Pendle Core Strategy

[Tardis]

Must be nigh on 1,000 pages in the copies in the library. I presume in the Council Shop too.

As pointed out (What Attracted your attention) the copies available do appear to be B&W, which does mean that most of the graphics are incomprehensible.

An electronic copy is available here:

http://www.pendle.gov.uk/corestrategy

One point: I did think that Stocks Beck fed into the Ribble, rather than the Aire as appears to be suggested by the Core Strategy

[PanBiker]

As this is the Core Strategy you would think they would be able to get the drainage routes via the natural watercourses right. They must have Barlick's water mixed up with Earby's, which of course does go t'other way.

[plaques]

A quick glance at the core strategy would suggest that Pendle needs far more wreaking balls and bulldozes than they would admit to. During the planned period more old terraced houses will become unfit for use and the post war houses will becoming to the end of their lives. The young uneducated will not be able to afford houses so it looks doom and gloom rather than the vibrant outlook that is projected. Even the plan indicates a 3000 dwelling shortfall over this period.

[Tardis]

There is quite a lot of development in the plan, especially when you consider that they're expecting a 10% rise in population but still the netflow of people out of the area, and accepting that most (20+%) will be employed outside Pendle.

Quite damning about educational standards too, and it appears that people who will leave the area tend to be 18-24, which would correspond with higher education. There must not be a lot of those types of jobs to bring them back after graduating.

[plaques]

Housing Development.

Quite clearly Pendle hope to develop an expansionist policy in both jobs and housing. This includes a population increase of approx: 8500 up to the year 2030. Consequently, although some housing models suggest 139 to 190 houses per year, Pendle have opted for 280 to 320 per year. Giving a total of 4800 (max) new houses. This would increase the total housing stock by 12.5 %. Also, in addition to these estimates, the current shortfall caused by the present recession is to be made up. Not surprisingly, although there are sufficient brown field sites to meet all these requirements, the developers do not see brown field as economically attractive as green field sites. To help matters along Pendle is prepared to release green land specifically in Barrowford so that a rolling 5 year plan can be met.

So there you have it. Set a target that is totally unrealistic and can’t be met. Then give up green land because you can’t do what you said you were going to do. Someone’s been reading Alice in Wonderland.

[plaques]

Working: Creating a Dynamic and Competitive Local Economy.

I this respect Pendle has an almost impossible task. Quote:-
“A review of districts across Britain, produced by Oxford Econometrics in 2011 revealed that Pendle is ranked amongst the weakest areas in the nation in terms of its potential for economic recovery.”
However, this does not stop Pendle from talking the talk and making upbeat noises. You will be pleased to know that:- “The former Regional Economic Forecasting Panel considered that the effects of the post-2008 economic recession will last until 2015.” Unfortunately, we don’t have an update on this forecast. In spite of having one of the highest outflow of jobs in the country, a 36% increase between 1991-2001, and some of the lowest levels of pay, Pendle are determined to ensure that there is a more than adequate supply of green industrial land throughout the planned period. So much so, that they are prepared to give up Green Belt land which is suitably accessible from the motorway. Now we know why they are pushing the Lancashire Council for a bypass from the motorway to Foulridge.
None of the above is my opinion. All this and much more is hidden in a labyrinth of words which would put “Yes Minister” to shame.

[plaques]

Core Strategy Public consultation. Find out what its all about.

Monday 20th January 16:00-20:00 Colne Lower Municipal Hall
Tuesday 21st January 16:00-20:00 Barnoldswick Rainhall Centre
Wednesday 22nd January 16:00-20:00 Barrowford Holmefield House
Thursday 23rd January 16:00-20:00 Nelson Town Hall Reception
Tuesday 11th February 10:00-16:30 Nelson Town Hall Reception

It would be impossible to read through all this bumf within six months never mind six weeks.
As the librarian said to me "it looks like they have published all this just to put people off reading it".

[Tardis]

It would be impossible to read through all this bumf within six months never mind six weeks.
As the librarian said to me "it looks like they have published all this just to put people off reading it".

Certainly the printing in B&W didn't help as previously mentioned

In my opinion a very haphazard document, created in haste, very light on actual fact to try to enforce some kind of planning policy for the Borough

[plaques]

Tardis, You are being too kind using the word haphazard. This is the most complex convoluted series of documents I've ever come across. If you are looking for some detail the best I have found so far on housing starts with this web site.
http://www.pendle.gov.uk/info/200074/pl ... ocuments/5
Scroll down the page to see various PDF downloads for towns and year ranges.
If you click Barnoldswick years 0-5 you will get another site.
http://www.pendle.gov.uk/downloads/file ... rnoldswick
From where you will be able to download a PDF. Go back to the beginning to get the other years / towns.

Within the basic assessment document I came across this..
"5.5 The type of land identified for new housing is made up of four main sources of
supply. These are: Existing Housing Allocations; Redevelopment of Commercial
Buildings; Previously Developed, Vacant and Derelict Land and Buildings; and Vacant
Land not Previously Developed. A number of Greenfield sites have been identified,
several of which will be brought forward in the five year period. This is necessary in
order to show deliverability of the housing requirement as it is this type of land
which is currently viable."

