Public Examination: Further Representations

DRAFT CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN

PUBLIC EXAMINATION: FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

ON BEHALF OF ARJOWIGGINS CHARTHAM LTD

Lee Evans Planning Ref: 03374

JUNE 2015

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1This further submission has been prepared by Lee Evans Planning on behalf of ArjoWiggins Chartham Ltd, the owner of land to the east and west of Station Road, Chartham. This further evidence sets out the client’s responses to the following:

Matter 1: Spatial Strategy

Day 2: Session 2 and

Matter 2: Housing Strategy

Day 3: Session 3, Questions a) to h)

Day 4: Session 4, Questions i) to x)

1.2The further submissions assess the implications of a number of documents submitted by Canterbury City Council for examination in so far as they relate to my client’s representations and should be read in conjunction with submissions:

PV 243

PV 247

PV 248

PV 251

PV 261

PV 262

PV 263

PV 264

These documents comprise the following:

• CDLP 1.14 Topic Paper Plan Vision & Strategy November 2014
• CDLP 5.7 Housing Needs Review - latest NLP report April 2015
• CDLP 5.6 Topic Paper Housing November 2014
• CDLP 8.9 Joint Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council Sturry Link Position May 2015
• CDLP 11.6 Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan November 2014 CCC

1.3The nature of the submissions made in response to the submission draft Local Plan can be summarised as follows:

• The growth scenario selected by the Plan constrains housing numbers to below the level that is required to meet local needs

• The distribution of housing growth made by the Plan fails to adequately identify a level of growth for local centre villages that is sufficient to meet local needs and to support local services

1. THE SPATIAL STRATEGY RESPONSES

2.1This section makes representations on the spatial strategy (SS) and the Housing Strategy (HS) of the Plan in the format of responses to the Inspector’s questions set out in the Matters, Issues and Questions document dated 21 May 2015. Some of the responses have been jointly prepared and where this occurs they have been marked.

2.2SS Question a): The Canterbury Futures Study provides an appropriate starting point for the development of a strategy of development for the district over the Plan period. This study rightly identifies that the economic strengths of the district are generated by Canterbury itself and provides the motivation for developing a growth strategy based on the City.

SS Question b): The positive answer to question a) indicates that an appropriate spatial vision and objectives based on the Canterbury Futures Study does provide a suitable basis for the development of the spatial strategy for the Plan. However it is on the way in which this strategy and objectives have been developed that questions arise and we set out in the response to the next question our view on this matter.

2.3SS Question c) and HS Question b), d) and g): We challenge the scale of growth set out in the Plan against its stated objectives. One of the key objectives of the Plan is to provide sufficient housing to meet local housing needs and support economic growth. In selecting a strategy based around growth scenario e set out in the Nathaniel Litchfield Canterbury Development Requirements Study 2012 the study recognises that the level of housing growth necessary to meet local housing needs, including its backlog, would necessitate delivery of 1,149 dwellings per annum to 2031.

2.4The Canterbury District Housing Strategy 2012 – 2016 also confirms that“we need 1104 new affordable homes every year. This is a big increase since the last study in 2004, when 766 affordable homes were needed annually.” Existing affordable homes meet only 23% of housing needs. 53.5% of those in housing need are families with children and there is a severe shortage of three- and four-bedroom family homes.

2.5This Housing Strategy document appears to be at odds with the submitted information in the background papers where in Topic Paper 1 it states that

“Although the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2009) indicated a high level of affordable housing need which might affect the level of OAN, the Council has undertaken a full review of its housing register and has identified total need for 1,734 dwellings to meet local need in 2014, compared to 4,708 in 2013. The Council considers that this is the most reliable and up-to -date information available on affordable housing need, even making an allowance for element of hidden affordable housing need”

2.7 This statement is made to justify the approach that Canterbury has taken in adopting scenario (e) for its growth strategy. The sudden reduction in the affordable housing need seems to result from either redefining the qualification criteria for affordable housing or the ignoring of hidden households who do not register rather than the provision of a large volume of new affordable homes in the district. What is certain is that there is no evidence to support the sudden reduction in affordable housing need which is in any event at odds with the evidence base data in the East Kent SHMA 2009 and the Litchfield review in 2015.

2.6Moreover the date of the background supporting documentson which the submitted strategy is based pre dates the NPPF and the methodology of assessing housing needs adopted by the study did not accord with that recommended by the NPPF.

2.7A review of the Litchfield Study, the Housing Needs Review 2015, provides updated evidence on need based on the NPPF methodology.

2.8It found that there is a 6% increase on the housing need under the 2012 household projections over the previous formation rates on which the Local Plan growth figures are based.

