PACE (Protecting Aston s Community Existence) Call-in of East Hertfordshire District Council District Plan (EHDCDP)

Transcription

1 The Rt. Hon James Brokenshire MP Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 26 th August 2018 Dear Secretary of State, Call-in of East Hertfordshire District Council District Plan (EHDCDP) PACE requests that you to make a direction to East Hertfordshire District Council to submit its Plan to you for your consideration so that you may objectively examine the case for including the site referred to as EOS1, also known as Gresley Park in a modified Plan. You will be aware that several requests have been made of you to call-in the EHDC District Plan. Some contain local concerns about how the Examination has been conducted. It is not part of our remit to comment on those local matters. We do however endorse and would wish to be associated with the common points they contain which are also addressed by the letters to you earlier submitted by CPRE (Hertfordshire) and more recently those submitted by Stephen McPartland, MP for Stevenage, and Aston Parish Council. Development of points made by other relevant parties In addition to specific PACE matters provided later, we would ask that you note our support for the following key points mention in letters already submitted to you. CPRE s letter of 31 st July: PACE very much supports its two main points for consideration: With regard to the exceptional circumstances applying to the amendment of Green Belt boundaries and its consequent release, the Inspector, appears to have concluded her Examinations findings and Report very much based on the criteria set out in the draft revised NPPF now published in its final form in July As we also understand matters, those criteria do not apply to the East Herts District Plan which must be examined for consistency with the NPPF The Inspector s statements (para 73) indicate a failure to consider the key requirements of paragraph 14 of NPPF 2012 and footnote 9 that supplements it. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 1 10

2 Stephen McPartland MP s letter dated 22 nd August: PACE confirms that there is no discernible local support for including the site referred to as EOS1, also known as Gresley Park within the District Plan. This has been demonstrated throughout each consultation phase of the Examination process which in particular witnessed the volume of representations relating to EOS1 exceed those submitted by residents in the towns of Bishops Stortford, Buntingford, Hertford and Sawbridgeworth combined during the Section 19 Presubmission consultation. Mr McPartland makes the point that EOS1 was included in the Pre-submission Plan at the very last minute solely to meet the Council s five-year land supply. We would add its late inclusion was made with no prior public consultation! The Council now accepts it has the equivalent of 6.2 years supply available to meet its first fiveyear target requirement. This broadly equates to some 1,200 dwellings and demonstrates that EOS1, comprising some 600 dwellings, was and is not required to meet that objective. Aston Parish Council s letter of 16 th August: Aston Parish Council points out. inter alia that EHDC identified that EOS1 is assessed to be of paramount importance for 2 of the 5 Green Belt defined purposes. It also suggests that the District Council has failed to properly consider its representations and those of others. In developing the issue of proper consideration, the Parish Council suggests EHDC has failed to acknowledge, test or facilitate public consideration of the potential implications of updated and significant higher LPA housing supply data published after the Examination Hearing stages. This we believe is contrary to the intent of the Planning Inspectorate s Procedural Practice in the Examination of Local Plans document, paragraph The Parish Council notes with concern that despite requests to do so the Council declined an invitation by PACE to validate or challenge relevant research undertaken by PACE into the Council s housing supply assumptions as the Council had not receive a request from the Inspector for this to be undertaken. PACE s research suggests that without amendment to the Plan the Council s housing supply in the period could exceed its updated OAN by some 2,000 dwellings. The research paper, entitled Annex 1 EHDC Housing Supply pdf, was submitted to the Inspector during the Main Modification stage by PACE under EHDC Comment ID 205. [It is reproduced here, for convenience, as Appendix 1 to our letter]. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 2 10

