FA22

It is critical that the Inspector is made aware that the Core Strategy is making an under provision in terms of housing supply and in order to meet the NPPF aspirations for additional housing growth it is necessary to encourage a minimum level of housing as set out in the existing South East Plan. This document has been subject to public scrutiny and it is clearly wrong for future housing supply to be artificially denied to the local community. The housing provision needs to be increased in line with national policy aspirations to create economic growth and in compliance the 'Laying the Foundations : A Housing Strategy for England' (November 2011).

Para 47 requires the local planning authority "to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirement with an additional buffer of 5%" or to increase the buffer to 20% if there has been a record of persistent under-delivery of housing.

Email response: Thank you for informing me about the Council's consultation on its Focused Amendments to the Core Strategy. I have given these due consideration and wish to submit the following representations in respect of FA22.

The decision of the District Council to amend Policy IMP3 in light of the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is welcomed. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the Council should have considered the implications of this most important document on the whole of its planning strategy. In particular, the Council should have objectively assessed the needs for market and affordable housing, it is required to do so under paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Objection had already been made to the lack of provision in the Rye area in my representation dated 9th November. It is now necessary to object to the failure of the Council to undertake a full and proper assessment of its needs throughout the District. Indeed, the wording of Policy IMP3, namely to maintain a supply of available housing land, must be considered against the requirement of the NPPF for the Council's to objectively assess its needs. Whilst it is accepted that the South East Plan currently remains the Development Plan, the Council should nevertheless undertake a full and proper assessment of its needs and identify these in a Local Plan, in accordance with the NPPF.

The Council's failure to do this therefore renders the Plan unsound.

Further letter to clarify tests of soundness: I refer to your email dated 25th June in which you asked me to identify the tests of soundness that the plan failed to meet, and for me to confirm whether or not the Plan was legally compliant. I have used your Consultation Help Note together with the National Planning Policy Framework ("the Framework") in constructing this reply.

The fifth question in your Consultation Help Note regarding legal compliance asks whether the Focused Amendments conform with national and regional policy? The explanatory text then states that the Core Strategy must have regard to the national policy and conform generally to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (the South East Plan).
It is submitted that the Proposed Submission Core Strategy and the Focussed Amendments fail to meet the housing provisions of the South East Plan and fail to take full account of national policy as set out in the Framework.
In my representation dated 9 November 2011 I criticised the Council for failing to provide sufficient housing for Rye. I also said that the Council should have made every effort to achieve its housing requirements, in accordance with the draft NPPF.
The Council had the opportunity to rectify the situation and meet its housing requirements throughout the district in the Focused Amendments. The final version of the Framework had been published by that time and so it is submitted that the Council should have taken full account of it. Unfortunately, they decided not to do this. There thus remains inadequate housing provision in the Plan. Rather than objectively assess its full housing needs, the Council has ignored this requirement of the Framework. There is, therefore inadequate provision. In these circumstances it is submitted that the Plan is not legally compliant.
With regard to the soundness of the Plan, the following comments are submitted. First, the Plan has not been positively prepared, since it does not meet objectively assessed development requirements. Secondly, the Plan is not justified, since it does not contain a robust and credible evidence base. Thirdly, it is not effective, as it contains barriers to development which will be used to prevent its objectively assessed requirements to be met. Finally, the Plan is not consistent with national policy, since it fails to objectively assess housing needs, or seek to substantially boost the supply of housing.
For the reasons set out above, the Plan is neither legally compliant or sound. I would therefore welcome the opportunity to articulate these concerns in more detail at the forthcoming Inquiry.