“There is some scope for disadvantage to the claimant if a stay is not granted, but I do not regard the difficulty of arguing for the inclusion of this site [in] the consultation process, or, at a later stage, if the current decision about it is unlawful, as being significantly greater than it would be if a stay is granted and the claimant has to put forward its argument at a later stage. Clearly the consultation document has reached a very advanced stage and is ready probably for distribution. In so far as one is contemplating an institutional reluctance to reconsider, that is present whatever happens and what is required is a decision on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the decision and how that should be remedied.”
“2.1 As Members will be aware the recent Hampshire County Structure Plan Review Consultation Document “Hampshire 2011” identifies (inter alia) a Major Development Area at Manydown to the west of Basingstoke. The area is identified as being capable of accommodating between 3,500 and 8,500 dwellings and associated development. 2.2 It has been recognised that as ownership of land provides additional control over the nature of development, it is the preferred solution for large-scale development (as for example at Chineham). As the proposed Major Development Area in question falls within a single ownership (The Manydown Estate) discussions have been sought with the owners and the County Council to establish whether opportunities exist for jointly influencing and bringing about the satisfactory development of the area. … 2.7 The two Councils are therefore presented with a significant opportunity to work together to secure the successful development of the Major Development Area similar in scale to the County Council’s successful scheme at Chineham. It is considered that this opportunity should not be missed.”
“3.1 Members should be aware at this juncture that in planning terms the land in question has not progressed beyond its identification as a possible future development site. … 3.5 Ownership enables tight control over the phasing of development which otherwise is in the control of the developer. In the event of this land being approved in development plans for residential or other use, ownership will enable a high degree of control over any adverse impacts on the residents of Oakley, Worting and Kempshott.”
“4.1 There is no doubt that if the area is developed both authorities would make substantial financial gains. There is, however, a risk that the area will not be developed in the next Structure Plan period. Even so there must still be a long term development prospect for this site. … 4.2 The Council’s objectives in purchasing the site, in partnership with the County Council, would be: (i) To achieve a properly planned, comprehensive development of the area. (ii) To secure land for low cost housing in accordance with existing Council policy. (iii) To achieve a financial gain which, in turn, could be put, inwhole or in part, to further housing initiatives. 4.3 The partnership with the County Council is important for many reasons. In particular there will be requirements for infrastructure investment prior to the first land sales. This load needs to be shared. …”
“5.1 Both the County Council and the Borough Council have power underSection 227 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire land which is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of the area in which the land is situated. Both Councils therefore need to be clear what proper planning purpose they are seeking to achieve by acquiring the land. UnderSection 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 Councils may discharge their functions jointly so the land may be held jointly. …”
“(i) Approve the proposal to work jointly with Hampshire County Council to secure the successful development of an area of land to the west of Basingstoke. (ii) Approve the submission of an offer of up to£10 million for the purchase (jointly with Hampshire County Council subject to a resolution of the County Council to the join with the Borough Council) of the freehold interest in approximately 805 hectares (1,990 acres) of land at Manydown Basingstoke on terms and conditions to be agreed. (iii) Approve the use of up to£5 million of set-aside LSVT receipts to allow the Council to meet its 50% share of the purchase price. (iv) Approve an arrangement to use an additional£5 million of set-aside LSVT receipts to enable Hampshire County Council to meet its agreed share of the purchase price on terms and conditions to be agreed with the County Council by the Director of Resources.”
“On the18th July 1995 the Policy Committee (i.e. Council as landowner) received a report from the Strategic Management Group concerning an opportunity to acquire (jointly with the Hampshire County Council) an extensive area of freehold land between Oakley and the town. The Committee approved and the Council resolved on27th July 1995 to work jointly with the County Council, to submit an offer of up to£10 million to purchase the freehold of approximately 805 hectares (1990 acres). Approval for use of Large Scale Voluntary Transfer receipts was given as was an approval in principle to enable the County Council to take a half interest in the purchase.”
