Our representations in respect of Policy OSS1 cover the following principal
issues:
(1) There is no adequate justification for the overall level of housing provision
proposed, and the Core Strategy is both unjustified and inconsistent with
emerging national policy in this respect;
(2) There is no adequate justification for the level of housing proposed for the
Villages/Rural Area, irrespective of the level of growth directed towards
Bexhill and the urban areas; and
(3) The Policy does not set out a sufficiently robust framework in terms of the
spatial distribution of growth within the rural areas, in the absence of any
definitive position in respect of the rural settlement hierarchy.
Representations
Overall Housing Quantum and the Quantum of Housing in the Villages
2. Paragraphs 7.9-7.10 of the Core Strategy note that the South-East Plan
established a target for Rother District of 5,600 new homes 2006-2026, a figure
that took account of a broad assessment of local, sub-regional and regional
housing needs, weighed against the suitability of the district to accommodate that
level of growth. The level of growth equated to 280 units per annum.
3. Having regard to the Council's technical evidence, we seek below to examine the factors that have led to the proposed reduction in provision below the RSS target in the current draft Core Strategy. It should however also be borne in mind that at the current time, and until the RSS is revoked, it remains the case that there is a legal requirement for general conformity with the RSS, and the provisions of the Core Strategy in respect of housing fail that legal requirement. At this stage, it is not known when the RSS will be revoked.
4. In its Background Paper on Housing Provision, the District Council seeks to
explain at some length the reservations that it had regarding the level of housing
provision set out in the South East Plan (Section 2 of that document, pages 6-13),
and in the expectation that the South East Plan will now be revoked, it is evident
that this history of reservation is now finding expression in the lower housing
figure now being proposed. The fact remains however that whatever reservations
the District may have had, it did support the South East Plan's housing provisions
(subject to the provision of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road), as the final paragraph
in Section 2 (para 2.33) makes clear.
5. Section 2 of the Background Paper goes on to explain the evolution of the Core
Strategy and summarises the responses to consultation at previous stages. We
would highlight the fact that, as explained in paragraph 2.41 of that paper, the
previous iteration of the Core Strategy (the "Strategy Directions" consultation of
November 2008) proposed 1,300 dwellings for the Villages. The broad summary of consultation responses to the November 2008 draft is set out in the Table on
pages 17 and 18 of that document, and in respect of the scale of development in
the Villages, the summary of the consultation states "...the scale of development
previously proposed is considered appropriate and deliverable ...". It should also
be noted at this point that the figure of 1300 units for the rural areas was itself less than the 1600 endorsed for the 'rest of Rother' area (i.e. outside the coastal zone) in the South East Plan over the period 2026-2026 (see for example paragraphs 8.9-8.10 of the Background Paper).
6. It is also important to note that in order to accord with emerging guidance in the Draft NPPF, the Core Strategy should clearly recognise the need to a)
significantly increase the supply of housing and b)1 the Council are now required
to identify and maintain a "rolling supply of specific deliverable sites to provide 5
years supply of housing (against their housing requirements) and a further 20% to
help improve choice and competition.
7. Sections 4 and 5 of the Background Document, sets out an account of the
demographic factors influencing housing need, the supply of market and
affordable housing. There are a number of important conclusions that we would
draw from the analysis presented (coupled with the findings of the SHMA), which
include:
(1) That even the South East Plan housing provision figures would act as a
constraint on the 'natural' population growth of the area - paragraph 4.7 of
the Background Paper makes clear that based purely on births, deaths
and migration, forecasts suggest that the population of the district would
rise to 104,600 by 2026 (not limited by housing growth), compared to
92,174 by 2026 (limited by housing growth). It should also be noted that
although the 92,174 population figure is quoted in the text the graph at
Figure 3 on page 23 actually shows a population growth of over 95,000
people by 2026, and it is not clear which figure is correct. These increases
are from a base of around 90,000 people in 2010.
