REPRESENTATIONS - Hart District · 2.9 In total, only 1,591 dwellings of the committed supply...

REPRESENTATIONS

Hart District Council Local Plan Main Modifications Consultation

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF WATES DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

August 2019

of 20

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5

Housing Need and Requirement ......................................................................................... 7

New Settlement Area of Search ........................................................................................ 10

Housing Supply ................................................................................................................. 11

Local Plan Review ............................................................................................................. 13

Sustainability Appraisal ..................................................................................................... 15

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 18

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Wates Matter 3 Hearing Statement

of 20

INTRODUCTION

1.1 These representations are prepared on behalf of Wates Developments Limited (‘Wates’), the promotion party

and developer relating to the potential development of up to 700 residential dwellings, site for primary school,

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and community facilities at Pale Lane, Fleet.

1.2 These representations are made following the publication of Proposed Main Modifications to the Hart Local Plan

Strategy and Sites 2016-2032 Pre-Submission Version document and supporting Sustainability Appraisal Report

Addendum.

1.3 For the emerging Local Plan, Wates has submitted duly made representations to each stage of its production.

This includes submissions to the Council’s Regulation 19 consultation on the submission draft plan, production

of Hearing Statements to the Inspector’s Issues & Matters Questions, and participation throughout the

Examination in Public (EiP). Throughout these submissions, Wates has raised significant deficiencies within the

Plan and its supporting evidence base, many of which have been reflected in the Inspector’s Post Hearing Letter,

dated 26th February 2019.

1.4 Whilst positive steps towards making a sound and legally compliant Local Plan have been made by the Council

through the proposed Main Modification, significant deficiencies remain. In summary, these representations

cover:

Support for the revised housing requirement in the context of accommodating unmet need from Surrey

Heath District Council (SHDC);

Continued evidence to demonstrate the full OAHN as in excess of that proposed within the Council’s

SHMA;

Support the removal of all references to an Area of Search for a new settlement at Murrell

Green/Winchfield, including policy SS3;

Highlight the unsound approach of failing to plan for 230 dwellings against the new housing requirement;

Support the inclusion of early review mechanisms, particularly in light of the failure to Plan for the District’s

housing requirement; and

Highlight the continued deficiencies in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA), which have not been rectified by

the SA Report Addendum.

1.5 Wates has demonstrated land at Pale Lane to be available, suitable and deliverable, testing this under the

scrutiny of a planning application and public inquiry. In light of the above continuing deficiencies, we propose a

further Main Modifications to include the Pale Lane site within the Local Plan, supported by an updated and

objective SA Addendum. This would result in the following benefits:

Meet the proposed housing requirement in full, reducing the likelihood for the need of an early review of

the Local Plan;

of 20

Create a modest buffer of 6% to provide flexibility in meeting the housing requirement;

Provide much needed affordable housing in an area that will continue to deliver far fewer than is the

evidenced need;

Deliver sustainable development in a location that has been shown to be capable of providing appropriate

supporting infrastructure including in relation to education and SANG; and

Align with the Local Plan Vision in directing growth to Fleet, developing its role as the main service centre

in the District.

1.6 In allocating Pale Lane, the Council would rectify existing deficiencies (subject to production of an appropriate

supporting SA and on the assumption the Inspector remains unmoved on his conclusions on OAHN), allowing

the Council to adopt the Local Plan and secure up-to-date planning policies, providing greater certainty in the

direction of future growth in the District.

1.7 In accordance with the transitional arrangements of the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and

as confirmed by the Inspector during the Examination, the Plan will be assessed against the policies of the 2012

NPPF. Unless specifically stated, all references to the NPPF will be in relation to the 2012 iteration.

of 20

HOUSING NEED AND REQUIREMENT

2.1 This section addresses the proposed changes under MM10, MM19, and MM21, as well as a commentary on the

Council’s objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) and housing requirement.

