“1.2 … RPG sets out broad strategic policies at the regional level where there are matters which, though not of national scope, apply across regions or parts of regions and need to be considered on a scale wider than the area of a single strategic planning authority. 1.3 The main purpose of RPG is to provide a regional spatial strategy within which local authority development plans and local transport plans can be prepared. It should provide a broad development strategy for the region over a fifteen to twenty year period and identify the scale and distribution of provision for new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Its task is not to provide a regional checklist of everything that should be covered in a development plan. By virtue of being a spatial strategy it also informs other strategies and programmes ….”
“2.17 The public examination is into the draft RPG as submitted by the RPB. The RPB should not then make significant changes to it or introduce major new material in the lead up to or during the examination. To do so would probably result in the examination having to be postponed to allow everyone time to consider the revised draft RPG or new material (see Annex A). However, before or during the examination, an RPB may wish to suggest more minor changes to the Panel in the event of new information becoming available, national policy developments or in response to comments made by other stakeholders on the submitted RPG. 2.18 The main purpose of the public examination is to provide an informal opportunity for discussion and testing, in public and before a Panel appointed by the Secretary of State, of selected matters arising from consideration of the draft guidance. A public examination into RPG is not an examination of all the submitted proposals nor is it a hearing of all objections. Anybody is free to make representations, although there is no right to be heard. The selection of matters and participants is for the Panel. The RPB and GO should be invited to all sessions and the Secretary of State expects that the RDA would normally be invited as well. 2.19 The public examination ensures there is public debate on selected issues where an examination could usefully provide further information. It tests the justification for the selected proposals and policies. It provides the main basis on which the Secretary of State can decide whether any changes need to be made to the draft guidance before it is issued as RPG. The public examination helps to increase the weight that can be given to RPG as a material consideration and makes decisions based on RPG more secure in the event of appeals or legal challenge. Above all, together with the resulting report of the Panel on the issues discussed at the examination, it significantly increases the transparency of the process by which draft RPG is turned into final guidance. For further details see Annex A.”
“18. As the public examination is not a forum for hearing all representations, there is no need to invite all those who objected to the proposals. Nor will it normally be necessary or appropriate to invite everyone who objected or made representations in respect of the selected matters. The Panel will need to ensure that it invites sufficient participants to ensure an effective examination of the strategic issues. This may involve inviting participants who have not made representations in order to contribute to an understanding of the strategic issues. The aim should be to select participants who between them represent a broad range of view-points and have a relevant contribution to make thereby enabling an equitable balance of differing viewpoints to be achieved in discussion ….”
“43. It is important that the public examination is conducted in an informal manner to create the right atmosphere for discussion. If possible a round table arrangement should be followed. Debate of the issues rather than the reading out of prepared position statements should be encouraged, particularly since written statements should have been circulated well before the examination …. The Panel should encourage discussion on the key points of contention in relation to each issue and sub-issue identified in the list of matters. In exploring these points the Panel will need to go beyond submitted material and lead the debate. The Panel should, therefore, pursue inquisitive chairing rather than allow a general airing of views which would not be a productive use of examination time. Some participants may wish to present their views on the selected matters through an agent or adviser. However, it is essential that this does not undermine the informal nature of the public examination. Legal representation should not be necessary. Formal legal advocacy and cross-examination is inappropriate to an informal “round table” type discussion. The Notes for Participants should make this clear. In conducting the discussion the Panel should ensure there has been sufficient discussion of the selected topics and sufficient information obtained so that properly informed recommendations can be made about them.”
“2.20 The report of the Panel which held the public examination will be submitted to the Secretary of State. The Panel report will form an important basis for the Secretary of State in considering what changes, if any, to make to the draft RPG. Other considerations will include all the representations made on the draft RPG. The Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the draft RPG will then be published (including on the internet) with a reasoned statement of the decisions, allowing eight weeks for comment. The reasoned statement will not only explain the main changes made but also decisions not to make changes recommended by the Panel, unless these are minor. There may be changes which the Secretary of State needs to make which do not relate to matters which the Panel selected for the public examination, though these are likely to be relatively minor.”
