Pendle Planning & Development.

[Stanley]

That sounds about right to me Ken. Fits in with the way the rest of his government is going aided by the unusual conditions of Covid. Basically it's sofa presidential government from Number Ten and Diktats to the Plebs.

[plaques]

The problem with out Pendle plan has its roots in 2015 when aspirations were running high with unjustified population growth, expansion of industry and the need for extra housing to accommodate all the extra people that would be coming into Pendle. None of this happened and Pendle has been on a downward trend ever since. Pendle plan 2 is an update on this core plan but only in respect of housing numbers. The outcome goes something like this. The government instructions are that to improve the housing situation throughout England the Pendle council must build a minimum of 146 dwelling per year. But then this figure is further manipulated by various formulae to give 240 dwellings per year. This is the number that Pendle is stuck with and has no means of altering it, in effect they are left to manage the numbers the best they can. Meanwhile all the advantages lie with the developers who can game the rate of development and locations for maximum financial returns.

[Stanley]

I wonder who it was that arranged a system that in the end favours the developers?

[plaques]

Pendle Council have decided to make a request that the Plan Part 2 housing commitment is reduced from 240 down to 146 per year. The 146 is the minimum instructed by the government while the 240 is the government's 'adjusted' figure after some mysterious mathematical alchemy. I wish them luck but don't hold your breath.

[plaques]

At the risk of boring people to death here is an explanation why the figure of 240 houses per year becomes the upper limit for housing delivery in the Pendle Plan 2. No direct explanation is offered in the plan its all buried in nearly 2000 pages of padding and bull s..t.

From.... Pendle_Housing_Needs_Assessment_Final__12.03.20_.pdf
• The housing need for Pendle ranges from 146 dpa (Scenario A – Standard Method) to 240 dpa for the Experian March 2019 baseline (Scenario D). Even the upper end of this range is below the current 298 dpa housing requirement in the Councils adopted Local Plan;
Note ! The Scenario D quoted is incorrect it should read Scenario E.
These scenarios are patently wrong and are based on population growth and Job growth both of which are wildly optimistic.

2019 – 2035 Pendle Scenario E ( not D)
Job growth 1,408
Labour force growth 1,500
Population change 4,645
of which natural change 5,958
of which net migration -1,313
Households 3,605
Dwellings 3,842
Dwellings per annum 240

So the upper limit of 240 per Annum is set on outcomes that are pure guess work and have no basis in reality.

If Pendle Council could get their act together and show that this upper limit is total nonsense they may be in with a chance.

[PanBiker]

It doesn't take into account existing infrastructure support either. Sewage, surface water drainage, available medical facilities, local school capacity, traffic management issues etc. Apparently all this doesn't matter so developers can just ignore it. It's a lot like putting a quart in a pint pot. It doesn't add up.

[Tripps]

Population change 4,645
of which natural change 5,958
of which net migration -1,313

A very impressive set of numbers down to a one person level of accuracy over a period from 2019 to 2035. Beyond comment. . . .

"All plans collapse on first contact with the enemy."

[plaques]

Do some more digging and it gets worse. They actually forecast a reduced population i every age group except those over 60. Suddenly there is a explosion of pensioner numbers which produces an overall increase. Either Pendle is going on a mass pensioner importing spree or that everybody in the 60 to 90 range will continue to live into their 90s without anybody dying. Must be something in the water.

[Stanley]

You deserve a medal Ken....

[plaques]

Medals? No thank you. You know what they say about putting people up on pedestals, " the bigger the bull, the farther the Bull S..t falls." If you do this make sure you wear a big hat.

[Stanley]

In my world Ken the saying is 'If you can't fight wear a big hat'. Nothing to do with bullshit.

[plaques]

I was paraphrasing Jake Thackray's The Bull.

[plaques]

The first of the local election leaflets dropped through our door yesterday. At a first glance it looked like a flyer from some double glazing salesmen. A totally anonymous document. No Tree Logo. No pictures of Thumbs up Boris or even smiling Andrew Stephenson. It was not until I got to the third paragraph did it mention the Conservative Party. What's going on? are they ashamed of the Conservative leadership?
After the usual claims of what they had done for Colne which involved LCC , Central government and the Police. They finished up with a statement that the Labour / Lib Deb coalition sold off greenfield sites for housing development. Not being over familiar with the sales of council owned green field sites would someone be kind enough to list them out for me.

[Stanley]

I haven't received any Conservative party literature. I suspect they have recognised that they are on a hiding to nothing.
I keep hearing people saying that the May elections are 'only local' and so don't count in the national picture. The old Tammany Hall politicians in New York didn't think so, they said that 'All politics is local'. and they were right.
If the vote in May doesn't clearly demonstrate that there is a strong current flowing against the Tories we really are in trouble.....

[Whyperion]

The first of the local election leaflets dropped through our door yesterday. At a first glance it looked like a flyer from some double glazing salesmen. A totally anonymous document. No Tree Logo. No pictures of Thumbs up Boris or even smiling Andrew Stephenson. It was not until I got to the third paragraph did it mention the Conservative Party. What's going on? are they ashamed of the Conservative leadership?
After the usual claims of what they had done for Colne which involved LCC , Central government and the Police. They finished up with a statement that the Labour / Lib Deb coalition sold off greenfield sites for housing development. Not being over familiar with the sales of council owned green field sites would someone be kind enough to list them out for me.

There were some greenspace ex demolished terrace houses which were auctioned/sold and a local (ish- think they were from Todmorden), developer bought the land and has constructed a number of family terraced houses. (in Colne).

[Stanley]

Labour leaflet arrived yesterday.