“What is proposed is an inter-authority transaction which is based upon an equal partnership with both authorities exercising their concurrent legal powers undersection 227 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 . These powers allow the Councils to acquire land by agreement for the purpose of gaining additional control through ownership in order to achieve the proper planning of the Council’s areas. This is based on equal contribution to the purchase price and equal accounting for the management costs and rent. Should the land ever be allocated for development by the Structure and Local Plan processes then the proposal is that the Councils have equal control over the location, phasing and quality of such development as well as an equal responsibility for providing infrastructure to enable that construction. Should any of the allocated development result in a net surplus to the Councils then this would also be shared equally.”
“(i) … approve the principles of the proposed joint purchase and future management of the land at Manydown with the County Council as set out in section 3 of this report.”
“In approving the negotiations for the acquisition of the land at Manydown, the Policy Resources Committee recognised the potential benefits to the County Council of achieving a comprehensive and high standard of development which could be achieved through its joint ownership of the land which had been identified in the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review Consultation Document (Hampshire 2011) as one of four Major Development Areas.”
“It is intended that the Property will be purchased by [the Council] pursuant to Sections 226 and 227 [of the 1990 Act] for the purposes and in accordance with the provisions set out in those Sections and pursuant to its powers and duties under these and all other enabling legislation”
“From the Trigger Date (unless otherwise agreed) the parties will form the team referred to in Clause 6.7 and the Property will be managed by such team”
“The JDC shall manage the Property in accordance with the overall strategic objectives referred to in Clause 7.1…”
“7.1 The parties agree that 7.1.1 the primary purpose of this Agreement is the fulfilment of their property obligations and powers including the development of the land and they also agree and recognise that nothing in this agreement will fetter the powers or affect the duties of either party in its capacity of planning authority and 7.1.2 their overall strategic objective is to achieve the better planning of the area by (without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing) ensuring the provision of high quality comprehensive development with public facilities provided at the right time in the right place and in the right amount. Clauses 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the agreement recognised that the land might not be allocated for development. Provision was made for a review mechanism. The agreement also provided for the eventuality that the land could not be developed.” 7.1.1 the primary purpose of this Agreement is the fulfilment of their property obligations and powers including the development of the land and they also agree and recognise that nothing in this agreement will fetter the powers or affect the duties of either party in its capacity of planning authority and 7.1.2 their overall strategic objective is to achieve the better planning of the area by (without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing) ensuring the provision of high quality comprehensive development with public facilities provided at the right time in the right place and in the right amount. Clauses 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the agreement recognised that the land might not be allocated for development. Provision was made for a review mechanism. The agreement also provided for the eventuality that the land could not be developed.”
“15. The Land is held pursuant to section 226 of the 1990 Act and it is held pursuant to a separate function than the functions of the Council as local planning authority, which of course include the preparation of the LDF including the Core Strategy. The Defendant sought Counsel’s advice as to how to separate the Council’s landholding functions from its plan-making and development control functions. The relevant Committees were set up based on that advice. 16. The Council as landowner is considering the potential of the Land in relation to proper planning of the area and is looking to establish a high quality of development at the right time in accordance with the Joint Development Agreement. This may well embrace wide considerations. For example, in considering the proper planning of the area at the right time, it could be relevant to reflect current economic circumstances as well as matters such as infrastructure.”
“When Hampshire County Council and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council purchased 820 hectares of the Manydown Estate in 1996, following its identification in the Draft County Structure Plan, they did so, in the words of the Town and Country Planning Act under which the purchase took place, “to ensure the proper planning of the area”
“1.16.60 There would be substantial harm to the rural character of the open countryside to the west of Worting and there is a high degree of uncertainty about the impact on SAMs. The acceptability of accommodating on alternative sites the 1,800 dwellings now expected to be required on greenfield sites and proposed in this MDA does not appear to have been tested by the Council. I am therefore not convinced that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land is necessary for the provision of the amount of housing required to 2016. Together, these factors also weigh against retaining the MDA. Reducing the western extent of development to minimise the impact on the wider countryside would make the suggested district centre poorly located, thus failing to achieve the most sustainable pattern of development. 1.16.61 The Council place considerable emphasis on the benefits that can be achieved from planning a large scale development in one place over an extended period. I am not persuaded that the MDA would deliver greater planning benefits than the same scale of development in a different pattern. There is also little evidence to indicate that the MDA would create real benefits for the existing residents on the western edge of the town. 1.16.62 I accept that good planning should seek a long term rather than a short term view, but any long term proposal must be able to respond to changed circumstances. The MDA as proposed does not have this flexibility in critical aspects. Embarking on the MDA now would not represent good long term planning because of the uncertainties I have identified and the possibility that a development lacking good accessibility/sustainability would result. There are no major advantages from making this allocation now to outweigh the harm, disadvantages and uncertainties I have identified. The MDA should not remain in the Plan.”