OBJECTIVE ASSESSED HOUSING NEED

2.2 Wates supports a proactive and positive approach by local planning authorities in assessing, and supplying for

their future housing needs. In this context, we commend the suggested approach of the Council when assessing

the standard methodology, removing the ‘cap’ and then applying an uplift of 25% as a contingency in case of a

change in methodology or alterations to data such as household projections or affordability ratios. However, it is

clear that under the transitional arrangements of the 2019 NPPF the use of the standard methodology is not

justified. This was clearly set out within our Matter 3 Hearing Statement and accepted by the Council during the

Examination hearings.

2.3 We maintain the OAN of 382 dwellings per annum (dpa) set out in the SHMA is not robust. Full details are set

out within our Matters 3 Hearing Statement appended to these representations; however, key failings can be

summarised as:

Failing to address in any robust manner the historic under-delivery as a result of a building moratorium,

as required by PPG 2014 ID 2a-015. This means the SHMA’s analysis flowing from this (including the

market signals uplift and affordable housing) are also inherently flawed;

Failing to make an adjustment for market signals which on reasonable assumptions could be expected

to improve affordability, as required by PPG 2014 ID 2a-020. Applying a fixed percentage uplift to a flawed

starting point (as the SHMA has done) simply produces a figure which is also inherently flawed, and in

any case our analysis of comparators shows that 15% is likely to be too low. The SHMA does not consider

any other options, such as a stock growth based approach, which would not depend on the projections

but could provide a useful benchmark for what Hart might be expected to deliver if it delivered simply at

the national average rate (of 1.3%), or more given the scale of affordability pressures. A rate of 1.3%, or

507 dpa, is still well within what is ‘reasonable’, particularly given higher rates of 1.8-2% seen elsewhere

in more affordable districts;

Failing to address affordable housing needs as required by the PPG (and clarified in King’s Lynn decision)

within the OAHN itself. Instead, the Council defers this to the requirement, which does not reflect

paragraph 159 of the NPPF or the King’s Lynn decision. HOU5 shows that the Council believes a figure

in excess of 382 dpa is deliverable, and this should have formed part of the OAHN.

2.4 Correcting the flaws in the SHMA, the evidence indicates that a housing figure in the region of at least 500 dpa

would be an appropriate basis for the plan. This would:

of 20

Reflect starting point demographic-led needs likely to be at least c.320dpa (but likely more) once

accounting for the distorting and dampening effects the housing moratorium had on the trend period from

which the household projections draw;

Reflect the significant uplift necessary to address market signals and affordability in Hart;

Would broadly match the 1.3% stock growth per annum which nationally needs to be achieved to meet

Government’s 300,000 dpa target; and

Levels above 500 dpa would address more of the significant affordable housing need in the District.

SURREY HEATH UNMET NEED

2.5 We support the conclusions of the Inspector in relation to unmet need from SHDC. It is clear that Hart represents

the optimal, and possibly only location to ensure unmet need from SHDC can be accommodated within the

housing market area.

2.6 We agree with the Inspector that unmet needs from SHDC could rise from the current levels proposed within the

Main Modifications. However, based on the evidence available at this time, a pragmatic approach is for the

proposed accommodation of 41 dpa on top of Hart’s OAHN, with a review mechanism installed should the

Examination into the SHDC Local Plan, or any additional evidence provide a clearer indication that this unmet

need is greater.

HOUSING REQUIREMENT

2.7 Taking the above into account, we support in principle an uplift to the housing requirement in line with the

suggestion of the Inspector. However, in line with our Matter 3 Hearing Statements, the proposed 423 dpa would

still reflect a significant shortfall against the full OAHN figure.

2.8 We support the recognition by the Inspector of the benefits to affordable housing delivery resulting from raising

the housing requirement. The Council’s evidence identifies a significant need for affordable housing. HOU1a

Figure 10.27 details there to be a need for 130 affordable rented homes and 180 subsidised purchase homes

per annum, or a total of 310 affordable dpa.

2.9 In total, only 1,591 dwellings of the committed supply (completions to date, sites with permission, including

Hartland Village) would come forward as affordable housing, which would represent only 27% of the total

committed supply. When including other sources (i.e. sites within boundaries etc.) this would increase to 1,695

affordable homes, or 26% of the overall housing supply. Against the affordable housing need identified over the

plan period, the Council’s supply of affordable housing would only meet 34% of this need, equating to shortfall

of 3,265 affordable homes.

