Full text:
ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL
CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION
PLANNING POTENTIAL ON BEHALF OF FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES
Further Representations on:
Schedule of Changes - Housing Distribution by Settlement
Topic Paper 3 - Sustainable Housing Allocation for Rochford
Topic Paper 4 - Revision to the Greenbelt Boundary
Topic Paper 5 - The Implications of Changes to PPS3
NOVEMBER 2010
Introductory Comments:
Planning Potential Ltd are instructed by, and act on behalf of, Fairview New Homes Ltd. We have actively been involved in the preparation of the Core Strategy (CS), having submitted representations at key stages of consultation, and have attended earlier hearing sessions to discuss Issues and Matters raised by the Inspector.
Further to the written and oral representations that we have already made on behalf of our client in respect of the Examination into the 'Soundness' of the Rochford District Council Core Strategy, to the side letter submitted to the Inspector (copy attached) with regards to procedures in light of recent guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate and the Judgement(s) on the Cala Homes Challenge - quashing the SoS's revocation of Regional Strategies - the following further written representations are made.
You will no doubt also be aware of the 'second' challenge by Cala Homes, as to the legality of the continued insistence by the SoS of its 'intention' to revoke RSS's should remain a material consideration. An interim review has been expedited, with the effect that it is stayed until further notice. We note that the Court has agreed to this, pending a full legal hearing into the lawfulness of this approach. As such, until the outcome of that hearing is announced, it is clear that decision makers should have full regard to Regional Spatial Strategies as part of the statutory development plan.
In short, the SoS's revocation of RSS's was unlawful, and the continued 'insistence' that the intention to revoke is a material consideration, has too been stayed. In light of this, the adopted RSS, being the East of England Plan remains [currently] in full force, and in light of this, the following comments are made. Until RSS's are formally withdrawn all LPA's needs to adhere to them fully.
Comments on Proposed Changes:
In summary, we understand that the primary changes now being proposed are;
Topic Paper 3 - Sustainable Housing Allocation for Rochford District
The Council are placing significant reliance on the EoEP reviews' evidence base to support the proposed changes. The Council are following the "Option 1" housing numbers - which come from the EoEP draft review. This was approved by the Regional Assembly, and submitted to the SoS in March 2010 - the proposed changes have not been the subject of Examination, and having discussed this with the Planning Inspector, there is no timetable for this Examination. According to the most recent update posted by the East of England Regional Assembly, for the purpose of Regional Planning Policy, the Adopted RSS forms this document - and not the review.
The adopted East of England Plan (EoEP) remains part of the Development Plan. It requires 250 units to be delivered per year over the period 2001 - 2021. The revisions to Rochford's CS are now proposing 190 per year over the period 2011 to 2031 (see para 2.4 of Topic Paper 3).
Taking all factors into account, although the Council are 'dressing up' the revisions as the same total quantum, yet over a longer period of time, it is actually incorrect, and will in fact result in a reduced delivery of circa 1,500 - depending how one calculates this (over the remaining plan period, or, the extended plan period).
According to the Councils "housing need register", the up-to-date need, identified in the SHMA 2010, has recently risen from 702 to 920 (para 3.2 of Topic Paper 3). Accordingly, the Council accept they have an annual affordable housing requirement of 196 units / year, but that the revised [reduced] housing figures will only deliver in the order of 60 odd units per year. Clearly, this figure will not in any way cater for the local need.
A key change is that the housing numbers are now expressed as a maximum - rather than a minimum (para 7.2 of Topic Paper 3). The Council believes this will greatly assist the Plan, Monitor and Manage approach, as it will capture windfalls WITHIN the AMR monitoring and SHLAA processes, rather than adding windfalls onto the total number. This is not in accordance with the EoEP which clearly states in Policy H1, that the District targets should be minimums. The proposed changes to the Core Strategy will thus be in direct conflict with the Regional Strategy. Additionally, PPS3 makes it clear that wind fall sites should not be included and thus this approach is contrary to national guidance.
