1. BACKGROUND
   • This submission is made on behalf of Protect Congleton – Civic Society which is a non-political action group that offers support and advice to the inhabitants of Congleton and surrounding districts with regard to planning issues, applications and plans. We have a remit to help protect the green areas and historic environment of our town and members of the group are currently participating actively in the Neighbourhood Planning process for the town of Congleton.
   • Protect Congleton – Civic Society made a submission to the previous Inquiry held by the Committee on the NPPF and felt that the Committee’s findings were fair, balanced, and made a reasonable summary of the apparent on-the-ground effects of the NPPF. We were disappointed, therefore, that the Government failed to heed the suggestions and advice for improvements made by the Committee.
   • In our own area of Congleton and Cheshire East we have failed to see any improvement in the functioning of the planning system since our earlier submission. The progress of the Cheshire East Local Plan remains slow although a great deal of work has been undertaken by the Local Authority. It remains unclear whether the Inspector will be able to accept the plan and in the hiatus there is a continuation of off-plan development and lack of coherence in the system.
   • In response to this situation there are 49 Neighbourhood Plans in preparation in the Borough. This in itself, is a statement of the failures of the system. Local planning costs a lot of money and there has to be a question whether the resources could not be better spent elsewhere given the relentless drift towards centralisation in the decision-making process.
   • Since the start of the current plan period (April 2010) completions have remained persistently low with only 3552 dwellings built over the first five years. Yet Cheshire East is one of the largest rural boroughs and on the doorstep of the wider Manchester conurbation. There has been some improvement during the last three years but even during this period only 26% of existing permissions have been built. Although developers claim this is because of lags in processing of permissions this does not seem to be the position in most cases and it seems more likely that demand has been over-estimated.
   • Build-out rates remain persistently low at between 20 and 25 per annum per site on larger projects. At recent Local Plan examination meetings it was made clear by representatives from development companies that they were not prepared to attempt higher build-out rates and they maintained that on shared sites the rates should and would be lower. In an era when housing shortages are repeatedly cited as a major problem this is astonishing. Various reasons were given but the predominant cause seemed to be a feeling that the market was not right. This low build-out rate provides developers with an opportunity to demand more permissions because of the five-year supply rules. It is impossible to see how, with such low build-out rates, our authority would ever achieve a five-year supply.
   • In the absence of an adopted Local Plan and a five-year housing supply, the area remains open to off-plan and knee-jerk decision-making. In this town alone, the repercussions have included abandonment of parts of a much-needed partial by-pass scheme and slow delivery in the supply of lower-end affordable housing. Our Borough Council has recently taken the step of complaining to the Government about this situation, something which, as a staunchly Conservative area, they have previously been reluctant to do.
   • A situation has now been reached here where developers are starting to abandon sites where they have already obtained planning-permission, including through the appeal system. Examples include a site with permission for retirement homes which is no longer considered big enough and a site for housing which is not drainable. Clearly the developer’s own pre-application work must have shown these issues and the doubts of the LA as to site suitability were over-ridden by Inspectors. There seem to be no criteria for judging site “viability” and many decisions by Inspectors seem to be reached through some complex and tortuous “weighing” of factors. It seems unscientific and ultimately unreliable.
   • The local housing associations have stated that they will take four years to recover from recent rent reductions and that they do not expect to be able to fund any additional affordable homes for that length of time. Additionally, the implications of Right-to-buy in their sector is expected to have an even longer-term impact on provision of affordable housing both at local and national level. Up to now they have purchased a lot of the affordable homes being built in our district. Who is going to fill this gap?
   • Housing sales are struggling to reach their pre-recession levels in this district and it is really unclear whether the kinds of houses being provided by mass-housing providers meet the needs and requirements of the local market. At a recent Local Plan examination meeting it was suggested by some representatives from the industry that the market in many of the areas with existing permissions had been exhausted. A statement from one major house-builder was that permissions were in the wrong places and that more permissions were needed in greenbelt areas. It was unclear how this was to be achieved given that greenbelt land release was a cause for concern for the Inspector and is, in theory, opposed by the Government.
   • Local growth predictions are very much predicated upon future economic development. Some of this is so speculative and unrealistic that it is impossible to understand how it could be achieved. In this area, where many localities have predominantly ageing populations, most assessments of housing need are based on predictions of inward migration that has failed to happen to date. It is a growing concern, therefore, that whilst housing might be permitted and even built, the system is failing to provide the infrastructure that will stimulate job creation at local level. Particularly in rural areas, where public transport is poor and jobs scarce, the anticipated inward migration may well continue to fail to materialise. There are historic trends and patterns that support this view.
   • The position for our local authority is unfair. They have been attempting to make a local plan for some years but they face constant criticism. The house-building industry opposes everything and will not accept any culpability for the failure to build. Currently, these companies are posting record profits and record dividends. At the same time, those with social housing needs are being let down and young people attempting to get on the home-ownership ladder are constantly asked to pay exorbitant prices for small and uninspired homes on crowded estates. This may fit well with the business models of development companies but the planning system appears to have been designed to increase profitability in the private sector rather than meeting community aspirations and social need.
2. SPECIFIC POINTS OF CONCERN
   