“Legally, the land was acquired and is being held for the purposes of the development and proper planning of the area – there are no time restrictions as to how long the land can be held before a development decision.”
“More specifically the Agreement sets out that: • The purpose of the Partnership is – “the fulfilment of their property obligations and powers including the development of the land” • The overall strategic objective is – “to achieve the better planning of the area by ensuring the provision of a high quality comprehensive development with public facilities provided at the right time in the right place and in the right amount.”
“5.1 Briefly, the Inspector’s report on the Manydown development proposal can be summarised as follows: • The Inspector recommended that the Plan ends in 2011. … By implication, the Inspector’s recommendation deleted the allocation of the Manydown land for residential development (which was proposed for the period 2011-2016). • The Inspector was, however, partially supportive of the vision of the intended Manydown development referring to a “laudable vision of a sustainable urban extension” and “My recommendation to delete the Manydown MDA at this stage should not be taken as rejecting the concept of a sustainable western urban extension to Basingstoke”
“It is important that, in considering any change in approach to Manydown, the Executive committee is aware of the legal and financial implications and the potential risks, particularly bearing in mind the County Council’s wish to continue to promote the land for development, irrespective of the Borough Council’s position, and also the recently expressed views on behalf of the Trustees.”
“Without a resolution of the waste water treatment and motorway junction capacity issues, it would not be possible for Manydown to be allocated as an MDA. As both these issues are generic to further longer term development, and not site specific, they are not capable of resolution by the JDC which would therefore need to await the outcome of the infrastructure investigations being undertaken by the Local Planning Authority. Accordingly, there is therefore a justification for suspending, for the time being, the active promotion of the land until such time as the outcomes of this work are known.” • The purpose of the Partnership is – “the fulfilment of their property obligations and powers including the development of the land” • The overall strategic objective is – “to achieve the better planning of the area by ensuring the provision of a high quality comprehensive development with public facilities provided at the right time in the right place and in the right amount.” • The Inspector recommended that the Plan ends in 2011. … By implication, the Inspector’s recommendation deleted the allocation of the Manydown land for residential development (which was proposed for the period 2011-2016). • The Inspector was, however, partially supportive of the vision of the intended Manydown development referring to a “laudable vision of a sustainable urban extension” and “My recommendation to delete the Manydown MDA at this stage should not be taken as rejecting the concept of a sustainable western urban extension to Basingstoke”
“The Committee must take account of the current position of the County Council and of the views of the Trustees. Accordingly, included as Appendix 5 is a risk assessment, which includes the legal implications. In summary: 1. No change in policy – continue to promote development/marketing of land via JDC. No risk of challenge. 2. Temporary cessation of activity in promoting Manydown land for development. This can be justified in terms of awaiting further reports on infrastructure and sewerage capacity and would attract a minimal risk of challenge. With the cooperation of the JDC members and with the benefit of further negotiations between the Borough and County Councils the work of the JDC could revert to more of a management role until further notice. 3. Change in policy – significant risk of challenge, as the Borough Council would clearly be in breach of both the strict terms and spirit of the JDPA. The County Council would need to act firmly to protect its interests.”
“On the basis of this report, and consideration of all the options and implications, officers consider that the Executive Committee would be justified in making a recommendation to full Council on 20 July that the Borough Council should cease to support the promotion of the Manydown land for development for the time being.”
“The [Manydown] Executive Committee recommends to full Council that: (1) the Borough Council’s involvement in the active promotion of the Manydown Land for development should be suspended for the time being, pending, inter alia, the outcome of the work on major infrastructure. (2) that officers be authorised to enter into discussions with the County Council to secure the reversion of the role of the Manydown Land Joint Development Committee to that of a Joint Management Committee.” (1) the Borough Council’s involvement in the active promotion of the Manydown Land for development should be suspended for the time being, pending, inter alia, the outcome of the work on major infrastructure. (2) that officers be authorised to enter into discussions with the County Council to secure the reversion of the role of the Manydown Land Joint Development Committee to that of a Joint Management Committee.”