It is evident therefore from these projections that the South East Plan
housing figure of 5,600 is actually only catering for only a small proportion
of the population growth that would otherwise be occurring if housing
provision were not constrained, and clearly the lesser provision figure set
out in the draft Core Strategy will act as an even greater constraint against
an evidently high level of housing demand (which in turn will effect
affordability).
(2) The aging population profile means that the causes of housing need
primarily result from in-migration to the District. As the Government has
made clear, however (see "Planning for Growth" March 2011, and the draft
NPPF), accommodating migration pressures is part and parcel of planning
for new housing. There is a tendency amongst Local Planning Authorities
to view migration as somehow being an externality that it is within their
power to control, and that by adjusting housing provision to suit locally arising needs (i.e. excluding migration) that this is somehow to the benefit
of local communities. The fact is that Local Planning Authorities have no
control over the occupation of property within their areas, and people are
free to move around the country as they wish. In areas where there is
pressure on housing from in-migrants, restricting supply simply means that
in-migrants and locally arising households have to compete for a stock of
housing that is of insufficient size to cater for both groups, with the
inevitable result that house prices rise, and many local people will be
forced to move out of an area due to the lack of accommodation. Ironically,
planning to only meet locally arising housing needs in areas of high
demand for in-migrants actually acts against the stated objective of
housing local people. Migration is therefore part of the 'natural' change of
population within any given area, and is no more subject to local authority
control than births, deaths, or falling household size.
On that basis, the graph at Figure 10 on page 27 is of interest in terms of
showing the significance of migration as a factor in housing need, but is
wholly irrelevant as a tool for policy formation, since zero net migration is
simply not a real-world scenario.
(3) It is relevant to note from Figures 5 and 6 that under the policy based
projection in Figure 5 (i.e. with the constraint of the South East Plan
housing figures), Rother District loses a higher proportion of the 35-49 age
group, and retains less of the 20-34 age group, than it would do under the
Trend-based projections (i.e. with no housing restriction) shown in Figure
6. In other words, restricting the supply of new homes appears to have a
negative effect on the Council's stated objective to maintain a balanced
population, because restricting housing supply doesn't affect the
proportion of older people, but does restrict the proportion of people of
working age.
(4) The SHMA confirms that based on household projections of 5,220 new
households between 2006-2026, the South East Plan proposed growth of
5,600 new homes over the same period is in fact appropriate (taking in to
account also that as a result of standard vacancy rates, the number of new
homes always exceeds the number of new households).
(5) The need for affordable housing significantly exceeds the supply of
affordable housing (paragraphs 5.9-5.10 of the Background Paper in
particular refer). Bexhill and the rural areas are the main areas of
affordable housing need.
(6) A significant proportion of need arises from the growth in single person
households, but as the Background Paper correctly points out at
paragraph 5.23, the size of home occupied is determined primarily by
income and wealth rather than need per se, and therefore single person
households do not necessarily occupy single person housing units.
(7) House prices in Rother are not significantly different to East Sussex as a
whole (Figure 14 of the Background Paper), albeit lower than the averageof the district to London compared to some of the home counties. As in all
parts of the country, house building rates fluctuate on a year by year bases
(Figure 17), but the report notes that the housing market is somewhat
stronger in the inland rural areas (paragraph 5.6).
8. Section 6 of the Background Paper explains the relationship between new
housing and economic performance, and notes that economic performance
appears to be being constrained by a lack of suitable housing, in particular a lack
of affordable housing to help the economically active young stay in the area, and
a lack of housing generally which results in labour being drawn in from outside the
District (para 6.6 of the Background Paper).
9. Section 8 of the Background Paper sets out the various environmental
designations that apply to the District. The salient point to note here is that none
of these have changed since the South East Plan was adopted, and indeed in
setting a level of 1600 units for the rural area in the South East Plan, the
Background Paper acknowledges that the Panel endorsed this level of growth
having specifically considered the environmental constraints referred to.