“53. The Panel report will form an important basis for the Secretary of State in considering what changes, if any, to make to the draft RPG. The Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the draft RPG will then be published (including on the internet) with a reasoned statement of the decisions, allowing eight weeks for comment. In commenting on the proposed changes, reference may, of course, be made to the Panel report. The reasoned statement will not only explain the main changes made but also where the Secretary of State has decided not to make changes recommended by the Panel unless they are very minor. Copies of the report and statement will be sent to participants in the public examination and made available to anyone else on request. 54. When publishing the proposed changes, the Secretary of State may indicate policies or proposals where advice from the RPB and other participants would be particularly welcome. Exceptionally, the GO or Department may then wish to hold meetings or otherwise contact the RPB and certain other participants as appropriate, in two sets of circumstances. Firstly, where the Panel had insufficient evidence on certain matters which were left unresolved in its report. Secondly, where the changes proposed by the Secretary of State are such that further information is required to assess whether they could be effectively applied. Publicly available minutes of such meetings or notes of the outcomes of other contacts should be kept. Where there has been such selective contact, and depending on its nature and outcome, a further consultation period may be necessary in order to give others an opportunity to comment. The above-mentioned notes and minutes should be made available as part of this process. 55. In making changes to the draft RPG, the Secretary of State will need to take account of all representations made and not just those considered at the public examination and reported on by the Panel. There may be changes which the Secretary of State needs to make which do not relate to matters which the Panel selected for the public examination, though these are likely to be relatively minor.”
“The final category of legitimate expectation encompasses those cases in which it is held that a particular procedure, not otherwise required by law in the protection of an interest, must be followed consequent upon some specific promise or practice. Fairness requires that the public authority be held to it. The authority is bound by its assurance, whether expressly given by way of a promise or implied by way of established practice. Re Liverpool Taxi Owners' Association[1972] 2 All ER 589 ,[1972] 2 QB 299 and A-G of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu[1983] 2 All ER 346 ,[1983] 2 AC 629 are illustrations of the court giving effect to legitimate expectations based upon express promises; Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service an illustration of a legitimate expectation founded upon practice albeit one denied on the facts by virtue of the national security implications.”
"to what has the public authority committed itself?"
“… Parliament did consider it appropriate expressly to provide the authority with the power in its discretion to hold a further inquiry. The fact that a proposed modification involves issues which have not been the subject of consideration at the deposit stage could be a highly material consideration in determining whether or not a further inquiry should be held. Considerations that would generally be material to that decision would include: (1) whether or not the issue raised had been previously subject to independent scrutiny by an Inspector so as to provide independent evaluation of the opposing contentions; (2) the current advice in paragraph 69 of annex A to PPG12 [that it will not normally be necessary to hold a further inquiry into matters already considered, etc.]; (3) the practical implications of a second inquiry and, in particular, whether it would potentially be of material benefit to the decision making process; (4) delay and the desirability of securing an up to date adopted development plan; and (5) fairness to the objector and to other parties; as with all decisions of this kind, the determination whether or not to hold a further inquiry should seek to achieve fairness, balancing the interests of the relevant parties; however, in the light of the Court of Appeal decision in Warren it is not appropriate in the context of a challenge to a decision whether or not to hold a new inquiry to elevate the consideration of fairness to an administrative law obligation that goes beyond usual Wednesbury principles.”
“To accord with the Panel's recommendation, and to raise the recycling targets in order to reduce the amount of greenfield development.”
“Development plans should adopt the following sequential approach to meeting development needs, taking account of local circumstances, the characteristics of particular land uses, and the Spatial Development Framework: (i) the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas, including the re-use or conversion of empty buildings (if they are sound and worthy of re-use, and/or of historic interest) - particularly those which are accessible by way of public transport, walking or cycling; (ii) the use of previously-developed land, particularly that which is accessible by public transport, walking or cycling; and then (iii) the development of previously undeveloped land, where this avoids areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs other services and infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.”