3 Challenging EHDC s housing supply assumptions and conclusions Several representations made to the Inspector by respected professional during the Presubmission and Main Modification stages advised the Inspector that the Council s provisions and allowances for future dwelling growth in what it referred to as Category 1 Villages and a general windfall allowance was wholly inadequate. You will have access to those representations. Included within those was PACE s submissions. These included reference to and submission of its document entitled Annex1 EHDC Housing supply Annex 1 reproduced here as Appendix A was compiled from the Council s Authority Monitoring Report and data obtained from its Planning application portal, as referred to by Aston Parish Council. We confirm that the relevant Council planning officer was invited to help validate our conclusions and emerging broad implications for the Plan outcomes, but that was declined. Following the conclusion of PACE s research, we felt that our finding had a material bearing on the Plan Examination outcomes and should be considered by the Inspector and made known to her Examination audience. As a matter of public record PACE contacted the Inspector, through her Programme Officer on the 14 th February 2018, a day before the commencement of the Main Modification consultation period began in the following terms In the light of the AMR, released on 29th January [2018], coupled with data [obtained] from the Council's Planning Application portal, PACE is currently of the opinion, that the Council's dwelling supply figures materially understates the Council's demand/supply assumptions built into its pre-final Plan which goes out for consultation tomorrow. If correct this will have a direct bearing on whether sites, such as EOS1 and others are needed, with consequential effect on Green Belt release. We wish to bring this important matter to the attention of the Inspector prior to consideration of her Report. We also wish to advise interested parties of the concluding findings of our research so that they may reference that during the final consultation phase. The question is how do we do that? Is there provision within the process to submit further material evidence that has come to light since the [Pre-submission] public hearing phase which may affect the Inspector's findings and Report? If so how may this be done? It would be helpful to do so in a way that prospective respondents may refer to a document number, or some such during final consultation. The Inspector s Programme Officer responded over a month later (18 th March) simply advising that PACE should submit the issues raised in our response to the consultation on the Main Modifications. The Consultation closed on 29 th March. Our material concerns were not therefore made available to inform the Consultation audience. On the 6 th April 2018 PACE wrote to Inspector Christine Thorby, again though the formal channel. We expressed concern that PACE s evidence was effectively being dismissed. Our letter to the Inspector concludes PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 3 10

4 PACE s significantly higher forecast of the dwelling excess for the Plan period supports similar comments made by others during the Week 1 Hearings, and now through the Main Modification consultation round. The potential excess, too large to be considered as a contingency, can facilitate removal of one or more allocated sites from the draft Plan. We would request, therefore, that the Council be asked to comment on the broader impact of PACE s evidence, and, if deemed appropriate, that a specific Hearing session be convened to examine the implications for the emerging Plan. A similar, but independent request was submitted to the Inspector by CPRE (Hertfordshire). That and the Inspector s responses are documented on the East Herts Examination documents page under references ED184 A-D In her response to CPRE on the 25 th April, copied to PACE, the Programme Officer advised that Inspector Thorby appreciates the points that have been made by CPRE but does not need a further hearing session on objectively assessed need as she already has all the relevant information. At this point PACE, and CPRE, were left unclear whether the Inspector had acknowledged the significance of the potential material excess supply relative to the Council s OAN in framing her Final Report. It is now clear that the Inspector has not done so. The Council s housing supply assumptions are over cautious, will lead to a material over-supply of dwellings by 2033, and without modification to the Plan will cause unnecessary loss of green belt contrary to Government policy. The Council has made assumptions relating to new dwelling proposals likely to come forward by 2033 relating to its Category 1 Villages and prospective windfalls, that would yield an excess of supply over its updated OAN of some 450 dwellings by Using data contained in the Council s Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and material extracted from its Planning Application portal, PACE has demonstrated that the excess will considerably and materially be significantly higher. We suggest the excess could be in the region of 2,000 dwellings. If this transpires the Council s Plan will generate some 20,450 dwellings by 2033 compared to its revised OAN of 18,458. This is a potential uplift of some 25% from its Pre-submission Plan calculation of 16,390 dwellings. We accept entirely that the volume of potential excess is subject to interpretation of the data. The direction of travel is however abundantly clear. It demonstrates that without modification, the Plan, if approved in its present form will lead to more land being taken out of the Green belt that is required to meet the Council s housing need assessment. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 4 10