2.10 Paragraph 10 of the Inspector’s letter states “I consider that to uplift the housing requirement beyond 423

dpa, to deliver additional affordable housing, would result in open market dwellings being provided when there

is no evidence of any need, which could lead to an imbalance between homes and jobs and unsustainable

of 20

commuting patterns.” However, it is clear from the above shortfall that a failure to raise the housing requirement

beyond 423 dwellings would in fact itself cause a significant social and economic impacts, exacerbating an

already acute housing crisis problem.

2.11 The evidence shows that there is not just a failure in affordable housing delivery, but a failure to address

affordability in Hart. The SHMA started from a flawed starting point, failing to account for a development

moratorium that cumulated historic under delivery. The fixed 15% uplift is also shown to be too low when

compared to our analysis of other local authorities where a 20-30% uplift was applied to areas of better

affordability.

2.12 Furthermore, we have detailed for reference how a stock-based approach against national average would

result in a need of 507 dpa. Given that the affordability crisis within Hart greatly exceeds that of the national

average, to provide a housing requirement in excess of this figure would be in line with Government policy to

address affordability by significantly boosting the supply of housing and delivering 300,000 dpa.

2.13 It has been evidenced through the Examination, supported by the Council’s evidence that sustainable and

deliverable sites are available in Hart that would help deliver these aims. We do not support the notion that there

is no evidence of any need beyond the requirement of 423 dpa, which represents a minimalist approach to

addressing the housing crisis at both a national and local level.

of 20

NEW SETTLEMENT AREA OF SEARCH

3.1 This section provides comment on the proposed removal of references within the Local Plan to an Area of Search

for a new settlement at Murrell Green/Winchfield, including the entirety of Policy SS3. Relevant Main

Modifications include:

MM11;

MM12;

MM19;

MM20;

MM25;

MM32;

MM75;

MM130;

MM149; and

PM02.

3.2 Wates strongly supports the removal of all references to an Area of Search for a new settlement at Murrell

Green/Winchfield. It was clear from the Examination hearings that the Council had fallen far short of

demonstrating the soundness of Policy SS3.

3.3 We agree with the assessment of the Inspector, as detailed at paragraph 18 of his letter that the policy sought to

establish the principle of a new settlement as the most appropriate growth strategy for meeting the Council’s

long-term needs. The Council sought to do this without providing a sound or legally compliant assessment to

demonstrate this as the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, as

required by paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

3.4 Whilst the Council may retain long term aspirations for the development of a new settlement at Murrell

Green/Winchfield through a review of the Local Plan, it needs to ensure that a fully evidenced and impartial

assessment is undertaken against other reasonable alternatives, including sustainable urban extensions to key

service centres.

of 20

HOUSING SUPPLY

4.1 This section assesses the impacts of retaining a shortfall of some 230 dwellings within the Local Plan’s housing

land supply against the requirement. This is relevant to MM10, MM22, MM23, and MM142.

4.2 The revision of the Local Plan period to cover 2014-2032, alongside an uplift in the housing requirement to 423

dpa results in a total housing target of 7,614 dwellings. Table 1 of the Local Plan as detailed at MM23 details for

a total supply of 7,384, a shortfall of 230 dwellings.

4.3 We would consider it unwise for a Council not to propose a buffer within its supply beyond the total housing

requirement. However, proposing to adopt a Local Plan that does not identify sufficient sites for meeting its

housing requirement is categorically unsound.

4.4 Paragraph 13 of the Inspector’s letter states:

“The Plan would provide for specific, developable sites for 12 years following the adoption of the

Plan anticipated sometime in 2019. I consider that this would meet the requirements of Paragraph

47 of the NPPF and the shortfall of 230 dwellings during the last year of the Plan period, would

not result in the Plan being found unsound, particularly as the Plan would need to be reviewed in

5 years time in any event.”

4.5 We appreciate the Inspector’s approach in seeking a pragmatic way forward to assist the Council in adopting its

Local Plan. However Paragraph 182 is clear that to be considered ‘positive prepared’, the Local Plan should be

based on a strategy that meets housing requirements. We disagree that the Local Plan meets the requirements

of paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which states that local planning authorities should “use their evidence base to

ensure that their Local Plan meets the full”, going on to state the need to “identify a supply of specific, developable

sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15” [our emphasis].