“the Borough Council’s involvement in the active promotion of the Manydown Land for development should be suspended for the time being pending, inter alia, the outcome of the work on major infrastructure”
“The Local Plan Inspector recommended the deletion of the Manydown MDA from the Local Plan and that it should be considered as an option under the preparation of the LDF. These recommendations have been accepted by the LPA. The LPA is now embarking on the consideration of major strategic infrastructure issues. In these circumstances, and having considered all the options and implications, the Executive Committee concludes that it should recommend to Full Council on 20 July that the Borough Council should cease to support the promotion of the Manydown land for development for the time being.”
“[The] Deed of Variation was not completed formally. However [the Council] did proceed with its landowner “time out”, its Local Planning Authority investigations into infrastructure and preparation process for the [LDF] and [the County Council] continued its promotional activities.”
“The Core Strategy document will now deal with the allocation of land for strategic site(s) for residential development, which was previously to be considered within a separate Development Plan Document on ‘Allocations’. The LPA is currently working on a Vision and Key Objectives for the Core Strategy before moving onto consider Strategic Spatial Distribution. It is currently understood that there will be Public Consultation on the Core Strategy ‘Preferred Approach’ towards the end of 2009, and that the LPA is working towards adoption of the Core Strategy towards the end of 2011. As part of this work the LPA is prepared, utilising external consultants, a Draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment[“SHLAA”], which included the land at Manydown and was the subject of public consultation duringSeptember / October 2008.The recommendation of the Consultants in preparing the Technical Assessment of the Draft SHLAA was that the Manydown land (referred to as the West of Basingstoke MDA) “should be considered further through the LDF process.”
“…As the LPA’s work on major infrastructure continues any active promotional activity by [the Council] as landowner remains suspended. The [County Council’s] Decision to also suspend active promotion for the time being is now consistent with the [Council’s] Decision of July 2006.”
“It has also been agreed by the [County Council] Executive Member for Policy & Resources that [the County Council] continues to recognise as landowner that Manydown retains the long term development potential for which it was acquired under an agreement between the two Councils. As a consequence, the County Council will continue technical investigations on a town-wide basis and notably into the transportation and infrastructure requirement of its strategic landholdings in the Basingstoke area. The outcome of these investigations and those of the Local Planning Authority will inform the County Council’s responses to the first and subsequent reviews of [the LDF].”
“6.3.3 With effect from30 January 2009 until the Review Date (which was defined as “1st September 2011 or if later the date of the adoption of [the Council’s] Local Development Framework or any subsequent review date agreed pursuant to Clause 6.3.4) the parties hereto agree that the Property will be not be promoted by either party for any type of development through the local development planning process and neither party will separately or jointly be able to recover any costs outside the Agreed Budget from the other party (“the Second Arrangement”). 6.3.4 Upon the Review Date (or within seven days thereof) the JMC shall consider the Second Arrangement and shall decide whether to continue vary or cease the Second Arrangement taking into account and in the light of:- i) any current or emerging regional planning guidelines ii) the outcome of the Local Planning Authority’s Borough wide investigative work into the major infrastructure issues iii) the Local Planning Authority’s Core Strategy under the Local Development Framework process iv) prudent management by the parties of their respective interests in the Property pursuant to this Agreement and the Lease”. i) any current or emerging regional planning guidelines ii) the outcome of the Local Planning Authority’s Borough wide investigative work into the major infrastructure issues iii) the Local Planning Authority’s Core Strategy under the Local Development Framework process iv) prudent management by the parties of their respective interests in the Property pursuant to this Agreement and the Lease”
“Availability (legal/ownership issues) The site is owned jointly by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Hampshire County Council, through a lease agreement. The Joint Manydown Committee (comprising Members of the borough and county councils), at its meeting of1 April 2009 , considered a report by Hampshire County Council which stated that “… the Manydown land should not be actively promoted further through the borough council’s preparation of its first Local Development Framework”, and goes [on to] say: “Hampshire County Council continues to recognize as landowner that Manydown retains the long term development potential for which it was acquired under the agreement between the two councils …”
“On the basis that Manydown was not promoted by its owners for development through the current LDF Core Strategy, then any subsequent promotion would need to wait until a revision to the Core Strategy is undertaken. The current Core Strategy is not scheduled to be adopted until October 2011. Any subsequent review would be dependent on a review of the South East Plan. Realistically it would be unlikely that any review of the Core Strategy would be adopted until c.2016, at the earliest. Given the long lead-in times to development proposals of this scale (i.e. gaining outline planning permission and then reserved matters permission and then the lead in times on site before any completions have been achieved), it is suggested that a date of 2021 for the start of completions is a reasonable estimate at this stage.”