“The redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites and buildings within urban areas should be a priority …. The regional target is that at least 70% of new dwellings, including conversions, constructed in the Region from April 2002 should use previously-developed land and existing buildings in sustainable locations in line with the approach to development set out in the Core Development Principles and Spatial Development Framework ….”
“Land allocated for housing should be released in an orderly, managed, manner in accordance with the principles set out in Policies DP1-4 and SD1-9. To this end, all development plans should incorporate phasing mechanisms which: … • secure the development of previously-developed land and buildings in urban areas as a first priority.”
“Outside the Mersey Belt, development will be concentrated in the following regional towns and cities: … • Cheshire: Chester, Crewe and Macclesfield ….”
“4.16 The regional towns and cities of Preston, Carlisle and Chester act as administrative centres in their own right The two cities, along with Crewe, also form gateways to adjoining North Wales, North East England, West Midlands and Scotland and should make the best use of brownfield and urban land that is most accessible by a range of modes of transport. Many of the challenges facing the two main conurbations, particularly the need to tackle urban renaissance in an integrated fashion that promotes sustainable neighbourhoods and land use patterns, apply equally to other regional towns and cities. 4.17 In Cheshire the environment and the relative prosperity of the local economy generate demand for housing and other land uses over and above the County's own needs. This demand should continue to be resisted to support the urban regeneration of the conurbations and relieve pressure on areas of constraint within Cheshire together with traffic congestion. Provision for housing and other land uses should therefore be based principally on meeting the county's own population and housing needs. Development within and around Chester will need to respect both its historic character but also its own functional relationship to North Wales. Similarly development within Crewe must take account of its relationship with the Potteries and North East Staffordshire. In Macclesfield the focus will be on accommodating development within the existing urban areas.”
“To the north and south of the North West Metropolitan Area, development will be concentrated in the following key towns and cities: …. • to the south, Chester, Crewe, Macclesfield and Northwich ….”
“Given the continued high demand for development in the North Cheshire area, much of which is in the Green Belt, all development plan allocations in that area, specifically should be immediately reviewed to ensure that any existing and proposed land allocations for further development in the North Cheshire area are fully justified having regard to the Core Development Principles, and this Spatial Development Framework. In North Cheshire, outwith the North West Metropolitan Area, only those allocations which are sustainable and which will add significant value to the development of the national economy or which are of greater than regional significance should be retained ….”
“To provide positive guidance on North Cheshire as recommended by the Panel - R5.5 - in the context of a broader statement on maintaining urban form, bearing in mind the fact that much of North Cheshire lies within the Green Belt, and to define North Cheshire, for the purpose of this Policy, more precisely.”
“A. Much of this policy contains important new material that has not been the subject of scrutiny by the Public Examination Panel, including the requirement that all development plan allocations in the North Cheshire Area should be immediately reviewed. Because of the importance of this new material, and the extent to which it would affect interested parties including members of the Consortium, the Public Examination should be re-opened to examine it. B. There is no basis to review all existing development plan allocations in North Cheshire and seek their deletion unless they "add significant value to the development of the national economy or which are of greater than regional significance". This is an impossibly high test that cannot be met by most development proposals, other than for specialist employment purposes. No housing, retail or local employment allocation could meet such a test, although such allocations are likely to fulfil other important planning objectives, such as the need to achieve more sustainable patterns of developments as well as the other matters set out in paragraph 3.24. C. There is inconsistency in the Proposed Changes on whether development for local needs in North Cheshire should be allowed. The implication of Policy SD4 is that local needs will not be satisfied. This must be the inevitable consequence of the test that only allocations which "add significant value to the development of the national economy or which are of greater than regional significance should be retained". However, such an outcome seems inconsistent with the statement in paragraph 3.18 that Cheshire should continue to meet its own local needs. Similarly, the identification by Policy SD3 of Chester, Northwich and Macclesfield as key towns and cities where development should be concentrated also appears contrary to Policy SD4 as these towns lie within the general area defined as North Cheshire. D. The policy for North Cheshire should be less prescriptive …. … F. As the content of Policy SD4 is almost wholly new and has not been considered by the Panel, the Public Examination should be re-opened to consider it.”