4.6 The Council has available to it a wealth of sites that are available and deliverable to meet this need. There has

been no justification, and no justification exists why the Council cannot identify either a broad location or specific

development site that would provide for this shortfall of 230 dwellings.

4.7 Whilst we support recognition by the Inspector (paragraph 10 of his letter) that an increase in housing requirement

would result in more affordable housing, this would not actually materialised unless further sites are identified for

the supply.

4.8 The SA1 has identified that a spatial strategy including Pale Lane is most favourably higher growth option. As the

‘do-minimum’ option no longer meets the OAHN/housing requirement for the Local Plan and can therefore no

longer be considered a sound approach, a clear and evidenced route would be to adopt this Option 2 approach

1 Page 141 of the February 2018 Sustainability Appraisal Report – Summary findings and conclusions

of 20

and allocate the Pale Lane site. This has been demonstrated as capable of delivering much needed affordable

housing in line with the recognised significant need in the District.

4.9 Deferring the identification of this supply to a potential Local Plan review in five years time runs contrary to the

principle of the plan-led system. If the Council is to only identify sufficient sites to meet its development needs up

to one year before the end of the Plan period with no justification for doing so, then there remains no reason to

provide for a Local Plan up to 2032 and the Plan period should be amended to 2014-2031.

4.10 Wates has grave concerns over the reliability of the Council to bring forward a review of the Local Plan in a

timely manner when required. The need to review Local Plan every five years has been a statutory requirement2

for over seven and a half years. The current Hart District Local Plan 1996-2006 was adopted in 2002, with saved

policies confirmed in 2009. Accordingly, the District has seen a 13 year period beyond the end that Local Plan

period where a policy vacuum for strategic planning has been left, a period that included a moratorium on house

building and housing become 50% less affordable to average households. Given the lack of justification to the

contrary, it is imperative the Plan is amended to include provision for the entirety of the housing requirement.

2 Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012)

of 20

LOCAL PLAN REVIEW

5.1 This section addresses amendments to the potential review mechanisms within the Local Plan as detailed at

MM121.

5.2 Wates strongly supports the inclusion of early review mechanisms to be incorporated into the Local Plan. In its

approach to the standard methodology, the Council had clear recognition for the need to provide flexibility to a

Local Plan given uncertainty around future housing need. Given the lack of flexibility within the proposed housing

supply, and in fact a shortfall against the housing requirement, the need incorporate clear and stringent review

mechanisms is essential.

5.3 MM121 details four scenarios in which an early review (prior to the statutory five years from adoption) of the

Local Plan will be triggered. Whilst these are supported in principle, they fail to provide specifics that give clarity

on when a review is triggered.

5.4 The first trigger states that “Results of annual monitoring on the effectiveness of the plan in line with the Plan’s

Monitoring Framework and having particular regard to the monitoring of housing delivery”. This is unclear on

what extent of failure against housing delivery objectives would actually trigger a review, is it any under delivery?

5.5 A clearer approach might be to link this trigger to the Housing Delivery Test. Should the Council fall below the

95% threshold and be required to produce an Action Plan, this could incorporate the implementation of a review

of the Local Plan. An additional approach could be to trigger a review should it be demonstrated that the Council

is failing to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, either through an Annual Position Statement or within a

section 78 appeal decision. This would provide the opportunity for the Council to get ahead of the problem before

housing delivery necessarily falls below the housing need/requirement.

5.6 The second trigger relates to significant changes in national planning policy and/or legislation. It is appreciated

that this is difficult to be specific here as some future changes are currently unknown. However, the Council is

aware of the 2019 NPPF (of which this Local Plan is not examined against), including the standard methodology,

itself to be subject to further changes.

5.7 The Council should include reference to any changes in the standard methodology identifying a Local Housing

Need for the District that would result in either a failure of the Housing Delivery Test (below 95% and the triggering

of an Action Plan in line with the above), or a failure to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. As

demonstrated in its original approach to OAHN, the Council is clearly conscious of changes to the standard

methodology and a need to create flexibility to accommodate future changes. Applying a specific trigger such as

this allows the Plan to ensure that it can still be effective throughout its lifetime.