2.9The study indicated that the demographic-led starting point has been arrived as described as 620 dwellings per annum to which there needs to adjustment to take account of market signals. For Canterbury, market signals indicate upwards adjustment on the demographic-led starting point. The level of upward adjustmentsuggest that there willbe a need to set housing needs at that which is ‘reasonable’ between 10% and 20% higher.

2.10The objectively assessed housing requirement then needs to take account of the affordable housing need. At paragraph 6.6, the Litchfield 2015 Study states that affordable housing needs in Canterbury amount to between 601 and 697 affordable dwellings per annum when utilising net formation rates for new households and between 690 and 854 when utilising gross formation rates for new households. Assuming the delivery of these affordable dwellings at 30% of total housing, the outcomes of these scenarios increase significantly to between 2,003 and 2,847 total dwellings per annum. It is clear that there are significant affordable housing needs in Canterbury and the Council will need to consider whether uplift in the objective assessment of housing need and an increase in the total housing figures included in the Local Plan could help deliver the required affordable homes.

2.11The backlog of affordable housing need has been assessed in both this document and also recorded historically in the East Kent SHMA 2009.

2.12No uplift has been made to take account of this. Nor does the Local Plan indicate that a higher level of housing growth than the selected growth scenario is unsustainable in the District. This calls into question whether the Local Plan has a sound evidence base.

2.13Furthermore the Plan fails to take account the potential impact of outside development pressures on local housing levels. In this respect there are two issues that need to be taken into account. The first is the request by Swale to accommodate a proportion of its housing growth. We have no comment to make here as to whether this is a reasonable request driven by constraints to development in that district. However it may affect local housing targets as Canterbury does act as a centre for growth and jobs for a wider hinterland.

2.14The second pressure for further housing development in the district arises from its role in providing overspill housing for London. We are aware that the latest Greater London growth strategy indicates the need to provide 6,600 houses per annum in areas surrounding the Greater London authority area. For Kent this does an impact on the level of housing growth districts which are able to contribute to that annual requirement.

2.15Whilst it is not possible to quantify the extent that Canterbury can contribute to that shortfall in the absence of a regional planning document it is clear that those areas served by the high-speed rail link could have the potential to partially resolve the shortfall. This too will add to development pressures in the District.

2.16Thus Canterbury’s approach needs to be assessed in the light of the NPPF and NPPG guidance. The NPPG approach to assessing housing need is the most up to date guidance on this matter.

2.17The NPPG sets out the methodology of calculating housing needs. Wherever possible, local needs assessments should be informed by the latest available information. The growth figures are based on pre 2012 household formation information and do not follow the advice of the Litchfield updated Housing Needs Review 2015 which suggests that a review of housing growth figures should be undertaken. Furthermore the 2012-2037 Household Projections which were published on 27 February 2015, and are the most up-to-date estimate of future household growth are not assessed as part of the Local Plan Strategy. .

2.18The NPPG advice states that the assessment of development needs are an objective assessment of need based on facts and unbiased evidence. In constraining the supply to meet only a proportion of the assessed housing need the Council has not followed the advice of the NPPG.

2.19It states that “Plan makers should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need, such as limitations imposed by the supply of land for new development, historic under performance, viability, infrastructure or environmental constraints. However, these considerations will need to be addressed when bringing evidence bases together to identify specific policies within development plans.”

2.20No consideration of these matters is given by the plan or supporting background documents. In these circumstances the Plan cannot reflect the spatial vision or objectives.

2.21SS Question d): no comment

2.22SS Question e): It is accepted that the evidence base does examine alternative levels of growth for the district and sustainability appraisals have been carried out on these alternative growth scenarios. However we consider that there are two issues arising from the evidence base that needs to be considered. The first issue is that the sustainability appraisals produced by AMEC do not appear to balance those positive and negative impacts of each growth scenario in order to come to a reasoned conclusion the best strategy for the district.

2.23Nor are there any other documents which seek to weigh the benefits or disadvantages of higher growth scenarios with the significant benefit of providing sufficient housing to meet needs.

2.24Consideration is given to alternative spatial strategies to meet the identified level of housing growth adopted by the local plan. However most importantly Topic Paper 1 confirms that for the rural areas, general constraint except for modest level of development to meet local needs in most villages is the only option which has been prepared. Whilst we are fully supportive of basing the strategy of growth around Canterbury itself the failure to examine the level of housing growth necessary to meet local needs in the villages is a key omission.

2.25In this respect we point to representations made on behalf of ArjoWiggins Chartham Ltd that seek to allocate housing land at Chartham which will both help to meet the overall housing land supply in the district and to meet local needs and sustain the local community.

2.26A strategy of rural development as part of the overall strategy may have an impact on the delivery of key infrastructure along the Sturry/ Herne Bay corridor (in terms of the level of housing growth) but the infrastructure identified is only brought about to serve the allocated sites in this area.

