Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

ROCHFORD SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY - EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CORE STRATEGY

Further to your letter of 18 October, we write to confirm the response of Colonnade Land LLP (Colonnade) to the proposed changes to the Core Strategy.

The response to the proposed changes to the Core Strategy seeks to take the effects of recent announcements from the coalition Government and the implications of the recent High Court judgement (referred to hereafter as the Cala judgement) into account, alongside an assessment of the implications of the proposed changes. However, before considering these issues, Colonnade remains concerned that the extent and magnitude of the changes to the submitted Core Strategy, alongside the nature of the supplementary evidence, the effect of the change in Government on the structure of the planning system (including fundamental changes proposed to the Development Plan) and the recent High Court judgement by the Honourable Mr Justice Sales (hereafter referred to as the Cala judgement) is the Core Strategy as submitted does not provide a credible basis for the future spatial planning of the District. Fundamentally, Colonnade is concerned that it will be unable to be made sound in the face of ongoing uncertainty and changes within and to the planning system.

In summary, Colonnade considers the Examination of the Core Strategy, the recent changes to which are neither supported by a robust evidence base nor a satisfactory Strategic Environmental Assessment, should be held in abeyance until the evidence base is made sound and greater certainty is established in the weight afforded to recently published guidance and the status of the documents that form part of the development plan.

a) Background

Iceni has acted for Colonnade throughout the preparation of the Rochford Local Development Framework and most recently throughout the ongoing Core Strategy Examination in Public. In this context, we have been involved in the planning process in Rochford for a considerable length of time.

Your recent letter of 18 October confirmed that the proposed changes to the Core Strategy that are subject to the current consultation are predicated on the revocation of Regional Strategies. However, the Cala judgement confirmed the decision to revoke Regional Strategies was unlawful. Furthermore, the decision was also taken without consideration of the potential significant environmental effects as required under the SEA Directive.

The Cala judgement is conclusive in finding that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in revoking Regional Strategies and the proper route for doing so requires both primary legislation and Strategic Environmental Assessment. As such, Regional Strategies remain part of the Development Plan. Having found the decision to revoke Regional Strategies unlawful in itself, and having separately identified the need to subject the decision to screening in accordance with the requirements of European Directive 2001/42/EC, it is clear that and very little, if any, weight can be afforded to the 27 May 2010 letter announcing the intention to revoke Regional Strategies. It is significant that the recent letter from the Chief Planner, which referred to the weight to be afforded to the 27 May 2010 letter is subject to a fresh challenge.

The findings of the Honourable Mr Justice Sales in paragraph 54 of the Cala judgement specifically clarify that:

"there has been no effective change in any planning guidance brought about by the Secretary of State's decision"

It follows, therefore that Core Strategies are required to conform with the policies of the East of England Plan and any Core Strategy that does not conform with the policies of the East of England Plan is unsound. As currently drafted, the Core Strategy fails to accord with the East of England Plan, in respect of both the minimum housing provision targets and affordable housing targets, and cannot be found sound.

It is also relevant to note that the intention of the Secretary of State in proposing the revocation of Regional Strategies is to "promote more extensive house-building overall". The proposed changes to the Core Strategy that seek to reduce house-building do not accord with the fundamental aims of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, or indeed the policies of PPS3, as revised, which seek to provide for a step change in housing delivery. Indeed, neither does the intention to include windfalls in the total allocation as confirmed in correspondence from the Chief Executive of the Council.

b) Assessment of Proposed Changes to the Core Strategy

In the context of the reinstatement of Regional Strategies, the changes proposed to the Core Strategy should all be reversed, save the changes to the dates, which are required to provide the 15 year horizon.

However, it is important to note the Core Strategy is unlikely to be adopted until after the end of the housing monitoring period 1 April 2010 - 31 March 2011. As housing land supply figures are calculated from the following monitoring year, with supply for the existing monitoring year (1 April 2011 - 31 March 2012) counting towards the current provision, the housing trajectory should run from the monitoring period 1 April 2012 - 31 March 2013.

The schedule of changes should include changes to the text to reflect the findings of the Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update 2010 (SHMA 2010). Specifically, SHMA 2010 confirms the projected formation of 350 new households per annum, leading to an annual affordable housing need of 196 net additional dwellings. These updated projections should be reflected in the text at paragraph 2.35 and throughout Chapter 4 of the Core Strategy.

i. Derivation of the proposed annual housing target

Setting aside the fundamental issues relating to the soundness of the proposed changes to consider the evidence for the revised figure it is first necessary to consider the derivation of the proposed figure of 190 units per annum.


In response to the East of England Regional Assembly consultation on the draft Review of the Regional Strategy to 2031 (EoEP2031), the Council provided a series of responses to the 'Scenarios for housing and economic growth'. A copy of the full response of the Council to the consultation is provided for reference. [Attached].