5.8 We support a trigger linked to any further unmet need arising within the HMA. A practical approach to SHDC’s

unmet need has been proposed, based on the evidence available. As SHDC moves through to the latter stages

of producing its new Local Plan, including its Examination, more clear evidence will be produced to demonstrate

of 20

the full extent of unmet need. Should there be any increase from that currently proposed to be accommodated

within the Hart Local Plan, a review should be triggered.

5.9 The assessment of whether a review is required should not be deferred to an annual position review in the

production of an Annual Monitoring Report. With specific triggers in place in line with the above suggestions, the

Council can clearly see a specifically the point at which a review is required and immediately report it to relevant

committees to approve.

5.10 We continue to have reservations over the effectiveness of an early review. Research3 shows that the in the

five years following the publication of 2012 NPPF, no early reviews that had been triggered within Post-NPPF

plans had been completed. Accordingly, we would support a commitment within the Local Plan that in the event

a review is triggered, the Council would submit to the Secretary of State its reviewed Local Plan within three

years of the original trigger.

3 Planned and deliver – Local Plan-making under the NPPF: A five-year progress report April 2017 (Lichfields)

of 20

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

6.1 This section highlights the continued legal and soundness deficiencies of the SA process supporting the

emerging Local Plan.

6.2 During the Local Plan EiP, Wates raised significant issues in the soundness and legal compliance of the SA,

many of which have been identified by the Inspector, whilst others, such as the lack of consultation on the Post

Submission Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report (“August 2018 Report”), were put aside due to preceding

deficiencies that would render this immaterial.

6.3 We support the views of the Inspector that a bias was applied within the August 2018 Report in assessing the

Area of Search. The assumptions and scoring applied to the Area of Search options were unjustified, and without

support from robust evidence. This was evidently clear in the face of the assessment applied to reasonable

alternatives, such as those including an allocation for Pale Lane, which had been through the scrutiny of an

application determination process but were denied reflection that suitable mitigation was possible.

6.4 Accordingly, and as stated above, Wates supports the removal of Policy SS3 and all references to the Area of

Search within the Local Plan. We also support the removal of the Post Submission Interim Sustainability

Appraisal Report from supporting the Local Plan. However, the simple removal of these aspects has not rectified

deficiencies that remain within the February 2018 Sustainability Report and the SA as a whole, a key aspect of

which the August 2018 Report sought to rectify.

6.5 The August 2018 Report highlights the deficiencies of its February 2018 counterpart, stating its need to

supplement the work done to date in regards to SA. Paragraph 2.1.5 states:

“Indeed, the 2018 reasonable spatial strategy alternatives, as presented within Table 6.3 of the

SA Report remain suitably up-to-date other than in two respects –

Firstly, there is a need to factor-in the option of identifying a New Settlement AoS (see

discussion above, at para 1.1.3). Essentially, there is a need to add a new ‘variable’ row

to Table 6.3 of the SA Report, and in turn to assume that a New Settlement AoS will be

supported under some of the spatial strategy alternatives, and not under others.

Secondly, there is a need to reconsider the matter of reasonable higher growth options,

in light of the NPPF transitional arrangements published by Government in July 2018. In

effect, there is a need to revisit the conclusion reached at para 6.5.13 of the SA Report

that “490 dpa (Option 7) is a reasonable high growth option”.”

6.6 Paragraph 2.3.2 of the August 2018 Report expands on this second bullet, stating:

“The assumption was that supporting the higher growth option for all three variables (i.e. a spatial

strategy option involving 700 homes at Pale Lane, 700 homes at West of Hook, and 600 homes

of 20

at non-strategic sites) would lead to an excessively large total growth quantum. However, this

conclusion was reached in light of an understanding of housing needs influenced by the standard

methodology / LHN figure of 292 dpa, more so than the higher SHMA OAHN figure of 382 dpa

(2014-2032) (albeit still mindful of the SHMA figure, see para 6.5.13). In light of the NPPF

transitional arrangements (July 2018) it is prudent to revisit this assumption and give more weight

to the OAHN figure than was afforded to it in the SA Report. Thus it is now considered reasonable

to test a new, higher growth option (Option 8) that would involve supporting the higher growth

option for all three variables listed in Table 2.1.”