Which in layman's terms means they are releasing greenfield and greenbelt land first so that the fat cats can make a killing leaving the brownfield sites later with little or no intention of building on them.
Please tell me I am wrong. (open to anyone)

[David Whipp]

That's not a bad assessment, Plaques.

Government policy is based on a presumption in favour of development.

At the moment it's 'open season' for developers.

With an approved plan in place, there'll be more constraints on the developers. If the plan isn't approved by the Secretary of State, Open Season will continue.

The plan won't be approved unless it fits in with Government policy.

Therefore, the plan identifies a greenfield site in Barrowford as a strategic housing site.

Barnoldswick will be best served by having an approved plan in place. This will help protect against indiscriminate developer applications for housing on greenfield sites. Future housing demand in Barnoldswick can be met by using brownfield sites.

[plaques]

Thanks David, I shall be having a look at the Colne display today. At the moment I feel as though I'm just drifting about trying to find out what's going on.
Old saying, "When you don't know what you're doing, act dumb" !

[Tardis]

In the appendices there are the sites identified as Brownfield, including the Civic Hall. The bumpf alongside does state that this is unlikely to be sufficient to meet demand (minor detail I'm sure), and it must be remembered that not all brownfield sites are suitable for redevelopment for housing. I'm sure that they'll be taken on a case by case approach.

It would be nice to use the Brownfield sites for industry where appropriate too. A 10% population increase with the net outflow at 18-24 will still have an impact on people wanting to get out of the borough to work. The plan seems to pin most of it's hopes on attracting employers to Burnley and then clawing back people who have jobs in Blackburn etc.

Of course we have to wait and see if the County leaves us a useful bus service, because without it, there will be a corresponding increase in the barrier for the unemployed to get back into work.

[plaques]

The Pendle Core Strategy quotes a figure of 8.3% for the population growth between 2014 and 2030.
However, the Lancashire C C for the mid term 2012 is showing the figures below as actual measurements.

Year -- 1991. -- 2001. -- 2011.-- 2012 .
Pendle 85,500. 89,300. 89,576. 89,613. The % growth from 2011 to 2012 = 0%
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/ ... =35455&e=e

The calculated growth from 2001 to 2011 = 276 = 0.3%

Somehow we have gone from zero population growth over the last 12 years to a massive 8% increase for future years.
I suspect some hankie panky going on or am I missing something.
Getting these basic numbers wrong will upset the whole core strategy.

[Whyperion]

A problem, I think , is that a number of core strategies are either drawn up effectively by the Local Government Association/ cut'n'paste into previous years' plans and are not a proper reflection of reality, or they are outsourced to external planning 'specialists' , with no proper control at the local councilor levels.

In respect of Housing, I am confused in part of the reluctance for housing development on Pendle's brownfield sites (unless there is a strong reason for maintaining such as possible future commercial/ industrial use. I can count two or three sizable areas in Colne ready for domestic family-sized residences and I don't think there are many with substantial remedial works / contaminated soils that can be too expensive to overcome. Pendle Housing clearly needs a plan for a rolling replacement of its post-war housing stocks , these are indeed either in need of short term - 10year life extensions or total renewal as particulary concrete is starting to fail externally.

I have had some ideas for the likes of Kippax factory/Colne old market hall , but my back of envelope costings do give only a little,if any , profit in current housing sales situations, and I guess any other developer has come to much the same conclusions.

[Tardis]

I went last night and was the only one there, whilst I was in the Rainhall Centre

Picture of main points, empasising that there is still perceived to be a need to build a supermarket

[Tardis]

You are both right about the numbers, although as a side note I will say that a developer put in a scheme for 297 houses yesterday in Colne on the land that the action group want to protect.

In some ways I can not make those numbers stack up, especially when you look at the population profiles. If the population is arbitrarily going to grow by 10% but continue to bleed away people between 18-24 years of age, then the actual increase is far higher. There is nothing in this strategy to improve the 'stickiness' of the area and certainly nothing about the kind of employment growth necessary to sustain that kind of growth without further extending poverty

I do wonder if this is actually a bid for more funding from central government at a time when central funding is reducing. Sort of all smoke and mirrors and political spin. It has all the hallmarks

[plaques]

Sorry to keep banging on about the Pendle Core Strategy population study but I’ve always considered it essential to start with the correct data before moving off into projected figures. The data being used as a basis for the strategy is clearly in error.
Starting at the beginning, (like Alice in Wonderland), with the core plan “projections”.
Core plan population. for 2011 = 90,700.
Actual Census pop for 2011 = 89,600. (an error of +900).
Core plan population. for 2012 = 91,300.
LCC measurement for 2012 = 89,600. (an error of +1,700).
The core plan pop: projection for 2014, (the start of the strategy) = 92,500. Clearly we now have a problem, the projects are continually increasing while the base population for the past 12 years has remained static. The starting point could now be as much as +2,900 in error. (3.24% error). These projections continue to year 2030 resulting in 100,200 population. (8.3% increase.). Given the current economic climate and the fact that Pendle is one of the most difficult areas to encourage growth it could be possible that the strategy is overestimating the final population by as much as 10,000+ people.
At this point, (like Alice in Wonderland), I will stop.