In response to the question regarding which was the preferred growth strategy (Comment ID 1327 on page 2 of the attached) the Council confirmed that:

"For Rochford, a delivery rate set at a level below the current East of England Plan level would be appropriate. It may be that the simplest arrangement would be to assume the housing provision specified in the Council's Core Strategy as the total provision to 2031 rather than, as at present 2025. This would reduce the overall annual rate of housing to about 190 dwellings per annum over the extended plan period or 75% of the current rate."

It is significant, therefore, that Coalition Ministers clarified (in oral evidence to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee of 13 September 2010) that:

"...it is open to local authorities to review their local development frameworks and to reintroduce their own assessment of the housing needs in their area. But it needs to be rigorous. They can't just pick a number and put it in and regard that as being the end of it. They need to make an assessment, and they need to put that, and justify that, in their plans."

Our assessment of the derivation of the proposed figure of 190 units per annum is based on our understanding of the documents submitted with the Core Strategy submission and those requested subsequently by the Inspector. It is also supplemented by evidence presented to the Coombes Farm inquiry and our involvement in the production of the East of England Plan, including the consultation on the draft EoEP2031.

We do not consider, therefore, that the proposed figure of 190 units per annum is sufficiently rigorous in the context of the evidence of Coalition Ministers. Rather, it would appear that the assessment is simply the 'simplest arrangement' and the Council has sought to construct the evidence to support the reduction in housing numbers rather than undertake a full and rigorous assessment of the housing requirements arising from locally derived needs.

Should the derivation of the proposed figure of 190 units per annum be any different to the above, then we would invite the Inspector to request a separate audit trail of the evidence base leading to the derivation of the figure upon the reopening of the Examination.

ii. Assessment of Housing Land Supply

When assessing the housing land supply in Rochford, the historic supply has fallen short of targets and Colonnade remains concerned that the proposed future provision fails to provide sufficient sites, or the flexibility required, to ensure sufficient land is available to meet the locally generated needs. Against both the proposed reduced provision target and the East of England Plan target, historic provision has fallen short.

In the ten year period 1 April 2001 - 31 March 2011 a total of 1,673 units were provided (sum of 810 within 01-06, 618 in 06-08, 102 in 08-09, 86 in 09-10 and 57 in 10-11), an annual average provision of 167.3 units. This represents a shortfall against the Regional Strategy minimum target for the period of 627 (2,300 - 1,673). It also represents a shortfall against the proposed reduced annual average housing provision target of 227 (1,900 - 1,673). We can conclude, in accordance with the interpretation of delivery by the Coombes Farm appeal Inspector, that against either target, the Council has failed to meet the basic requirements for the ten year period 1 April 2001 - 31 March 2011.


Turning to future provision, the trajectory included in the 'Breakdown of 2011 - 2031 housing trajectory by source' table relies on a 100% implementation rate on all the extant planning permission sites, a presumption that was found to be unsound in the Bromley appeal (APP/G5180/A/07/2043219/NWF).

Furthermore, the figures included in the row 'Appropriate Brownfield sites identified in SHLAA' include provision of a number of constrained sites, which are neither commercially viable, nor attractive to the market. An example being the Stambridge Mills site. Whilst it is now accepted that the site can deliver significantly less than the 250 units originally proposed, it remains unlikely to be delivered in the timescales anticipated by the Council. It is significant that the application was screened in 2007 and whilst an application was submitted in September 2011 it remains invalid.

Colonnade has highlighted its concerns with the future provision relied upon by the Council throughout the production of the Core Strategy and the pursuance of the Coombes Farm planning application. As such, its concerns regarding the future provision within Rochford are well documented and the number of changes made to the assessment of sites in the SHLAA tables confirms the fragility of continuing to rely on the assessment contained within the SHLAA. The Inspector will not need reminding of the objections of Colonnade to the SHLAA, or those relating to the timing of its publication, nor the concerns Colonnade had that its representations on the methodology were not registered despite being validly submitted. However, the changes necessary to the deliverability findings on a number of sites could have been avoided had the SHLAA been published for comment prior to the submission of the Core Strategy. The fact that it wasn't meant it was simply not possible for Colonnade to subject the assessment of sites to sufficient scrutiny.

In summary, therefore, Colonnade considers the assessment of housing land supply fails to take account of historic underprovision, is overly optimistic in terms of future supply and the baseline for the assessment of future supply was not subjected to sufficient scrutiny through consultation.

iii. Evidence of Housing Need

As confirmed above, Colonnade is concerned that the assessment of housing need contained within Topic Paper 3 has been constructed to support the reduction in housing numbers rather than in response to a full and rigorous assessment of the housing requirements arising from locally derived needs. In simple terms, the Topic Paper (and the attached response to the document confirms:

* 400 units per annum would be required to meet the national growth targets identified in the EoEP2031 consultation (Comment ID 1325 on page 3 of the attached);
* 2010 SHMA identified 350 new household formulations (not taking account of past underprovision);
* The 350 new household formulations result in a net annual affordable housing need of 196 dwellings;
* The real increases in the Social Housing waiting list (which has subsequently grown further from 702 to 920 since the report was prepared);
* The projected population increase of 17,511 people in the period 2001 - 2026; and
* The projected increases in the older age population cohorts in the District and the increased pressure this will have on the availability of housing for newly forming households.

