Tuesday, 2 February 2016

Knowle relocation project >>> Pegasus plans in full >>> when a 'windfall' is not a 'windfall'

The developer at Knowle would like to build over double the number of dwellings as stipulated in the Local Plan - even after the latest 'tweaking':

This is comment just received from a correspondent:

I gather that Pegasus are saying that 50 units at Knowle are those mentioned by the inspector and the other 60 are windfalls.  There is a conversation on Sidmouth Herald Streetlife that makes this point.

The government says:

Windfall sites: Sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available.

This was identified in the Local Plan and wasn't unexpected ...

Here is that conversation from Streetlife:

Today's Herald

Mary W-T  in Sidmouth
I found lots of food for thought in toady's Herald, especially about building new dwellings in Sidmouth.

It seems that the Local Plan's intention for 50 dwellings at Knowle will, if exceeded, count against the windfall allocation for Sidmouth. Which leaves the question of what does it count against after the windfall provision has been exceeded?

It must count against something and my belief is that it will be able to be counted against the overall housing need for Sidmouth.

Of course this then has knock-on effects to the affordable housing allocation ( the Knowle development is unlikely to be affordable) and other sites identified as suitable for housing.

And how will this affect the allocation of 106 money and the split between using it for affordable housing and tourism?
    By the Byes
    Mary W-T, to give some (bleak) perspective - we moved here from a picturesque Warwickshire village whose allocation was 55 new homes, all to be built throughout the period up to the year 2031.

    When we left (in 2014) there were almost 200 in assorted planning applications. To date they have already built 38.

    Whatever they say is allocated to Sidmouth, there will be many more, I'm afraid.
    I think Pegasus have changed their design so that they can get affordable garrets in the roof space (now they're pitched) - the first penthouse garrets.
    Mary W-T
    BtB, I understand what you are saying, the devil is in the detail as ever. It is the fact that the housing numbers are a minimum allocation which will cause trouble unless we are prepared to act strongly against it.

    On a different tack, I do apologise for my typo; I did not mean to suggest in any way that the Herald were toadies LOL. It should of course have read 'today's' Herald !
    Pegasus have just done the same as any developer. Ask for more than they want and make us think we've achieved something by reducing numbers. Please don't be fooled by them.
    Liz S
    Wow! So, all you have to do on any site is call the extra little boxes "windfalls" and you can build as many units as you like! Developers win again!
    It's EDDC who have said that the "extras" count as windfalls and don't count against the "official" number. Do you believe them? How can you have Knowle supplying 50 "official" and 60-odd "windfalls"? Doesn't really stack up does it? There isn't planning permission yet for any development at Knowle - surely an attempt to put 100 and more dwellings on a site the Local Plan says is suitable for 50 must be suspect.
    Liz S
    It seems that EDDC is expected to get about 1500 windfalls during the plan so that is about a hundred a year of which Pegasus wants 60. What happens if by say year 3 all the windfalls have been used up by big developers? Nothing because as it says above the number of houses is the minimum.

    But how can 60 be justified as windfall when we and they have always known they wanted over a hundred, the inspector knew that and said 50? To me a windfall implies that you didn't expect it.
    Richard E
    The confusion here is that there is no windfall 'allocation'.   It is better described as an estimate of the likely number of units that will arise from other than the three sites that do have a formal allocation - Knowle, Port Royal and Manstone.

    I am sure By The Byes is correct - in practice the number will be greatly exceeded over the Plan period.   Likely providers of windfalls will be houses demolished and replaced with blocks of flats.   In many cases, windfalls are perfectly acceptable - I have permission for a residential flat over my shop, and two houses behind our old offices, to which there were no objections.

    Over the Plan period I would expect 300-400 windfalls, and many will be welcome.
    Richard E
    Hi Liz,

    I suspect the technical answer is 'no', but 'windfall' is a loose term, so any units built over the 50 allocated may well be so described.

    My point was that how they are described is pretty academic.   The Knowle allocation is for a minimum of 50 and the windfall number of 50 in the plan is an estimate/projection, not an allocation.

    Over the Plan period, each 'windfall' application, i.e. not for Knowle, Manstone or Port Royal will be treated on its merits.   Whether the projected windfall number of 50 has been exceeded or not, will not be a factor, or at least will be given very little weight.

    So if Pegasus succeed with an application for 100 units at the Knowle, it will not have 'eaten up' the windfall number, and will not impact significantly upon another application elsewhere in the town.

    The interesting bit is when the Local Plan is reviewed.
    Mary W-T
    I agree with you Richard, but then one can argue further that EDDC would use the Local Plan as pressure to bring more building areas forward if the projected windfalls did not appear so they could reassess allocations if the windfall was exceeded.

    I fully understand that they would not wish to but surely if is a valid arguement? If we only need X houses in Sidmouth to 2032 then we don't need to build X + 50.
    Mary W-T
    If only that was true then we in East Devon could relax! We is such a tricky word LOL
    Real Sidmouthian
    I am relaxed! WE are not doing the building. The housing companies and developers are. Sidmouth can easily take a few more houses and we are still only recommended 125. Even if we get 300 it's until 2031 so hardly anything. See what's happening in other parts of the country - then you'd worry. Thousands of houses for every town. We are lucky believe me.

    Streetlife | Today's Herald

    No comments: