Ribble Valley Borough Council are seeking independent counsel's advice on the 123 home development made by the VH Partnership on land behind Higher Road, refused by the RVBC Planning Committee following the decision by a government planning inspector who rejected the Council's view in the appeal and granted planning consent.
Ken Hind Leader of RVBC and Longridge councillor commented '' it is essential for proper planning in the Borough and for the Borough to put this matter under scrutiny and get independent advice on the issues.”
''One of a number of arguments that was put forward by the RVBC and by Longridge objectors was that the the Borough had a 5 year supply of development land so we had sufficient established need for homes and could refuse the application. The 5 year supply is calculated on the number of homes that successful planning applicants inform the council will be built on their sites over the next 5 years .Without hearing any evidence from those involved in developing these sites the inspector substituted his figures for those put forward by the council which was based on the information from the commercial developers. No evidence was called by the VH Partnership from these developers to say their figures were wrong they merely made assertions accepted by the inspector without calling any evidence, substituting his view for that of the council.”
''The Inspector decided that on his calculations we only have a 4 year and 6 month supply which does not permit us to reject applications on this ground .The whole decision is based on this issue. It also means that we are wide open to further.speculative development and it reduces the effectiveness of RVBC's Core Strategy. The officers believed and advised that we had a 5 year supply enabling RVBC to resist this appeal. The sites in the RVBC which the inspector has excluded from our calculations are mainly in other parts of the Borough.”
''In the appeal hearing Brian Holden, John Murphy and Kenneth Cooper spoke for the residents of Higher Road .Between the 4 of us we prepared a submission which we divided into 3 parts and each put the issues. In addition Anthony Ingram a retired planning officer from Chaigley Road also made a submission against the application.”
''The inspector ignored one of our other main arguments. In Longridge there are 289 completed homes, 1038 outstanding planning consents, total 1327. The Core Strategy figure is 960 reduced by 200 for homes built in Preston,taking Longridge well over the minimum plan figure. This supports the contention that there is no identifiable need for this application and the market is saturated.”
''I have briefed Nigel Evans MP on the serious consequences to the Borough of this decision and he has agreed to take up the matter with the minister and suggests I go with him to put the case.”
''All this problem is caused by applicants for planning consent manipulating the rules. They take the maximum 3 years permitted under the rules before starting building and in some cases get an additional 6 months whilst they delay negotiations over 106 agreements which require developers to make infrastructure contributions to roads, schools and other matters. The system takes very little account of market considerations for developers who will not build if they cannot sell, hence they delay. This means that Councils like RVBC who follow the rules, get caught out by land banking, market considerations and delays of those granted planning consent.”
''There is an agricultural covenant on part of the development site which is not taken into consideration under planning Law but is a matter courts can consider under private Law. It is possible that proceedings can be taken in a court to enforce the covenant and this will depend on taking legal advice and those residents who have this covenant in their deeds wishing to enforce it. It is open to residents by crowd funding the costs to support such a court application which will be brought against the main landowner in the VH Partnership whose property is covered by the covenant.”