2.27A structured strategy of growth at key villages such as Chartham which benefits form a direct rail link with Canterbury could represent a more sustainable form of growth for the district overall. However no alternative spatial growth strategy has been satisfactorily assessed in the local plan background documents.

2.28The implications of not carrying out this alternative strategy assessment for the key villages in Canterbury district relate principally to the following issues:

•inability of providing for housing needs arising in the locality and

•aging population less able or willing to support local facilities and

•potential for declining school population from the locality and

•the potential for long term population decline and

•falling revenue from taxes and

•lack of adequate investment in many infrastructure services such as water, foul and surface water drainage

2.29SS Question f): no comment

2.30SS Question g):We consider that Canterbury’s growth strategy, which is based on the delivery of housing on strategic sites, is a high risk and inflexible one.

2.31We do not intend to examine in any detail the financial risks and implications associated with the reliance of a few large sites paying for major new highway proposals such as a new A2 interchange, Sturry bypass and Herne bypass.Nor do we have the detailed knowledge to do so.

2.32We take note of the viability assessments submitted in support of the Council’s case. On the surface they do not appear to examine in any detail an assessment of current financial market lending requirements/restrictions.

2.33 We simply make the point that because of the major financing arrangements that need to be in place each of the sites there will inevitably be some uncertainty over the timing for bringing new sites forward.

2.34Slippage in the programme of housing delivery could be significant. Canterbury City Council’s Topic Paper 2 on housing dated 2014 and forming a background paper to the local plan indicates that in order to satisfy housing needs, delivery on the sites in the Herne Bay corridor need to commence the year 2015 – 16 with a total of 1,666 dwellings to be provided on these sites by 2019. A further 400 dwellings are to be delivered on the South Canterbury site at the same time.

2.35Whilst it is acknowledged that the plan makes provision for the delivery of some housing on the sites in advance of the infrastructure provision no account is taken of either a delay in the start on sites or the halting of building in adverse economic conditions which would firstly hit the 5 year supply and secondly the delivery of infrastructure.

2.36Having examined previous Highway Agency and KCC Highway comments into development along the Sturry/Herne Bay corridor it is clear that any new housing will adversely affect flows across the Sturry Railway crossing which is over capacity already. Thus development of some new housing in advance of the infrastructure is unacceptable as a matter of principle.

2.37These questions and uncertainty over the ability of the allocated sites to deliver housing, at least in the short term, will have an impact on the five-year housing land supply.

2.38There is no contingency arrangement in place to secure the bringing forward of other unconstrained sites to make up the shortfall. The NPPF is clear and unequivocal, local authorities must identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.There is no procedure set out in the plan for a land requirements review to take place or for a contingency strategy to be adopted.

2.39SS Question h): the establishment of a settlement hierarchy provides a positive means by which to assess development proposals which do not form housing allocations in the plan. However the strategic approach to the location of development expressed in policy SP4 fails to allow for flexibility in decision-making.

2.40The policy fails to support the strategic approach to the location of development by virtue of the following points:

• Clause 1 of the policy supports new housing within urban areas. It does not support housing development which is based on an extension beyond existing identified urban boundaries even if there is a recognised shortfall in housing land supply

• Clause 2 allows for only the small scale provision new housing in the identified service centres of a number of villages amongst which is Chartham. There is no definition in the plan of what constitutes small scale development. In previous local plans the definition of small scale suggests schemes of 10 units classified as beings scale. This would prevent the bringing forward of a larger development on land either within joining the settlement which would otherwise be acceptable.

2.41 In the case of the Chartham site have been made development in excess of 60 units is achievable on a previously developed site and which, subject to flooding issues and landscape impact issues would be considered acceptable.It should be noted that in this particular case a pre-application consultation and where initial views from the planning authority suggest that development of the site is acceptable subject of those criteria identified above and highway issues. This example, by way of illustration appears to be specifically excluded by the draft policy framework.

2.41SS Question i): no comment

2.42SS Question j): We consider that the evidence base inadequately supports the viability of individual settlements within the overall hierarchy. We have a concern that there has been no analysis of the viability of facilities and services within the villages which would support the strategy of no significant changes within them.

2.43We would expect a background report examining the following issues to be available in support of the Council’s approach towards development the identified service centres:

• Analysis of local housing needs to establish the extent of housing development necessary to deliver the amount of affordable housing. For example the identified need at HArbledown/Rough Common was for 17units which would require over 55 dwellings to deliver that number. This is a scale of development that exceeds the definition of small scale

• Analysis of capacity of local school to accommodate further development.

• Analysis of capacity of other facilities and services including capacity of the local doctors surgery to take additional patients

2.44SS Question k): if the Council is to support housing development in the local villages that are capable of accommodating more than minor development it should be formally identified in a policy or land allocations in order to provide clarity.