[David Whipp]

I showed Plaques comments on population estimates to Pendle's planning manager. Here's his reply.

The data was compiled at a time when the old mid year population estimates were being replaced by those based on the census. The up to date census figures are the ones being used.

Myself and Jonathan have looked for the 90,700 figure and we can not find where it comes from.

In terms of the actual SHMA para 2.10 looks at the population figure for Pendle and indicates that the rebased population estimates shows a population of 89,600. If you also refer to the baseline data being used for the analysis, at Appendix A, it gives a detailed breakdown of the figures. For Pendle the actual figure used as the baseline is 89,576 in 2011 rising to 90,133 in 2012.

The projections are based on the official figures not ones we have generated. I do not think there is any error here or a misunderstanding of the baseline position. Flowing from that baseline the figures are accurate and not a Lewis Carroll figment of our imagination.

[plaques]

Thank you David for your intervention. From my observations all the figures quoted by the Core Strategy are a true reflection of what is shown in the government projections. I would not suggest that Pendle Council are making any of these up. The all thrust of my posting is that the Pendle population has been flat lining for the past 12 years. Using government data that suggests future expansion to be in the order of 8% could be construed as misleading. However, I fully understand that the council must use official data albeit if local data may show it as being a little suspect.
The 90,700 figure comes from the Subnational Population Projections: table 2: for Pendle year 2011. Perhaps the difficulty in finding it demonstrates the difficulty the amateur public faces when confronted with such a massive tome.

[Tardis]

Perhaps the difficulty in finding it demonstrates the difficulty the amateur public faces when confronted with such a massive tome.

Indeed

[plaques]

Working my way through the Core Strategy I came upon this item in the Housing section.

10.51 The housing trajectory in Policy LIV1 shows that delivery rates over the initial period of the plan need to be increased both to meet the identified housing need over the plan period but also to catch up with the recent under delivery of housing due to the recession.

I must admit that this section of the Core Strategy on housing has me a little perplexed. The original Pendle Replacement Plan 2001- 2016 had a requirement of a total of 1,970 dwellings at 80 per annum. This total had not to be exceeded. Consequently, a moratorium was applied part way through the plan because the total had been reached.
Around August 2009, due to a change in Government policies, an interim plan was produced which called for a further annual requirement of 190 houses. At this point in time Pendle had achieved an overbuild of 164 houses with a further 930 with planning permission available for development. Had these developments been completed there would be no need for the “under delivery” statement in the Core Plan.
However, what is not clear is what the estimated quantity of under supply will have to be clawed back at the end of 2015. This quantity could affect the whole strategy on green land take up.

[David Whipp]

I must admit that this section of the Core Strategy on housing has me a little perplexed.

I'm not surprised. The present position is bizarre.

As it stands, if the annual target for new houses isn't met, developers have greater freedom to apply for further permissions.

Not many houses are being built in Pendle because it doesn't stack up financially. But this undersupply against the target gives developers greater opportunities to get new consents. Bonkers!

That's then made worse by Pendle (and half the other councils in the country) not having an adopted local plan, which means protections in both the old and new plan haven't any weight. Making it open season for developers.

(Pendle's Local Development Framework would have gone to a public enquiry a year ago, but there were objections from a neighbouring local authority about the (lower) housing numbers which led to a new Strategic Housing Market Assessment having to be carried out with delays in the plan process.)

[plaques]

As previously mentioned by Tardis and myself this Core Strategy is rather a long winded document (192 pages). Within it, in the form of footnotes, there's a further 169 qualifications and document references. Pendle offer up a number of references including "feed back" returns and downloadable PDF's. Unfortunately, not all these downloads are available and have been withdrawn. This failure is also present in the Bibliography of documents. Quoting documents that are no longer available is a bit sloppy and should never happen even in a draft document.
Another point which avid readers of the Core Plan may have noticed is that there is reference to "Burnley and Pendle Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment" which in itself is up for consultation (ending 21 Feb 2014). Another riveting read at 259 pages. This can be found at-
http://www.pendle.gov.uk/downloads/file ... _shma_2013

[Tardis]

I think the Burnley and Pendle document you refer to there, is the one that explains about being "hopeful" of developing Bunley as an employment centre and dragging back some of the jobs into the area from BlackBurn.

[plaques]

"Burnley and Pendle Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment". Compiled by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners.
I'm only through the first 100 pages but much to my surprise I found it a very interesting and well researched document. Plenty of charts and statistics that are supplemented by clear explanations of how they were compiled. Sad to say the overall picture for both Burnley and Pendle makes very depressing reading. I'm glad I no longer live in Burnley. Pendle council have a real job on their hands. How they can remain so upbeat in the face of all this adversity I don't know. Possibly like the catch phrase from ITMA, "It's being so cheerful as keeps me going" – Mona Lott