5 We ask that you instruct EHDC to review its estimate of housing supply, and its assumptions contained within the existing version of its Plan relating to Category 1 Villages and windfalls, so that you might objectively assess whether the Council is justified in allocating the green belt site within the Beane Valley, known as EOS1 for development. PACE therefore requests that you call-in the EHDCDP on the following grounds 1. The proposed adopted Plan has not been examined appropriately under the prevailing 2012 NPPF, as outlined in the CPRE (Hertfordshire) letter. 2. The Inspector has failed to acknowledge that the Council s provision for windfalls and Category 1 Villages within the East Hertfordshire District Plan has been significantly understated, as evidenced by its own data, published following its Pre- Submission Pan Consultation. Without amendment to the Plan the Council s housing supply will materially exceed its revised OAN of This will lead to the unnecessary loss of Green Belt, contrary to Government policy, relevant elements of the 2012 NPPF and PPG guidance. PACE in context: PACE looks to examine, and where appropriate champion opposition of unsustainable major development proposals to the East of Stevenage. It s genesis dates to Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Examination in Then it supported a proposal by Hertfordshire County Council, endorsed by East Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council to rebalance Stevenage by developing to its West of the town. A counter proposition was put to develop to the East of Stevenage. That proposition was dismissed by the Inspector. Two subsequent Planning Appeals, which sought to develop to the East of Stevenage within the Beane Valley, have similarly been dismissed by their respective Inspectors as inappropriate development. In 2016 PACE facilitated a community awareness programme and encouraged engagement of the EHDCDP on both sides of the East Hertfordshire and Stevenage administrative boundaries. It has worked closely with both Aston Parish and Walkern Parish Council s and adjoining Stevenage Borough Ward residents and its Borough Council Members. Since the 3 rd of August 2018 its EHDCDP challenge campaign on Facebook has received over 21,000 views. The campaign has helped prompt other responses to you. Yours sincerely, Stephen M Sypula Convener to PACE PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 5 10

6 Appendix 1 East Hertfordshire District Plan 2011 to 2033 Examination of EHDC s dwelling supply assumptions and conclusions Summary of findings PACE s research challenges the Council s housing supply conclusions and suggests its estimate of excess dwellings over the Plan period is materially understated. We request therefore that the Council remove unnecessary site allocations from the Plan and thus reduce the release of Green Belt within the East Hertfordshire District. Using data available in August 2017, the Council estimates that its total dwelling supply over the Plan period will be 18,913 (DPS3). Compared to its Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (FOAHN) of 18,458 this suggests an excess supply of some 450 dwellings In arriving at this excess the Council makes two key assumptions: 1. It assumes that Category 1 Villages will generate 500 dwellings in the Plan period, of which 391 have already received approval. This leaves a residual target of 109 to be completed by It further assumes windfalls running at 75 dwellings per annum. PACE has examined the Council s data sources and finds that the assumptions result in a material understatement of the whole period Plan excess, and an understatement of supply during the Plan s first 5 years. Our initial research, summarised in Table 1, clearly demonstrates that the volume of new dwelling approvals, outstanding as at August 2017, will itself lead to a significant uplift in the volume of windfalls assumed by the Council. This hard unchallengeable data suggests of itself that the windfall allowance should, more realistically be set at between 100 and 140 dwellings pa. This would increase the notional surplus of dwellings by 2033 from 450 to between 850 and 1,490. In support of this, and to test the Council s assumption that just a further 109 dwellings will be built within Category 1 Villages by 2033, our research also examined the Council s Planning Application portal to assess the volume of new dwelling applications made in the five-month period since the Plan numbers were finalised in August A second sieve examined pre-september 2017 applications which have subsequently been approved. Our findings on the former, shown in Table 2, with its supporting schedule of dwellings by Ward / Parish (Annex 2), suggest that applications for some 388 dwellings have been approved, or await determination at the end of February The second sieve, provided in Annex 3, and summarised in Table 3 finds that a further 193 dwellings have subsequently been approved. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 6 10

