarm and the surrounding area than any other - the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Morley Carr Farm, the site of 300-350 new homes in Yarm

Since the introduction of the NPPF in 2012, Yarm alone has seen approvals granted to build up to 350 new homes at Morley Carr Farm, 370 homes along Green Lane and a further 350 homes plus a 100-bedroom care home at Mount Leven Farm. These are in addition to the Allens West site in neighbouring Eaglescliffe, where plans for 800 new homes have been approved.

None of the aforementioned sites in Yarm had been earmarked for development by Stockton Council in its current Core Strategy.  And whilst developers have either owned these sites or owned an option on them for decades, they had never been brought forward before the NPPF was implemented.

In the Conservative Manifesto 2010, it was stated, "We will create a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system". Albeit a rare example of a manifesto pledge actually being honoured and delivered, the manifesto was silent on what else was to follow.

More detail was provided in the Coalition Agreement. It said, "We will... return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils." Excellent, we all thought.

It continued, "We will radically reform the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants lived." Marvellous, we cried. And about time too.

Unfortunately, and as was ever thus, the devil was in the detail of what was to follow.

Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan is 'absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date', the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

Suddenly, those council policies consulted on extensively with the public prior to approval which had protected the greenfield sites around Yarm for years, and which directed housing developments to the parts of the borough where they were both wanted and needed, were worthless, supplanted by the NPPF cuckoo in the nest. The presumption in favour of approving new housing developments became king.

If you clicked on the links attached to the three sites in Yarm I mentioned earlier, or if you have read other reports in the press I haven't included, you may have noticed one thing all the reports have in common - James Wharton MP criticising Labour-led Stockton Council for approving these planning applications.

Unfortunately, whilst he's quick to blame Labour for such planning travesties in and around Yarm after the event, his silence prior to those decisions has been deafening.

Mr Wharton failed to object to a single application, let alone speak up for residents at the relevant hearings; residents complain he failed to provide any meaningful support whatsoever to those opposing the schemes; he has consistently refused to utter a word of criticism of the NPPF which allowed these unwanted schemes to go ahead; and, despite the wholesale concern of residents, he didn't even bother to attend July's parliamentary committee debate on 'Localism in Planning' when a number of principled Conservative MPs queued up to represent their residents and, without exception, criticise the NPPF.

This is hardly surprising. For a young and ambitious MP who 'hardly ever rebels' against the party machine, and who has a slender majority of just 332, the NPPF and resulting approval of 1,000 new homes in a traditionally Conservative-voting ward within his marginal constituency could only have been regarded by Mr Wharton as manna from heaven.

That he, and the Conservative party through the NPPF, have not just let down but so badly betrayed residents in Yarm is unforgiveable.

But it isn't just Mr Wharton who is culpable.

When Morley Carr Farm was brought to the planning committee, then Green Lane, and the first time Mount Leven Farm was brought to the committee, not one single Conservative councillor (myself included) followed the national party's wishes and voted to approve these applications.

However, after the Mount Leven Farm application was initially rejected, the developer submitted a second, virtually identical, application was again brought before the committee just months after the first. Second time around, the application was approved with the committee voting 6-5 in favour.

'How did this happen' you might ask. The answer is simple - Councillor Ken Lupton (the chairman of the Stockton Conservatives Association, and leader of the Conservative group on Stockton Council) changed his mind, having voted against the application initially but voting for it the second time around.

Had the Conservative leader voted against the application, as he had previously, it would have been rejected. It is also noticeable that Councillor Lupton has been silent on what prompted his unexplained and devastating volte face.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party who nationally brought forward a policy so damaging to those I represent, and who locally can be described, at best, as duplicitous and opportunist.

I am proud to say that, as a member of the planning committee, I have listened to residents' concerns and not voted to approve a single inappropriate development in the area.

It is a crying shame that the leader of the local Conservatives cannot say the same thing.

Ingleby Barwick free school bid stalls

On Tuesday Stockton Council’s planning committee voted, in many cases reluctantly, to reject the planning application to build Ingleby Manor free school along with 350 homes on land off Low Lane, at Little Maltby Farm.



The proposed site of Ingleby Manor free school



Without doubt, this was the most difficult planning application so far I have found myself having a hand in determining as a member of the planning committee.

On the one hand, we had the free school element of the application. There can be no doubting the need – an urgent and increasing need – for additional secondary school provision within Ingleby Barwick. The free school bid enjoys the unwavering support of a majority of residents, the plans for which would bring a wealth of community benefits to the wider community with the school’s facilities to be made available for public use. All positive stuff.

On the other hand, however, we come to the proposed new housing. In a quid pro quo for providing the 13 acres of land on which the school would be built, the landowners (Satnam) hoped to build 350 homes on land located within the green wedge, without providing the required 20% affordable housing element, and which would inevitably have put local services, not least the town’s primary schools, under increased strain.

It’s fair to say the stumbling block for the committee – certainly as far as I was concerned – was the housing element of the application.

Had the application been for the free school and associated facilities alone, it would have been much more difficult to resist. It would certainly have changed the way I voted and, I believe, the way some others did too.

In a step that is usually anathema to me, I abstained from Tuesday’s vote – the first, and I would hope the last, time I have felt compelled to do so. Whilst I would have found it desperately difficult to vote against the much needed free school, there was equally no way I could support any application to build 350 homes in the green wedge.

Whilst it’s accurate to point out that Stockton Council has previously approved incursions into the green wedge in years gone by, in recent months the planning committee has consistently resisted approving any further such applications. This is to be applauded (as indeed it was by many residents of Ingleby Barwick when a recent application to build on the green wedge between Yarm and Ingleby Barwick was refused).

