Gladman Inquiry continues

Day Five got underway yesterday on a glorious morning of blue skies as the Inquiry's participants and attendees gleefully headed for the welcoming shade of the Carlsberg Suite at Crewe Alex.

Numbers were down significantly on Tuesday with Gladman's team only outnumbering Cheshire East's by five to four. But would quality or quantity win the day? That is the question.

Expert

Our first expert witness, appearing for Gladman Developments, was Stephen Nicol on Housing Supply. The argument revolved around whether Cheshire East's housing supply figure of 1,150 per year, based on Regional Spatial Strategy figures, was appropriate or a figure of 1,800 – 2290 which Gladman, the developer, favoured. But, to coin a well-known legal response: "They would, wouldn't they?"

We went off into what sounded a worrying topic for a time, with Hankelow, Buerton, Dodcott-cum-Wilkesley and Newhall all being 'disaggregated'. Fear not, residents of those parishes, as the Secret Bunker could still be used as a refuge during disaggregation.

It later became clear that disaggregation was the process used in splitting housing supply and needs figures out of the old Cheshire Council's figures as the county was split into Cheshire West and Chester and our very own Cheshire East.

Sense and Sensitivity

Another exchange revolved around the difference between 'sense checking' and 'sensitivity checking', clearly a sensitive subject but, try as we might, it was simply beyond the grasp of the simple-minded journalists that make up your reporting team.

"This exchange could end up brittle and unpleasant" warned Anthony Crean QC for Cheshire East, at one stage during the late morning, although in the end, the brittleness was saved for the afternoon when John MacKenzie was our new expert witness.

Employee

Mr MacKenzie was instantly revealed as a Gladman Developments employee. We relaxed, therefore, safe in the comfort of an afternoon of entirely objective, unbiased, impartial and completely balanced evidence. We were not disappointed.

Mr Crean, by this stage, was no longer in view as a large cardboard box, full of paper, cut off all sight of him from the attendees. Fortunately, the resonance and authority of his voice prevented any thoughts of comedian Rob Brydon's 'Man in a Box' routine even crossing our minds.

Little weight

Mr MacKenzie is an expert in Housing Land Supply and we enjoyed an hour so of his being provided helpful support from Gladman's barrister, John Barrett, as their argument that there was a Local Plan vacuum with the Regional Strategy revoked and no completed Local Plan Policy Requirement in existence. "In a Local Plan vacuum, it should be afforded little weight," said Mr MacKenzie.

At which point Mr Crean stepped in: "I must object. It is not right to ask a witness about the Law. He is not a lawyer. It is inadmissible as he is not a lawyer." What was described as a 'tedious exchange' by the Inspector followed although the rest of us were agog, excited by the acerbic exchange between barristers.

Students

We then returned to a subject aired several days ago: whether three students counted as two beds for housing supply purposes. Maybe it was his experience of the liberal Sixties when your correspondent was a student but in those days the three students would have been in the same bed – at the same time! Today's crop, it seems, are more mature and probably study harder.

An interesting debate on housing buffers followed. It's nothing to do with polishing but whether, following a period of underperformance, a 20% or 5% buffer should added to the future figures to make up for the previous shortfall in housing supply.

A question from the Inspector forced Mr MacKenzie to concede that a moratorium on building a few years ago may have affected the figures and contributed to the shortfall.

Gloves off!

It was then Mr Crean's turn with the witness and from the outset the gloves were off: "You are not a lawyer, are you, without any legal qualification whatsoever." And as he went for the jugular, dismissed part of his earlier evidence as" "Trivial and irrelevant, but I am not being rude."

Mr MacKenzie's argument of a planning vacuum was then demolished as Mr Crean asked him: "Do you think a legal principle from the High Court should take precedence over your evidence?" What could a non-lawyer like Mr MacKenzie possibly reply. A faint "No" was heard, although a defiant caveat was attached.

Eight letters and judgements from the Secretary of State and other Planning Inspectors' decisions were then read out by Mr Crean. "Do you accept that?" asked the QC of the witness after each one, all accepting, in effect, the 1,150 housing supply put forward by Cheshire East.

"Can you point to one case supporting your argument?" concluded Mr Crean. "Not in Cheshire East, no," Mr MacKenzie responded. "I am not limiting this to Cheshire East," retorted Mr Crean. "Does any letter support the argument of your colleague Mr Nicol between here and San Francisco."

We reckoned the score at that stage as 8 – 0 to Mr Crean and Cheshire East when Mr MacKenzie was saved by the tea bell. It had been quite a session.

Tomorrow, we resume at 9.00am, our earliest start yet, but it is looking as if the Inquiry may not be for six days but could even stretch into an eighth. Those costs are mounting!

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.