Service Stations in the Grey Belt, Local Plan SoS and other news...
Whilst we all wait for the PIB to take flight,* I thought I would take a few minutes to recap some of the events of the last week.
It has been moderately eventful.
Secretary of State intervenes in South Tyneside Council's Local Plan
On Wednesday, the Housing Minister wrote to South Tyneside Council, directing the Council to submit its draft local plan for examination by 12 March 2025. The full letter can be found here.
The Council had twice voted not to proceed with its draft local plan, but has now reportedly confirmed that it will do so in the light of the intervention.
I believe that this is the first time this administration has intervened in Local Plan production**, but I strongly suspect that it may not be the last…..
Tatton Service Station - Called-In Decision
Wednesday also saw the publication of the first Called-In Decision to deal with grey belt issues, since the new PPG guidance was published.
The application concerned the delivery of a new motorway service station in the Cheshire green belt - between junctions 7 and 8 of the M56, if we are being precise. By way of spoilers: permission was granted.
The inquiry opened in October and closed before the publication of the new NPPF - so all of the grey belt analysis is set in out paragraphs 32 to 37 of the Secretary of State's decision letter.
As it is a rather concise bit of analysis, these paragraphs are set out in full below.
"32.The Secretary of State has therefore gone on to consider the proposal against current national Green Belt policy, which is a material consideration in this case. She has first considered whether the application site meets the definition of grey belt, as set out in the glossary to the revised Framework, and has gone on to consider whether it meets the relevant criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the revised Framework.
33.For the reasons set out at IR7.8 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the site does not play any role in checking the sprawl of large built up areas or in preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another and that Green Belt purposes a) and b) are not engaged. For the reasons set out in IR7.9 she further agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the site does not contribute to preserving the setting and special character of any historic town and would not conflict with the purpose of assisting urban regeneration and that purposes d) and e) are not engaged. In light of the conclusions that purposes a), b), d) and e) are not engaged the Secretary of State considers that the site does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes a), b) or d). She has also considered whether the relevant matters set out in the Framework footnote 7 provide a strong reason for refusing the application. Given her conclusions on heritage (paragraphs 23-24 above and 44 below), habitats sites (paragraphs 25-26 above) and flood risk - surface water issues and ground water (paragraph 28 above) she considers that none of these matters provide a strong reason for refusal. She therefore considers that the site meets the definition of grey belt in the Glossary of the Framework.
34. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider whether all the applicable criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework are met. She has concluded at paragraph 33 above that the site would utilise grey belt land. She has further considered the remaining Green Belt in the plan area, and whether the development would fundamentally undermine the Green Belt purposes (taken together) of that remaining Green Belt as required by paragraph 155(a). She has concluded at paragraph 33 above that four out of five of the Green Belt purposes (a, b, d and e) are not engaged. For the reasons set out at IR7.8-IR7.26 she agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR7.26 that in the context of this proposal only purpose c), to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, is engaged and that the site plays a limited or weak role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Secretary of State has further taken into account that the application site is essentially a standalone pocket of land, within the countryside, predominantly bound by highways infrastructure (IR7.8). Overall, in the particular context of this site and this proposal, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. She considers that criterion 155(a) is therefore met.
35. The Secretary of State has concluded that there is a need for an MSA in this location (paragraphs 13-16 above), and therefore considers that criterion 155(b), that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, has been met.
36. The Secretary of State has further found that the development is in a sustainable location (paragraphs 17-22 above). She also considers that the proposals comply with paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework having regard to the type of development proposed, the identified strategic need for an MSA in this location, traffic impacts and highway safety (paragraph 18 above), accordance with DfT Circular 01/2022 requirements (IR1.53) and the sustainable transport measures secured (paragraphs 21-22 above). Overall she considers that criterion 155(c), that the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, would be met.
37.The Secretary of State has concluded that the criteria in paragraph 155(a)–(c) are met. Paragraph 155(d) does not apply to the proposal, as it does not involve the provision of housing. Consequently, under paragraph 155 the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and in line with paragraph 153 and footnote 55, she is not required to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness."
Local Plans continue to fall…
The week has also seen a couple of local plans either fail to pass or be withdrawn from examination, including:
Which indicates that PINs is taking its orders to progress plans expeditiously very seriously indeed.
Research Priorities, Regeneration and BTR Loans
And finally…. as Hey Duggee is starting to lose its allure and I need to make a start on breakfast….. A few other bullet pointed headlines.
- MHCLG published a list of its “areas of research interest” earlier this week. The list includes topics such as land value capture, facilitating housing delivery and tackling the issue of vacant properties.
- This week also saw the launch of MHCLG's prospectus for Neighbourhood Regeneration Boards and a list of the 75 places selected to trial them. The idea is to give local areas funds to design their own regeneration efforts in particularly deprived areas - and includes a variety of ‘pre-approved’ interventions - including infrastructure improvements and purchasing community assets.
- We have also seen the publication of the rules for the Private Rental Sector Homes Guarantee Scheme - which has been set up to provide government loans to private sector developers delivering “Build to Rent” housing.
Right. I think that covers most things.
Now… can anyone remind me how to make pancakes…..
*Yes, I have been planning that one for a while
** please correct me if i am wrong.
Key Contact