As with any major application, there are differing views and opinions. Supporters of the application argued that the site was not in fact within the green wedge; that the housing was unwelcome but a price worth paying; that it should be approved as it is the only viable site available. All perfectly arguable points, even if I do not necessarily agree with them entirely.

They are also arguments worth pursuing at the seemingly inevitable appeal (that is unless the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to call in the application for determination), a move that I not only understand, but would be inclined to welcome and support.　

If I had given years of my life to securing a new school for Ingleby Barwick, as the likes of Steve Fryer and Frances Lynch have admirably done, it would be dishonest of me to pretend I would not now be pursuing an appeal with everything I have.

But there is a better solution than simply successfully appealing Tuesday’s result.

Instead of cynically attempting to engineer approval for 350 new homes by piggy-backing them on to the free school bid, the developer could potentially solve the problem overnight.

So how about it, Satnam? Why not demonstrate some genuine philanthropy and gift the necessary 13 acres of land to the Ingleby Manor Foundation Trust without any strings attached?

Whilst in planning there can be no guarantees (particularly given the committee in Stockton is dominated by Labour councillors representing a party that hates the very principle of free schools), removing the housing hurdle and allowing the Trust to submit their own application for the school would give them the best possible chance of securing the school Ingleby Barwick so desperately needs.

Yes, I know, I know. But hope springs eternal…

Yarm School planning application rejected. Unanimously!

Campaigners from Yarm, Eaglescliffe, and Friends of Tees Heritage Park secured a stunning victory this afternoon with the planning committee of Stockton Council voting unanimously to reject a planning application from Yarm School which looked to create 11 new sports pitches and a pavillion on the Eaglescliffe side of the River Tees as well as building a new bridge across the Tees.



Whilst this may not sound like the most objectionable planning application you've ever heard of, the committee agreed it would have ruined a large tract of unspoilt rural and agriculture land comprising part of the Tees Heritage Park.

A number of other concerns were voiced by committee members - far too many in fact to list here - but chief amongst these was regarding the proposed footbridge over the Tees (which was to be sited just metres away from homes on Minerva Mews, and would have resulted in an unacceptable invasion of privacy for residents there).

What is arguably of more significance from Yarm residents' point of view is the impact today's decision will have on the application to build 735 homes on Green Lane, which is (at least for the moment) due to be heard by the planning committee on 5th February 2013.

Today's application was merely an enabling development to afford Yarm School scope to sell the site of its current playing fields at Green Lane (pictured above) to Bellway Homes, the latest profiteers hoping to bank a greenfield site with planning permission in Yarm, to cash in on whenever the housing market improves.

Whether the Green Lane application will now be heard by the committee next week remains to be seen, but don't be surprised if the application is withdrawn between now and then.

Although today's decision is undoubtedly good news for the overwhelming majority of residents across the whole borough, I can't help but feel a twinge of sadness.

Whilst it is always disappointing to see landowners and housebuilders looking to profit from Yarm, and Stockton Borough Council's idiotic belief that the borough needs thousands more homes (more on that another time), it can hardly be considered a surprise.

However, when a private school looks to ruin a swathe of a heritage park in order to facilitate the building of hundres of new homes, in the face of overwhelming public opinion, I do feel a pang of sadness and, perhaps naively, surprise.

Anybody living in Yarm will be familiar with the problems Yarm School brings, particularly if you have ever had to try and drive down The Spital whilst parents are parked inconsiderately, dangerously, and as near to the school gates as they can get. Or if you have tried to park anywhere on West Street just to find every space occupied by a sixth-former's car.

It is easy to understand some of the anger that a large number of residents from Yarm and Eaglesliffe have directed at the school as a result of this planning application, branding the application as "selfish and unnecessary". Whilst you would expect any school to try do the best it can for its pupils, staff and the school itself, when those aspirations repeatedly clash with those of the local community it's perhaps time the school had a good, long look at itself.

[Final paragraph amended 21/01/2013]

Planning Committee - Tall Trees, Yarm

My first planning committee earlier this week and a familiar name on the agenda - Tall Trees Hotel, Yarm.

As you will have seen in the press, planning permission was granted for the construction of 62 executive homes and 81 apartments on the land immediately adjacent to the hotel (much of which is currently parking).  The committee accepted that the benefits the linked renovation and expansion of the hotel would bring to the area outweighed the fact that the development was outside the limits of development.

Whilst some residents may have greeted this news with dismay, it is still far from certain however the approved development will ever take place.

The applicant states that the development of the hotel is reliant on the funds generated by the planned housing.  In accepting this argument the committee imposed a number of planning conditions to ensure that the development of the hotel and housing proceeds hand-in-hand.  In addition, contributions of £100,000 and £154,000 were demanded towards the costs of providing long-stay parking in Yarm and for providing a footpath and cycle lane from the site to Yarm Station respectively.

However, the applicant stated during the committee hearing that the conditions imposed designed to ensure the phased development of the site in fact serve to make the plans economically unviable.  With such stringent conditions imposed the applicant felt that he would not be able to proceed with the development and as a consequence, with the hotel like many others currently running at a substantial loss, he may have no option but to close the hotel.

This results in something of a quandry.  Whilst a substantial number of objections to the development were received, the thought of Tall Trees being closed is not a happy one.  A mothballed Tall Trees would almost certainly act as a magnet for vandals and rogues of all sorts, and could well end up becoming an unsightly blight on the edge of town.  You can bet your bottom dollar that it wouldn't then take much of an upturn in the market of the vultures to start circling and piecemeal plans for development of the site to be submitted.

It's well known that it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, but I worry this situation could well deteriorate to the point of displeasing all of the people for a very long time to come.