“In 2006, [the Council] and [the County Council] resolved to cease the promotion of Manydown through the LDF. As agreed at JMC and resolved by the Executive Committees this was documented by a formal deed of variation (27 September 2010 ) to the JDPA which provides for review of this position as at ‘1 September 2011 of if later the date of the adoption of [the Council’s] Local Development Framework or any subsequent review date agreed’. Therefore the site is not currently available. However, there may be longer term scope for the site to come forward if this present view is changed, as recognised in the SHLAA.”
“The site assessment process was reported to [PIOSCOM] in March 2011 setting out the methodology that would be used to assess all Category 1 sites. This methodology was endorsed by Cabinet at its meeting [on] 29 March. This included a specific criteria [sic] relating to availability and whether sites would be available during the timescales of the Core Strategy. All Category 1 sites in the SHLAA, including Manydown, were fully considered through the site assessment process as agreed. … In terms of Manydown it was concluded that the site was not currently available for allocation in the Core Strategy although there may be longer term scope for the site to come forward if the views of the landowners were to change and a review of the plan was necessary. The trigger for a review would be that there had been a key change in national planning policy or the plan was failing to deliver its objectives or there were problems with delivery of [a] particular allocated site which was impacting upon the Council’s land supply position.”
“… Manydown was included in each of the significant pieces of the evidence base such as the transport modelling, landscape study and the stage 1 biodiversity assessment in light of the fact there was a reasonable prospect that the site would be available for and could be developed at a specific point in the future (definition of availability from PPS3). …”
“Based on the above findings from the New Homes consultation, it is clear that the majority of respondents to both the questionnaire and the Market Research felt that a single large development on the outskirts of Basingstoke was inappropriate. A greater number of respondents favoured smaller developments across the borough, with extensions to existing towns and villages and, to a lesser extent, small or medium sized developments on the outskirts of Basingstoke.”
“… [It] is considered that the option of a Basingstoke focus with development spread to the larger settlements (including an allowance for regeneration, neighbourhood planning and windfalls) is likely to be one which can be fully delivered and would be considered the most appropriate in the light of the evidence base, the New Homes consultation, housing need and the prospect of neighbourhood planning. This general approach came out most favourably through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and is considered to be an approach which is ‘sound’. It is therefore recommended by officers that this approach be taken forward.”
“Having completed the site assessment work for all of the category one SHLAA sites around Basingstoke, one site has been excluded from further consideration in this report. This is the site at Manydown (BAS098) which is excluded due to the conclusions around site availability from the site assessment work. Accordingly, the site is not considered suitable for allocation in the Core Strategy due to the lack of certainty that development can be delivered during the plan period.”
“… [The officers’] report set out that the Manydown site could not be taken forward for further consideration as the site was not being promoted for development by the landowner (para 7.9). It should be noted that of the 23 sites that were assessed through the Site Assessment process, nine were suggested as site allocations to take forward into the Pre Submission Core Strategy, two were suggested as reserve sites and the remaining 12 sites (including the [Manydown] Land) were not taken forward.”
“The [Council] as Landowner has never stated that Manydown is not available, merely that they will not be promoting Manydown. Neither the [Act] nor the Development Agreement between the parties require the Council to develop the land at a particular point in time. The action taken by the [Council] is not incompatible with the powers given under the Act.”