"The eventual RPG will set a framework for development plans. We strongly support the expressed intention of GONW to do a clinical analysis of development plans across the whole of the Region in the light of RPG and advise local authorities whether they should be reviewed immediately. We note that PPG3 impels a review concerning housing."
“The redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites and buildings within urban areas should be a priority. New development should be encouraged to make best use of such sites in sustainable locations. Local Authorities should ensure that an average of at least 65% of new dwellings, including conversions, constructed in the region between 1996 and 2021 should use previously developed land and existing buildings in sustainable locations in line with the sequential approach to development set out in policies CS1-3 and SD1-5. However, it is recognised that variations exist in the amount of previously developed land and buildings in sustainable locations across the regions and in preparing development plans local planning authorities should adopt the following subregional targets:- • Mersey Belt Conurbation Cores, on average at least 85% • Rest of Conurbations and Other Settlements in Mersey Belt, on average at least 65% • Outside of the Mersey Belt, on average at least 50% ….”
“7.63 Table 10 in the Housing Background Paper sets out the basis for the targets included in Policy UR4. These are derived from the results of the housing potential studies …. 7.64 In paragraph 7.43 above we have referred to the reservations held by HBF and others as to the reliablity of the urban potential studies and their likely accuracy …. 7.65 There is also evidence from land use change statistics that an average of 61% of new dwellings have been built on previously developed land in the North West between 1992 and 1996. Bearing in mind that the national target is that 60% of new housing should be provided on previously developed land, and through conversions, by 2008 an overall target of 65% for the North West region, where there is a relatively high proportion of previously used land, does not seem to us to be unrealistic or unachievable …. 7.66 NWRA have recognised that there will need to be concerted effort by local planning authorities, and an increase in resources, to enable the achievement of the targets set. However, we commend these as being entirely in line with the direction taken in Government policy, most recently in the Urban White Paper. The Merseyside Policy Unit confirmed at the Examination that they foresee little difficulty in achieving either the 85% target in the conurbation cores or 65% in other parts of Merseyside. The Greater Manchester Authorities 'aspire to reaching somewhat higher proportions'. Table 10 suggests that the potential in Cheshire is 52% brownfield although Cheshire County Council stated at the Examination that they can achieve 44% although much higher proportions will be met in Chester and Macclesfield. Lancashire Joint Structure Plan Authorities may well achieve 65%, with 70% in East Lancashire. Only Cumbria expressed serious reservations about the feasibility of achieving the 50% target for their area, but NWRA recognise that the figures are average and that specific targets will be set in individual development plans. 7.67 Despite the reservations of the development industry, we consider that Draft RPG is based upon as reliable an information base as is possible at the present time …. 7.68 Both CPRE and FoE advocate a more rigorous approach …. 7.69 NHF and others hold that the 65% regional target is very low and most unambitious for the Region. The suggested proportion varies widely from 100% to 70%. We have considered whether the regional and sub-regional targets ought to be higher for the reasons set out in paragraph 7.67 above. Bearing in mind the uncertainties about true urban capacity it seems to us better to set a target which should have a reasonable prospect of being met, rather than one which is unduly aspirational …. 7.70 The inclusion of the words 'on average' in Policy UR4 suggests some form of mechanism to ensure co-ordination between the local planning authorities to achieve both the regional and sub-regional targets. From what we heard at the Examination, it appears that most local planning authorities will be able to set targets in their individual development plans at or above the sub-regional figure, but not all ….”
“The regional target is that at least 65% of new dwellings, including conversions, constructed in the region between 1996 and 2016 [should use previously developed land and existing buildings, etc.] … [and in preparing development plans local planning authorities should] aim to achieve the following targets through co-operative working within the specified areas and in conjunction with adjoining authorities: • Merseyside area (including Halton), on average at least 65%; • Greater Manchester area (including Warrington), on average at least 80%; • Cheshire 50%; Cumbria 45%; Lancashire 60%. Within the conurbation cores of Manchester, Salford and Liverpool it is expected that at least 85% of new housing will be on previously developed land.”