On a general point, the Council do not clearly state whether the housing target is a net or gross figure, which is required by PPS3. This should [by default] be expressed as a net figure, which means the Council should also be identifying those units to be lost, which of course must be made up in the 5 year land supply.
Topic Paper 4 - Revision to the Green Belt Boundary
The Council acknowledge (both in the Draft Submission Core Strategy and the proposed further changes) they will still need to release [at least] 1% of their existing Green Belt to facilitate the required housing land. Understandably, regardless of the actual housing target, greenbelt land will need to be released.
Whilst my client has, and continues to support this approach, any release should be in accordance with the tests clearly identified in PPG2, and the assessment of those sites that will, and should contribute the housing need in terms of green belt release, should be undertaken strictly in accordance with this approach.
It is apparent in reflection that there are sites, such as my client's which are located on the edge of settlements, yet in the green belt which are sustainable, while located in terms of accessibility and sustainability, and in fact, probably preferable than some urban sites. These should be considered as suitable alternatives in the first instance.
Topic Paper 5 - The Implication of Changes to PPS3
Although the Council state that there is no material change being proposed in light of this, my client has already submitted representations on the impact of this, and would kindly request, rather than repeating, that those earlier representations are considered.
Summary
For the avoidance of doubt, whilst the Council propose changes to the submitted Core Strategy, as discussed above, my clients' representations made to date remain valid, and my client wishes these to continue to be considered by the Inspector. My client maintains that the Core Strategy submitted (or, amended as proposed) remains unsound.
With specific reference to the distribution of housing per settlement (Analysis of Housing Paper) my client would support the identification of the majority of housing being directed to settlements that have best access to services and facilities - Rochford & Rayleigh. The settlement hierarchy proposed, as shown in Table 1, Figure 1, Table 2 and Figure 2 is supported by my client.
Whilst my client has shown, through earlier representations, that we questioned the ability for the Council to meet the housing requirements as set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy, and that is due to the questions arising with the evidence base, and the lack of flexibility in the plan, we still consider the Core Strategy to be unsound.
With regards to the overall provision of housing, we have previously challenged and questioned the Councils ability to meet their housing requirements, and notwithstanding the fact that the Council are now proposing to deliver less housing, over a longer period, we are of the view that this approach is contrary to PPS3, paragraph 53, which states:
"At the local level, Local Planning Authorities should set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision, including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption, taking account of the level of housing provision set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy..."
Our client is also mindful of the second part of paragraph 53 (of PPS3), which states that "... In circumstances where Regional Spatial Strategies are in development, or subject to review, Local Planning Authorities should also have regard to the level of housing provision as proposed in the relevant emerging Regional Spatial Strategy." As mentioned in paragraph 5.1 above, the review of the East of England Plan cannot have any status, given there is no timetable for its examination, or indeed, ultimate adoption.
In summary, we have, on behalf of our Client, already made our case in terms of the draft submission Core Strategy. In terms of 'Matter 1' Spatial Vision and 'Matter 2' Location and Supply of New Homes, our submissions, both written and orally, still stand. We have demonstrated above that the proposed [recent] changes are in conflict with the Regional Spatial Strategy which is part of the Development Plan. PPS 12 makes it clear that Core Strategies should be in general conformity with the RSS - para 4.2. Paragraph 4.33 goes on to state that "growth" as an example (and by inference, housing numbers) should follow National and Regional Policy.
Additionally, we have shown that the mechanism of housing supply and demonstrating delivery, as outline in PPS3, have not been complied with.
For the purposes of above, we have shown that the proposed changes are not consistent with National and Regional Policy, are not based on a sound evidence base, and should not be considered.
Finally, as you are aware my clients specific interest is in the Land off Poyntens Road, my client would continue to argue that in light of the above comments, given the need to identify additional land that is suitable and meets the criteria of PPG2, their land would provide a suitable and justifiable release. My clients land is located adjacent to the edge of settlement, in an area close to Rayleigh Town Centre, with good accessibility and well located to facilities, and should be considered as a priority site, over those that are less well located. The delivery of my clients land for housing, would not conflict with the tests of PPG2.