Paragraph 11.11 in the conclusion similarly confirms that the South East Plan's
proposals for 280 units per annum took account of strategic environmental
constraints.
10. Section 9 consider Infrastructure Constraints, and concludes that, aside from the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, there are no other "showstoppers" to housing
provision. The relevance of the Link Road is essentially limited to growth in Bexhill
and the Hastings Fringes, according to the explanation given in paragraphs 9.2-
9.14, and indeed the document states explicitly at paragraph 9.11 that delay in the
Link Road will not affect Rye or the Parishes.
11. Section 10 considers housing delivery. It notes in the first instance that the scale
of potentially suitable housing land equates to some 6,800 units according to the
SHLAA, some 20% more than the South East Plan figure. Significantly, paragraph
10.9 states:
"The SHLAA largely confirmed the earlier Rural Settlement Study in that,
overall, villages are expected to have sufficient capacity to meet the
original requirement. Supply is dispersed over many sites, and village sites
are generally more attractive to developers."
12. We turn then finally to the conclusions of the Background Paper in respect of the matter of the scale of housing growth, which are set out in paragraphs 11.16-
11.19.
13. At paragraph 11.17, the Background Paper says that the "further appraisals set out in the preceding sections in relation to sustainability and deliverability" of
development at Bexhill, Rye and the Hastings fringes lead to the view that the
scale of development "for those areas" should be reduced. The problem here
though is twofold:
(1) As per our summary above, in fact there is nothing in the Background
Paper (or the Sustainability Appraisal) to lead to that conclusion, even for
the specific areas mentioned.
Housing need and demand remain high, there are identified shortfalls in
affordable housing provision, there are sufficient suitable sites to deliver a
higher housing requirement from the SHLAA, and the document itself
admits that economic performance is being hampered by a lack of suitable
housing.
Reliance on lower house-building rates as a result of the recession as an
excuse for a lower housing target is a policy of the tail wagging the dog,
and also runs the risk of becoming a 'self fulfilling prophesy' - once targets
are lowered, house building will itself be constrained by a lack of allocated
land;
(2) Even if the conclusion in paragraph 11.17 is accepted, it is only applicable
to the urban areas, and the Background Paper offers no explanation
whatsoever as to why the original proposal for 1600 homes in the 'rest of
Rother' in the South East Plan, changed to 1300 homes in the previous
draft, should now become 950-1000 homes.
There appear in fact to be only two main reasons underlying the drop in the
proposed number of news homes, and these are set out at paragraph 7.23 of the
Core Strategy itself. Here the Core Strategy seeks to justify the reduced rate
firstly on the delay of a few years in the projected opening of the Link Road, and
secondly on the fact that housing completions between 1991 and 2011 have run
at 241 units per annum, which is less than the 280 per annum proposed in the
South East Plan.
15. Both arguments are effectively covered by our Point 1 above, and neither should be accorded any significant weight. Over the lifetime of the Plan to 2028, the delay in the opening of the Link Road is not a significant factor, and whilst it might affect the delivery of the Council's Masterplan for North-East Bexhill in the shortterm, it should not materially affect delivery overall. Furthermore, in relation to average build rates from 1991, it was of course fairly common across the South
East region (which is generally a constrained area for new building) that meeting
the higher rates of growth set out in the South East Plan meant increasing
housing delivery over historic rates, by bringing more land forward for
development. Historic rates should not therefore be a guide to future rates, and
(as the PINS guidance states), nor should long-term Core Strategies be prepared
on the basis of the current recession, but on 'normal market conditions'.
16. From the latest Annual Monitoring on the Council's website, we understand that
completions between 2006 and 2010 (i.e. the first four years of the Plan period)
equated to 1135 units at a rate of around 283 per annum, including individual
years at over 400 per annum. The 2011 Housing Land Supply paper includes a
figure of 222 units for 2010/11, making the total five year supply 2006-2011 to be
1,357 units, at a rate of 271 units per annum. Notwithstanding the current
recession, there is nothing to suggest that, with suitable and deliverable land
available, house building rates could not meet or indeed exceed 280 per annum.