7 Based on this latest information PACE suggests it is not now unreasonable to suggest the Plan period dwelling excess could well exceed 2,000, and not 450 as advised by the Council. Whilst several of the current applications will not be approved, others earlier refused will come forward following appeal. The volume of likely new dwellings evidenced, in just five months since the Plan figures were finalised, together with pre-august 2017 applications subsequently approved, clearly throws into question the Council s assumption that just a further 109 dwellings will be completed by The updated figures also materially challenge the windfall allowance, currently set by the Council at 75pa. PACE considers these findings to be material : The accepted robustness of the East Hertfordshire economy suggests that the pattern of windfalls is unlikely to vary significantly after the Plan is adopted; The Council itself accepts that there is scope to increase the supply side further if delivery of homes at the Gilston Area is accelerated (MM/3/16, Policy ). In conclusion, the excess, potentially exceeding 2,000 dwellings, will considerably exceed that which might be accepted as a reasonable working contingency. This now requires re-examination of the need to include marginal sites, such as East of Stevenage (EOS1) in the adopted Plan. The Council has implemented a more robust monitoring and review process. That, coupled with its adoption of the higher 20% buffer, suggests that deletion of one or more allocated sites can be achieved by adopting more realistic windfall and Village targets. These suggested modifications will not impact the Plan s stated objectives and targets. They will however demonstrate the Council s willingness to minimise the reduction of Green belt land needed to meet its Plan requirements. Implications and findings as they impact the Main modifications MM/3/09 /11 /16 & 19: The specific rationale for inclusion of EOS1 was to help meet a deficit in the Council s five-year land requirement. Updated information, coupled with closer analysis of existing data suggests that justification no longer has relevance. EOS1 is essentially developer led. It was included as a prospective location by the Council, with no prior public consultation, very late in the Plan development process. It was included specifically as the developer assured the Council it was able to develop the site within, and therefore help achieve, its five-year supply target. Contrary to assurances given by the Council during the Hearing sessions that is now proven not to be deliverable, as demonstrated by the Council s release of its latest Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) published on 29 th January 2018, its latest update of the Statement of Common Ground (ED 131), nominally dated 30 th September 2017, and MM/3/19 Policy DPS3. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 7 10

8 The Inspector will note that these data sources now demonstrate that EOS1 is no longer required specifically to meet the Council s first five-year needs. Excluding the additions identified by our research, the Council has already identified that it has the equivalent of 6.2 years of land supply over the period. This equates to an excess of supply amounting to some 1,466 dwellings between 2017 and MM/3/016 Following the Enquiry Hearings in 2017, the Council at the end of January 2018 published its latest Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) covering the fiscal year 2016/17. The cut-off date has been extended to assist the Plan consideration by including data collected up to the end of August The Council suggests an excess dwelling supply for the period of some 450 dwellings. Closer examination of the AMR and the number of dwelling applications approved, but not completed, suggest the Council s estimate of 75 windfalls per annum over the remaining plan period is materially understated, and is therefore statistically unsound. This has a direct bearing on dwelling excesses assumed in the Plan. Table 1 below is a direct extract from the Council s AMR and MM/A/02 (Appendix B Strategy Worksheet of the Plan). This clearly demonstrates that the Council s has adopted an overly pessimistic assumption of future Windfalls. Table 1: Published average annual completions as at the AMR cut-off date of 31 st August 2017 Published completions by year 2017/8 2018/9 2019/ /1 2021/2 2022/3 Dwellings approved Cumulative build Average completions p.a Source EHDC Essential Reference Paper B - AMR (Appendix D) January 2018 It will be seen from Table 1 that forecast completions, based on approved applications known at the 31st August 2017, considerably exceed the 75 dwelling completions p.a. assumed in the Plan. The Plan acknowledges that East Herts is an economically vibrant and prosperous location: There is no reason, therefore, to assume that the future level of applications for small windfall sites will reduce significantly following adoption of the Local Plan.Working on this data alone, we therefor suggest that a less pessimistic target for windfall sites, of between 100 and 140 dwellings pa, be included in the determined Plan. Without removal of any site allocation, this could increase the notional surplus of dwellings from 450 to between 850 and 1,490. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 8 10