“… [It] needs to be borne in mind that [PIOSCOM] is not scrutinising the decision not to release the Manydown land for development. That is a factor inasmuch as the land is not available because the landowners have said the land is not available but this committee itself its purpose tonight is to scrutinise the LDF course to Core Strategy [sic], housing sites and the distribution of those. It is not tonight the role of the Committee to scrutinise the decision not to release Manydown that is a landowner decision and not one that’s before this Committee looking at the local development framework. …”
“… Now it is a full [Council] policy that the Manydown land should not be promoted for development and it is within that framework that the officers of the planning department have worked. The Manydown land as it is before us tonight is not available for development and therefore it is inappropriate for that to be referred to in the work that’s taking place. Members may be frustrated by that but it remains Council policy from 2006 which hasn’t changed that the Manydown land is not available for development.”
“… [It] is clear at the beginning of [that extract] that reference is made to the landowner’s decision not to promote Manydown. Further on I am simply contrasting the role of [PIOSCOM] and the role of the Joint Manydown Committee.”
“… (3) To refer the following to [EPPOSCOM]: Manydown Development site Given the very clear concern expressed by residents from all around the borough on this matter, we call upon the appropriate members and officers to make a full and complete disclosure to Economic Prosperity and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee on why this piece of land, bought and owned on behalf of the tax-payers expressly for the purposes of accommodating (in a comprehensive fashion) additional housing, is now not being “actively promoted” as being available for development. … (6) To support the approach to the distribution of development – [i.e.] ‘a Basingstoke focus with development spread to the larger settlements spread of development to larger settlements [sic] in the borough’.”
“… [Referring] to the webcast of the EPP meeting on 4 October, the chairman of that committee agreed with the mover of the motion from P&I (Councillor Biermann) that the report should include reference to the “value judgement used in reaching the decision” (that the land is not available). When making this statement the speaker did not explicitly state which “decision” (that the land was not available) he was referring to, however, in that he was speaking to the motion from P&I, it has been assumed he is referring to the decision “not to actively promote” the land for development. The reason for giving the clarification for what this report has assumed is the apparent confusion around the use of the term “available”
“Manydown was included in each of the significant pieces of the evidence base such as the transport modelling, landscape study and the stage 1 biodiversity assessment in the light of the fact that there was a reasonable prospect that the site would be available at some point in the future, given the [landowner’s] express statements that “Manydown retains the long term development potential for which it was acquired”
“11.3 Manydown was assessed against all these headings and detailed comments given. The deliverability heading includes assessment against whether the site is available for development. The definition of “availability” is set out in the practice guidance, as being “when, on the best information available, there is confidence that there are no legal or ownership problems, such as multiple ownerships, ransom strips, tenancies or operational requirements of landowners. This means that it is controlled by a housing developer who has expressed an intention to develop, or the landowner has expressed an intention to sell … where problems have been identified, then an assessment will need to be made as to how and when they can realistically be overcome”. 11.4 The availability and certainty of the site coming forward in this plan period is fundamental to deciding whether it should become a site allocation. If it is uncertain at what point a site could be developed during the plan period then it should not be included within a Core Strategy. The assessment under this heading, made by the LPA stated: “[The Council] and [the County Council] resolved to cease the promotion of Manydown through the LDF. As agreed at JMC and resolved by the Manydown Executive Committee, this was documented by a formal deed of variation (27 September 2010 ) to the JDPA which provides for a review of this position as at1 September 2011 or if later the date the LDF is adopted. Therefore the site is currently not available. However, there may be longer term scope for the site to come forward if this present view is changed, as recognised in the SHLAA.”
“12.1 This report attempts to respond to the requirements of the referral from P&I and agreed by EPP by setting out a chronology of events from when the Manydown land was acquired to the current position. It details when decisions were made and by which committee, it explains the rationale/reasons, as documented, behind these decisions. It also addresses those issues raised by Councillors Ms James and Keating email where it is appropriate for it to do so. 12.2 Manydown is included in the SHLAA due to its potential for development in the future as recognised either explicitly or by implication by the position of both landowners. It can only be considered for inclusion in the core strategy when the landowners change their view on “promotion” of the land for development. This is on the record as being “the date the LDF is adopted” – given that other review dates have passed. However, inclusion in the Core Strategy, should the landowners views change at that date (LDF adopted) can only then be considered if a review of the plan is triggered and this can only happen in certain circumstances as explained in paragraph 11.5 above. So unless the landowners reach agreement that they wish to change their decision and review their position that they will not actively promote Manydown for development, prior to the date of the LDF adoption, the current situation remains. This would suggest that officer advice would remain the same [i.e.] that the site is not currently available and that there is no certainty that it would be developable during the 15 year plan period, providing no certainty of delivery. 12.3 Members of EPP are asked to note the contents of this report and decide whether they wish any further action to be taken and if so to agree what form that action should take.” “[The Council] and [the County Council] resolved to cease the promotion of Manydown through the LDF. As agreed at JMC and resolved by the Manydown Executive Committee, this was documented by a formal deed of variation (27 September 2010 ) to the JDPA which provides for a review of this position as at1 September 2011 or if later the date the LDF is adopted. Therefore the site is currently not available. However, there may be longer term scope for the site to come forward if this present view is changed, as recognised in the SHLAA.”