   Against this background, where existing legislation doesn’t appear to work successfully, it is difficult to assess the value of the proposed extra legislation. The questions that it raises are as follows:
   • RELEASE OF GREENBELT LANDAs cited in 1.10 above, the developers who operate in this Local Authority are keen to see greenbelt released for building but an attempt to build a new village in a greenbelt area is a major sticking point in the Local Plan process. The area of the Borough which is closest to the nearest conurbation, Manchester, and which has the best public transport provision, is protected by the greenbelt. As a result, the northern settlements have experienced very little in the way of building since 2010.

As an example of this, although the Parliamentary Constituency of Tatton covers several towns in the north of the Borough, there were fewer than 200 dwellings added to its housing stock in the whole of the first five years of the plan period. Nor is there any proposal to increase the housing supply significantly in that area. Paradoxically, this is an area where housing costs are very high. Tatton Estate Management point out that only 6.4% of the population in the Knutsford district can afford the median house price. (This compares with 33.3% in Congleton, a town with little greenbelt protection but with extremely poor connectivity and public transport links and a declining local economy). Tatton Estate points out that the main people losing out in this situation are the young people in the area. The only solution to this problem would be release of greenbelt land. However, it should be born in mind that land and house values here are higher than anywhere else in the Borough. This represents the stockbroker belt of south Manchester. It is important that if greenbelt land is released it should be for affordable homes and not to provide even larger supplies of expensive market housing. It is very important that any such release should be accompanied by strict controls and conditions to prevent even further manipulation of the planning system to maximise profits for house-builders.

• CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHANGES TO DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSINGAs mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the provision of affordable homes is a constant concern in many areas of this borough. Whilst in Congleton we have a higher percentage of affordable housing than elsewhere in the authority, we have lower wages and higher commuting costs. The median annual wage in 2014 was £31,300. As a median figure, there are clearly many people who earn much less than this. It is difficult to see, therefore, how those most in need of affordable housing are going to be able to afford to sustain house purchase if the new definition is applied. 20% below a market price of £250,000 is still a sizeable chunk of repayment for even those on the median wage. The main concern must be whether developers will only build to the maximum price and whether this definition can be used to justify price hikes. It is difficult, especially in view of the comments from our Housing Associations mentioned in paragraph 1.9 above, to understand who will be able to afford to buy housing if builders were to use this provision to excuse continuing to build expensive housing.
• THE HOUSING DELIVERY TEST AND ITS IMPLICATIONSAs outlined above, there are already severe penalties for local authorities which are not delivering a percentage of their housing requirement. This does not take into account that local authorities are not in any way able to deliver the housing, the responsibility resting with the development and building sector. This is already a ridiculous piece of legislation. The crux of the matter is that, whilst councils are responsible for defining housing need, establishing a number and giving or withholding planning permissions, they have no power to enforce delivery. The sector that has almost exclusively been given the responsibility to deliver, the private building sector, has openly and repeatedly stated that it will only build if it can sell. The supply of money is key to this and in the event that this runs out or that there is another recession, then the sector will stop building. It is alarming that the responsible ministers do not seem to be able to grasp this fairly simple and obvious economic fact of life. Experience in this Borough has not shown that the application of either the Liverpool or Sedgefield methods has resulted in additional output which is wholly dictated by the market and economy. Please see the comments and figures in paragraphs 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 above.
• PROPOSALS FOR THE USE FOR HOUSING OF COMMERCIAL LANDS AND DEVELOPMENTSWhilst in principle we support the use of brownfield sites for housing development, we have some concerns on the impact of future economic growth arising from transferring land use without any local controls. At local level we have some experience of the impact of conversion from economic to housing because the original economic bases of our town, the textile industry and agriculture, have vanished or declined. There has been extensive conversion of use over the years with the result that the town has become more and more a commuter settlement, albeit one with appallingly poor connectivity and public transport. Attempts to rebuild the economy have led to the need to allocate greenfield sites for economic development and infrastructure such as schools. The spatial distribution of the town is affected by this, which in a town that has transport and traffic issues, is a matter of concern. Whilst we understand that there will still be some planning constraints, it is the ad hoc nature of the results of the proposals that is worrying.
• TIMING AND LENGTH OF THE CONSULTATIONWe are grateful to the Committee and the Chairman for having challenged the Government on this matter and for having secured an extension to the Consultation period. Whilst we do not believe that anyone in the Government either listens to us or values our comments, we welcome the opportunity to respond to such consultations. We are deeply committed to our community and we take very seriously what has been happening to our town and the surrounding areas as a result of the planning system currently in operation. It would have been very difficult to respond to the Consultation without the time extension.

3. CONCLUSIONS
   • Planning ministers still seem to be unable to understand that the existing planning system is still not providing homes in either the quantities or the prices that are needed. Nor is it providing the infrastructure that will enable communities and populations to thrive. Comment and consultation on this is dominated by the people in the sector that obtains pecuniary benefit from this system. The motivation behind the amendments seems to spring from a deep-seated belief that reduction of regulation will sort the matter out. We do not subscribe to this view. We think that the NPPF is deeply flawed and that these proposals are tinkering around the edges without first understanding cause and effect.
   • The Local Plan process in many places, and Cheshire East is a prime example, appears to have degenerated into a battle between developers, communities and the Local Authority. Nobody in government ever seems to question this position or to ask whether the system is really workable. It appears to be consuming vast amounts of public resources without either providing the necessary housing or the infrastructure. The Ministers responsible for this debacle seem to misunderstand the effects and make vastly exaggerated and incompatible claims about the efficacy of their planning system.
   • It is very unclear why the Government appears to believe that these proposals will create a significant boost for housing supply given that it is market forces which appear to be the dominant factor. Nor is it clear how the downside of this system, low provision of infrastructure and “unplanned” development is going to be helpful to communities that are already struggling to cope with historical problems such as inadequate roads, flooding or failure of public transport systems in rural areas. The inescapable conclusion is that the provisions of the NPPF have benefitted the private market suppliers through increased profits, but they have not lowered housing costs or provided adequately for those who cannot afford to buy. The proposed amendments appear to provide more of the same.
   • Communities across the country who are paying the price for this blight need political champions to sort out the mess. Government needs to recognise and admit that the system isn’t working. As stated in paragraph 1.2, Protect Congleton – Civic Society felt that the DCLG committee had listened and proposed some sensible changes to the system. It is our view that the members of that committee should hold the Government to account for what seems to us to be a continuing shambles in the planning system. We should very much like to see the committee reiterating the need for reform of selected elements of the NPPF, in particular, to rebalance the presumption to build, sensible support for those councils striving to achieve a Local Plan, and a stronger definition and re-balancing of the application of the principles of sustainability.

Protect Congleton – Civic Society

 

Chairman: Nicholas Light

Vice-Chairman: Jenny Unsworth