9 MM/10/02 Advises Group 1 Villages will accommodate at least 500 new homes between The AMR (MM/3/019) and MM/A/02 identifies prior approval of 391 dwellings leaving a residual 109 to be delivered between now and PACE has conducted an examination of the Council s Planning Application portal to test the robustness of both the residual Village contribution over the Plan period (109 dwellings), and the general provision of windfall sites of 75pa. This examined the volume of net new-build applications received by the Council between 31 st August 2017(the cut-off date for the AMR and this Plan update) and 28 th February A second sieve identifies pre-august 2017 dwelling applications which have subsequently been approved. This first examination identified that application for 388 new dwellings (net of refusals to date) was sought in just five months. Several of these will be refused. Others may subsequently be approved on appeal. The applications logged by the Council over the five months cover Category 1, 2 and other settlements, excluding District Plan allocations, shown in Annex 2 is summarised below: Table 2: Net live dwelling applications, excluding those on appeal, at 1 st March Category 1 Village dwellings 143 Windfalls locations - Category 2 Parishes 105 Windfalls - other Villages / locations 31 Towns - excluding District Plan Allocations 109 Total 388 A second sieve examined those planning applications which had not been determined at the AMR cut-off date (August 2017) found that a further 193 dwellings have subsequently been approved as shown in Annex 3 and summarised in Table 3. Table 3: Pre September 2017-dwelling applications subsequently approved. Category 1 Village dwellings 1 Windfalls locations - Category 2 Parishes 45 Windfalls - other Villages / locations 0 Towns - excluding District Plan Allocations 147 Total 193 Note and caveat: The figures included within Tables 2 and 3 provide a broad indication of the direction of travel. PACE does not have access to the Council s data base. It has therefore conducted a manual trawl using the Council s Planning Application portal. The figures should therefore be regarded as instructive. PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 9 10

10 We contend that even if just 50% of the volume of dwellings applied for in just five months since August 2017 are approved directly or on appeal, the volume of applications evidenced by the Council s Planning Application portal shown in Table 2, coupled with the harder numbers reflected in Table 3 and those already demonstrated in Table 1, materially further challenge the Council s current Plan assumptions relating to both its Village & windfall target assumptions going forward. The Council s residual needs target for the period between August 2017 and March 2033 for Category 1 villages is 109 dwellings. This research demonstrates clearly that the number of dwellings likely to come forward in the next 15 years has been grossly underestimated by the Council. Looking specifically at these Category 1 Villages, if we assume refusal of the application to build 105 dwellings in Walkern that still leaves 38 new dwelling applications received in just five months. This again strongly suggests that the residual Category 1 Village target, assumed over the remaining 181 months of the Plan period should be substantially increased, as was indeed suggested by a number of representatives at the Hearing in Week 1. Regarding potential windfalls these should similarly be increased to reflect both extant approvals known in August 2017 and the higher volume of dwelling applications / approvals subsequently identified by our research summarised in Tables 2 and 3 above. Stephen Sypula, Protecting Aston s [wider] Community Existence (PACE), March 2018 View Annex 2 by clicking on, or copy and paste to your browser View Annex 3 by clicking on, or copy and paste to your browser PACE, 28 Tatlers Lane, Aston End, Stevenage, Herts SG2 7HL e: pace@sayno2go.online p: Page 10 10