“In the context of the existing agreement between the Borough Council and the County Council (as noted by the Borough Council in July 2009) to review whether Manydown should be promoted for development once the first LDF (Core Strategy) has been adopted; being mindful of the guidance given by the Inspector at the last Local Plan inquiry; and noting the clearly expressed views of residents in their response to the New Homes Consultation in 2011, this Committee recommends that Officers are asked to report to the Manydown Executive Committee with their advice on: 1) The issues that will need to be addressed in assessing any potential for future development; 2) The processes they would recommend for addressing those issues in a sound manner; 3) The time required to undertake the above work; 4) The costs likely to be incurred by carrying out the analysis; and 5) The financial implications for the Borough Council.”
“(4) Manydown Land Availabiltiy for Development Mover: Councillor Martin Biermann Seconder: Councillor Ian Tilbury In the light of the many changes of circumstance since the Borough Council decided in 2006 to adopt a policy that no part of Manydown should be promoted for development during the current Core Strategy process, not least: (a) the identification within the SHLAA of the Manydown sites’ [sic] suitability and achievability for development within the Core Strategy period; and (b) the absence of any show stopping infrastructure constraints to development; and (c) the need to ensure a proper and fair comparison of all greenfield sites within the Core Strategy selection process this Council requires the Manydown Executive Committee, before the next Planning and Infrastructure OSCOM or11 January 2012 whichever is the sooner, to review its 2006 policy decision temporarily to not actively promote this site. Slavish adherence to that historic policy decision is unlawful and this is the time to reconsider whether that policy is consistent with the Council’s statutory responsibilities as landowner having regard to the purposes for which the land was acquired.”
“12. Full Council refused the motion on15 December 2011 , which is a reasonable decision for the [Council] to make. The motion sought to require the Manydown Executive Committee to review its 2006 decision before the next [PIOSCOM meeting] on11 January 2012 . 13. Logistically and procedurally, the motion proposed was not practical. The motion required the Manydown Executive Committee to have reviewed its decision by11 January 2012 . It would not have been possible to provide the Manydown Executive Committee with a properly reasoned report within that timescale. In addition, any decision of the Manydown Executive Committee would have to be approved by Full Council. The next scheduled meeting of which was9 February 2012 .”
“4.23 On the17 October 2011 , Cabinet agreed potential sites for inclusion in the Pre Submission Core Strategy. This did not include the allocation of the Manydown site due to the position of the landowners, who were not actively promoting the site for development, and had agreed not to review this position until the first LDF was formally adopted. 4.24 Officers would like to reiterate and expand on the reasoning behind their view that Manydown should not be included in the draft Core Strategy. The prospect of development being achieved on the Manydown site in the plan period is central to the assessment of the site’s suitability for allocation in the draft core strategy, as per the relevant tests detailed by paragraphs 54 to 57 of PPS3. The intentions of the landowners of Manydown are essential to the Local Planning Authority’s consideration of the prospect of development being achieved on the site during the plan period. To be allocated within the draft core strategy the local planning authority must be satisfied that the site must either be “deliverable” and “available now” (within years 1-5) or “developable” (within years 5-6 or 6-15)[.] Crucially, to be developable, there must be “a reasonableprospect that the site would be available and could be developed at the point envisaged”
“4.27 Applying the ‘deliverability’ test for years 1-5 of the plan (as set out in Paragraph 4.24), in the light of the landowner decisions not to promote the site, it is clear the Manydown is not “available now”
“ • A review of the suitable area of land that could be developed (previously suggested to be 327ha) • Identification of possible landowner requirements that would impact on the scale, nature and timing of any development • Identification of possible borough resident requirements that would impact on the scale, nature and timing of any development • Options regarding the scale of development and timescales • Options regarding the forms of development • Responses to public consultation on options • Infrastructure requirements for each option identified • Assessment of the financial viability of a range of options”
“Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes: (1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop; (2) strategic objectives for the area focusing on the key issues to be addressed; (3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and (4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.” (1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop; (2) strategic objectives for the area focusing on the key issues to be addressed; (3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and (4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.”