“The regional target is … at least 70% … and in preparing development plans local planning authorities should aim to achieve the following targets, through co-operative working within the specified areas and in conjunction with adjoining authorities: • in the Liverpool and Manchester/Salford City Council areas, on average at least 90% of new housing will be on previously developed land; • in the remainder of the Merseyside area, and Halton, on average at least 65%; • in the rest of the Greater Manchester area, and Warrington, on average at least 80%; • in Cheshire at least 55%; in Cumbria at least 50%; and in Lancashire at least 65%.”
“To accord with the Panel's recommendation, and to raise the recycling targets in order to reduce the amount of greenfield development.”
“The Consortium welcomes the emphasis that the Proposed Changes give to the recycling of previously developed land including vacant buildings. However, it considers that the increases proposed by the Secretary of State to the recycling targets are unrealistic based on its Members' considerable experience in the development of previously developed land and the likely availability of potential new sources throughout the Region. The increases are not in line with the recommendations of the Public Examination Panel who carefully considered all the evidence then available, nor is there more recent information available which would act as justification …. The Secretary of State has given no adequate reasons for the new recycling targets. The Statement of Reasons merely notes: 'To accord with the Panel's recommendations and to raise the recycling targets in order to reduce the amount of greenfield development'. These are not valid reasons. The increase in the targets have not been supported by the Panel. Moreover, an increase in the targets by itself will not reduce the amount of greenfield development required if there is insufficient previously developed land available to meet the Policy UR7 requirements. On the other hand, if the targets are maintained to the cost of other planning objectives the consequence will be that the housing needs of the Region are not met. The Guidance should revert to the recycling targets proposed by the Public Examination Panel ….”
“Local Planning Authorities should plan for a provision of 357,400 dwellings (net of clearance replacement) within the North West for the period 1996 to 2021. Development Plans should incorporate the requirements set out in Table 6.1 ….”
“7.22 We do not consider it necessary for there to be hard evidence of an upturn in the regional economy for the RPG to make provision which is above the level of the 1996 projections …. 7.23 Our overall conclusion is that there is no strong case for taking an alternative approach to that in Draft RPG. The figure for regional housing provision is aspirational and may prove too high but it is pragmatic taking account of the existing level of commitments and past building rates. The draft RPG represents a significant reduction, especially during the period after 2011, from past rates. There would, however, be dangers in making too high a level of provision which might result in unnecessary land allocations for housing, despite the monitoring systems in place. 7.24 For these reasons, we do not recommend any alteration to the overall level of provision for 1996-2021 as stated in the first part of Policy UR7, subject to our conclusion in paragraph 7.35 below about the treatment of the post-2016 period.”
“The level of housing provision, as expressed through the annual rates, has been reduced from that proposed in draft RPG. In making this reduction the Secretary of State has had regard to: • economic growth rates which have been lower than anticipated in the draft RPG; • the above-average numbers of vacant homes and the high reported incidence of low demand within the Region; and • the need to promote more sustainable patterns of development. The draft RPG level of housing provision significantly exceeds the 1996-based household projections. It has as its economic basis a 'high (maximum) growth' scenario, which utilises the 1996-based household projections and applies to them a high (2.5% annual growth in GDP) growth rate and a reduced rate of unemployment. Actual growth to date is nearer to the draft RPG's 'moderate growth' scenario, suggesting necessary housing provision would accord with the 1996-based household projections (249,000 dwellings by 2016). In the Secretary of State's view, the draft RPG level of housing provision also pays insufficient regard to vacancy rates and the incidence of low demand. Accordingly, the Secretary of State proposes the annual average rate of housing provision to be based upon a total provision of 256,000 dwellings over the period 1996-2016. Whilst this is a reduction of 15% on the draft RPG provision, it is still in excess of that implied by the 'moderate growth' scenario. Policies UR6 and UR7 are intended to reduce vacancy levels to 3% in the existing stock, and 2% in the new stock …. The process of formulating the annual rate of housing provision then involves the following stages: • starting with the number of households envisaged by draft RPG and the Panel for 2016, 288,263; • applying revised vacancy rates - 3% in the existing stock, and 2% in the new, as compared with the 4.2% rate used in the draft RPG figures for both existing and new stock; • subtracting 37,200 (the difference in dwellings between the 4.2% and the 3% vacancy rates in the existing stock), and adding 2% to reflect the vacancy rate in the new provision, to give a total provision of 256,084; • reducing the present (Panel) annualised rates by 15% (the % difference between the old (300,900) and the new (256,084) overall levels of provision; and • expressing the new rates as one series of 20-year average rates (rather than the two series used in the Panel's report, for 1996-2011 and 2011-2016) ….”