In addition to the above, the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy Preferred Options assessed the effects of the emerging policies based on the minimum net annual housing provision target of 250 units (adjusted to take account of historic underprovision). It stated that the plan would have 'significant positive effects through meeting the housing needs of the District'. It is inherent that the Sustainability Appraisal could not have come to this same conclusion had the minimum net annual housing provision target of 250 units been an overprovision in the context of local need.

Similarly, the Sustainability Appraisal of the East of England Plan established that the housing provision figures were confirmed to be sustainable in the regional context. A number of the arguments put forward by the Council within the Topic Paper need to be critically assessed in the regional context, as Colonnade is concerned that they fail to take a sufficiently strategic view of their logical conclusions. In particular, the arguments that culminates in paragraphs 3.20 and 3.21 require measured consideration.

Paragraph 3.20 relates to the potential changes in population profile and fails to take account of the proposed growth in employment within Rochford. The increase in employment opportunities will attract new residents from the 'working age' cohorts, thereby increasing the rate of newly forming households within all of the 'working age' cohorts. In combination with the accepted increase in the 'older age' cohorts, increases to the 'working age' cohorts associated with employment growth will be significant.

It is unclear what paragraph 3.21 is seeking to achieve, as the forecasts within the 2008 SHMA were based on a clear understanding of the housing distribution contained within the East of England Plan and policy intervention of the sort referred to can only be achieved at a strategic level.

Colonnade is also concerned that the Council has failed to take account of the essential characteristics of Green Belts, which is clarified at paragraph 2.1 of PPG2 that states:

"The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead."

Having established that changes to the Green Belt are required to accommodate housing growth, the failure of the Council to plan for the housing growth arising from an assessment of national growth targets, have a potentially deleterious effect on the essential characteristics of Green Belts, as it comes under increasing pressure to meet burgeoning needs.

It is also concerning to note that the Council appears to place the protection of the Green Belt above the social and economic benefits of meeting housing needs. This is confirmed in Section 4 of the Topic Paper, which seeks to protect the Green Belt at the expense of social and economic effects, and in the case of Stambridge Mills, above the concerns of the Environment Agency regarding the potential loss of life.

There are a number of other specific points to note in relation to the other findings of the Topic Paper, including:

* Paragraph 3.24 - the Thames Gateway remains a focus for economic growth;
* Paragraph 3.24 - there is no evidence of a change in commuting levels presented; and
* Paragraph 3.28 - reducing the housing target to 190 will make it impossible to meet affordable housing needs.

In summary, the assessment of housing need is neither robust nor logical. The evidence base presented by the Council to justify a reduction in the housing provision figure is confused and could have a deleterious effect on the essential characteristic of the Green Belt in Rochford.

c) Assessment of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Changes

The Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed changes to the Core Strategy confirms that the effect of the proposed changes on the housing objective will be negative. It confirms that the range and affordability of dwellings will be reduced, but fails to offer any realistic mitigation measures.

It also fails to effectively balance the eventual loss of land to development that would occur over the extended plan period with the significant and real negative social and economic implications of reducing housing provision figures.

d) Conclusion

The proposed changes to the Core Strategy are unsound. They do not accord with the development plan and the evidence base that the Council has prepared to support them, including the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, appear to have been constructed to support the reduction in housing numbers rather than in response to a full and rigorous assessment of the housing requirements arising from locally derived needs and a balanced assessment of the social and economic effects.

The number and degree of changes required to make the document sound are so extensive that it would be difficult to prepare a clear and logical report of the necessary changes. It would not be in the interests of coherent and sustainable spatial planning to press ahead with the proposed changes to the Core Strategy, nor is it an appropriate response in the context of the Cala judgement and other challenges that are being pursued.

Until the Core Strategy evidence base is sound and greater certainty is established in the planning system, there is a risk that proceeding with the Examination of the Core Strategy will result in a rushed and fragmented document conceived and prepared under an outdated planning system. This is particularly so where the evidence base so clearly points towards a high demand for housing to meet locally generated needs.

Should you have any queries relating to the above, then we would be pleased to provide further clarification. We would be grateful if you were to provide confirmation of the Council's position on the above issues and the views of the Inspector on the further progression of the examination. Finally, we would also be grateful for confirmation that this letter has been received and passed to the Inspector for consideration.