“Core Strategies represent a considerable body of work and are intended to endure and give a degree of certainty to communities and investors. In particular they give a guide to where long term investment in infrastructure should be made. …”
“The ability to demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives delivers confidence in the strategy. It requires the local planning authority to seek out and evaluate reasonable alternatives promoted by themselves and others to ensure that they bring forward those alternatives which they consider the LPA should evaluate as part of the plan-making process. There is no point in inventing alternatives if they are not realistic. Being able to demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate having gone through an objective process of assessing alternatives will pay dividends in terms of an easier passage for the plan through the examination process. It will assist in the process of evaluating the claims of those who wish to oppose the strategy.”
“… s.113 was not simply a re-enactment of s.287 [of the 1990 Act, the equivalent provision for challenging old-style development plans] but a replacement for it, just as the new provisions of the 2004 Act dealing with development plans and their like replaced the earlier provisions in the 1990 Act. It is not therefore appropriate to approach s.113 as if it were a mere re-enactment in new legislation of an existing provision … It may have been based on s.287, and be the equivalent provision to s.287 in the new context, but it is a provision permitting challenges in the context of the new scheme of development plans in the 2004 Act and has to be construed according to its own provisions and language.”
“Except in so far as may be provided by this Part, the validity of – (a) a … local plan … whether before or after the plan … has been … adopted; (a) a … local plan … whether before or after the plan … has been … adopted; 81. shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever.”
“It is quite clear, in my judgment, that Parliament intended to prescribe a comprehensive programme of the events which should happen from the time the relevant authority sets in motion the consultation process mentioned in para 1 of Sch 15, and that once the order is made the prescribed procedure then follows, without any interruption for legal proceedings in which the validity of the order is questioned, until the stage is reached, if at all, when notice of a decision is given pursuant to the procedure prescribed in para 11. It is then, and then only, that Parliament intends that a person aggrieved by an order which has taken effect shall have the opportunity of questioning its validity in the High Court provided that he takes the opportunity provided for him by para 12(1) of Sch 15 …”
“(1) A local authority to whom this section applies shall, on being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, have power to acquire compulsorily any land in their area which – (a) is suitable for and required in order to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement; or (b) is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.” (a) is suitable for and required in order to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement; or (b) is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.”
“(a) if the authority think that the acquisition will facilitate the carrying out of development, re-development or improvement on or in relation to the land,”
“Where any land has been acquired or appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes and is for the time being held by them for the purposes for which it was so acquired or appropriated, the authority may appropriate the land for any purpose for which they are or may be authorised in any capacity to acquire land by virtue of or under any enactment not contained in this Part or inChapter V of Part I of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 .”
“Subject to the following provisions of this section, a principal council may appropriate for any purpose for which the council are authorised by this or any other enactment to acquire land by agreement any land which belongs to the council and is no longer required for the purpose for which it is held immediately before the appropriation; but the appropriation of land by a council by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to the rights of other persons in, over or in respect of the land concerned.”
“(1) If exercise of a pre-commencement power of a local authority is subject to restrictions, those restrictions apply also to exercise of the general power so far as it is overlapped by the pre-commencement power. (2) The general power does not enable a local authority to do – (a) anything which the authority is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, … …”. (a) anything which the authority is unable to do by virtue of a pre-commencement limitation, … …”
“21. The core strategy has an important role to play in the new framework for planning documents. That role was described in [PPS12]. ... 22. Two features of the core strategy are particularly relevant for present purposes. First, it is intended to operate for a significant period of time. … Para. 2.10 of PPS12 says that it “should set out the long-term spatial vision for the authority’s area and the strategic policies required to deliver that vision.” (Emphasis supplied).