“The basis of the Consortium's objection to the proposed reduction in housing revision is as follows:- 1) There is now a substantial body of evidence that the 1996 sub-national population and household projections were based upon significant under-estimates of the likely population and households in England at 2016. Since their production the Government and other reputable organisations have produced new projections that show much higher levels of population and households in England for this period. We refer particularly to the 1998-based and 2000-based national projections produced by the Government Actuary. These show a significantly higher population for England, particularly in the key household forming age groups. Although there is no up-to-date household projection for the North West produced by Government sources, it is reasonable to assume that the Region will share at least some of the predicted population and household growth shown in these projections …. 2) Although economic growth rates may have been relatively low in the Region over the few years since 1998, it cannot be assumed that these low rates will continue over the full period to 2016 or even the next 5 years …. 3) The Secretary of State has based the proposed reduction in housing provision on achieving vacancy levels of 3% in the existing stock and 2% in the new stock by 2016. The[s]e are very low levels that have never been achieved over the Region in the modern period. The Guidance states that they are policy targets but gives no details of how they are to be secured. Although the Consortium agrees with the policy aspiration of reducing vacancy levels, it does not consider that it is safe to plan future housing provision on the basis that such very low levels will be achieved …. 4) There is no hard evidence that links incidences of low demand in the existing housing stock with the provision of new housing …. 5) Unnecessary restrictions on new house building will not achieve more sustainable patterns of development. The effect is likely to be higher house prices which in areas of greater demand will force people with limited means to commute further in order to obtain satisfactory housing …. 6) … There is a very real danger that the Proposed Changes will create a major housing crisis in the North West over the next few years, which will need to be addressed by urgent actions to release large amounts of housing land in an unco-ordinated and unplanned way …. 7) House building, including the conversion and refurbishment of existing buildings, is one of the major forces for urban renaissance. There is a very real danger that the lower housing figures set out in the Proposed Changes will significantly reduce the scope for the remodelling of urban neighbourhoods of the type set out in the Core …. 8) In parts of the North West … there are severe problems arising from population decline including decline and loss of local facilities. House building is one of the primary means by which these areas can pursue policies of population retention. The very low housing figures set out in the Proposed Changes will not allow these problems to be properly addressed. For these reasons, the Consortium considers that the rates of provision set out in the Draft RPG should be reinstated at the very least ….”
“Development Plans should adopt the following sequential approach to meeting development needs, taking account of local circumstances, the characteristics of particular land uses, and the locational principles set out in policies SD1-5: • the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure, including the re-use or conversion of empty buildings; • the use of previously-developed land, particularly that which is accessible by public transport, walking or cycling; and then • the development of previously undeveloped land, where this avoids areas of important open space, is well-located in relation to houses, jobs and other services and infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.”
“Development plans should adopt the following sequential approach to meeting development needs, taking account of local circumstances, the characteristics of particular land uses, and the Spatial Development Framework: (i) the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas, including the re-use or conversion of empty buildings (if they are sound and worthy of re-use, and/or of historic interest) - particularly those which are accessible by way of public transport, walking or cycling; (ii) the use of previously-developed land, particularly that which is accessible by public transport, walking or cycling; and then (iii) the development of previously undeveloped land, where this avoids areas of important open space, is well-located in relation to houses, jobs and other services and infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.”