For all of the above reasons, we consider that the reduced scale of housing
provision compared to the South East Plan renders the Core Strategy:
(a) Legally deficient, whilst the South East Plan remains;
(b) Unjustified, since there is no substantive evidence to support a reduced
housing figure, against substantive evidence to the contrary; and
(c) Not consistent with national policy (particularly PPS3, Planning for Growth,
and the emerging NPPF).
18. In respect of the rural areas and Villages, we consider that the above points apply with equal or indeed greater force (and apply irrespective of any decision about the future scale of growth in the urban areas), on the basis that neither the Core Strategy nor the Background Document provides any argument at all as to why the rural areas/villages allocation has been reduced, and indeed the Background Document provides convincing evidence that housing delivery in the rural areas at the rates set out in the previous iteration of the Core Strategy can and should be delivered.
Settlement Hierarchy
19. Paragraph 7.43 of the Core Strategy states that the overall impact of the
development distribution set out in OSS1 is to maintain the existing settlement
pattern, but other than identifying Bexhill, Battle and Rye as the main settlements,
Policy OOS1 does not actually define what the settlement pattern actually is for
the remainder of the district, and nor is this issue fully resolved in Chapter 12
which deals with the Villages and rural areas (see separate representations to
RA1 in Chapter 12).
20. Figure 9 on page 74 sets out a table which defines Robertsbridge and Ticehurst
as Rural Service Centres, and then 7 other villages (Burwash, Hurst Green,
Seddlescombe, Northiam, Westfield, Peasmarsh and Catsfield) as Local Service
Villages).
21. The Core Strategy makes clear (e.g. paragraph 12.15) that the approach of the Core Strategy is to concentrate development in the rural areas at these villages, since these offer the greatest services and are the most sustainable locations, but the Core Strategy also includes a substantial element of ambiguity in the strategy for the rural areas by:
(a) Not including the hierarchy set out in Figure 9 in any policy; and
(b) The fact that paragraph 12.15 goes on to explain that the distribution of
development might not in fact reflect that hierarchy; and
(c) The fact that the actual housing distribution in the rural areas set out in
Figure 12 bears only passing resemblance to the hierarchy in Figure 9.
22. In respect of (a), the concern is that the hierarchy established by Figure 9 has no
effective interpretation in Policy. Part (v) of Policy RA1 does not refer to Figure 9,
but instead refers to the detailed list of possible village allocations in Figure 12.
Parts (iii) (c) and (iii) (d) of OSS1 make no reference to Figure 9. Figure 9
therefore exists essentially in isolation within the supporting text of the document,
when in fact it should form an integral part of OSS1 (and RA1) as the basic
starting point for the distribution of development in the rural areas.
23. In respect of (b) above, whilst recognising the desire for flexibility, the Core
Strategy does not provide a sufficiently robust framework to ensure that either
individual planning applications or a subsequent site allocations DPD will in fact
follow the broad settlement hierarchy established by Figure 9.
24. In respect of (c) above, Table 12 provides what appears to be both an unjustified level of specificity for the Core Strategy, and a distribution of development that fails to reflect the settlement hierarchy established by Figure 9. Whilst Table 12 suggests that the two Rural Service Centres would take the largest scale of new growth, it then goes on to identify some 17 villages that could all make a not insignificant contribution to housing growth, whereas only 7 villages are identified in Table 9 as Local Service Villages. So the outcome of the Core Strategy through Table 12 could be that the scale of development across a number of smaller villages, either individually or cumulatively, exceeds the scale of growth in larger Local Service Villages.
25. For all of the above reasons, we do not consider that the provisions within the
Core Strategy for guiding future development in the Rural Areas are sufficiently
clear as to be effective, and nor is there any explanation as to why less
sustainable villages are being identified for potentially greater growth that the
Local Service Villages, and hence this aspect of the Core Strategy is not justified.