6.7 Whilst we maintain that the full OAHN for Hart is far in excess of the figure derived in the SHMA, clearly the

Council felt that the February 2018 Report failed to fairly assess higher growth scenarios in the context of the

SHMA OAHN figure, concluding they would result in an excessively large total growth quantum. Accordingly, the

August 2018 Report would revisit this assessment in the context of a 382 dpa OAHN figure, adding a further

higher growth scenario that would deliver 525 dpa considered to be a reasonable alternative.

6.8 Both the Inspector and the Council have agreed a housing requirement for the Local Plan of 423 dpa, some 41

dpa greater than the figure identified by the August 2018 Report as justifying a reassessment of higher growth

options. Accordingly, the position taken by the August 2018 Report on the deficiencies of its February counterpart

are further exemplified.

6.9 The SA Report Addendum supporting the Main Modifications does consider the impacts of this increased

requirement. However, the Addendum is quick to point out that whilst the requirement has increased the supply

hasn’t, so therefore there are no sustainability effects. The Addendum reviews the assessment of the Local Plan

within the February 2018 Report in the context of the Main Modifications, concluding against all criteria that the

findings “broadly holds true”.

6.10 This raises two key issues:

The assessment of the higher growth options within the February SA 2018 is still deficient and have not

been reassessed within the Addendum; and

The conclusion the Local Plan with Main Modifications delivers significant positive effects against housing

when it fails to provide sufficient housing against the requirement cannot be considered sound.

6.11 An impartial and robust assessment of the Local Plan and alternatives to it would result in a recognition that

the preferred Spatial Strategy doesn’t fully comply with the objective to “provide all residents with the opportunity

to live in a decent home which meets their needs”. Simultaneously, it would conclude higher growth options both

meet this objective and wouldn’t represent an excessively large total growth quantum.

6.12 In accepting this position, it would be logical for the Council to follow the assessment of the February 2018

Report that concluded of the higher growth options, Option 2 – Pale Lane ranked as the most favourable.

Including Pale Lane within the Plan would provide a supply of just 6% over the housing requirement. This is

of 20

considered a logical, even conservative buffer for Plan-making and would represent the most appropriate

strategy, in line with paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

of 20

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Wates supports in principle the steps being taken by the Council through the publication of Main Modifications to

the submitted Local Plan following advice of the examining Inspector. The proposed amendments represent a

marked improvement from the submitted Local Plan. However, there are still deficiencies both within the Local

Plan and the supporting SA that go to the heart of soundness and legal compliance.

7.2 We support the conclusions of the Inspector and subsequent Main Modification to increase the housing

requirement to accommodate unmet need from SHDC. There is a clear evidenced need to do this at this time

and a failure to address this now would create a vacuum in which deteriorating affordability and access to

affordable homes would worsen. We agree with the Inspector that there is a likelihood this unmet need could

increase as SHDC progresses through its own Local Plan Examination. Accordingly, we support the provision of

a specific review trigger for this Local Plan to address any increase that is identified.

7.3 We maintain that the SHMA supporting the Local Plan contains fundamental faults and the full OAHN is actually

in excess of 500 dpa. There is a clear and agreed deficit of affordable housing in District, which would not be

addressed by the Local Plan in its current iteration. We do not agree a further increase to the housing

requirement, or an increase in the supply above the current proposed housing requirement in order to help deliver

more affordable housing would lead to unsustainable development, nor does the Council’s own evidence base

support these assertions.

7.4 Wates strongly supports the removal of Policy SS3 and supplementary references within the Local Plan. This

clearly represented a biased and unjustified commitment to a new settlement at Murrell Green/Winchfield that

sought to prejudice future growth within the District without fairly and robustly assessing the reasonable

alternatives to this.

7.5 The Main Modifications to the Local Plan would result in an unjustified housing supply deficit of 230 dwellings

against the proposed requirement. It has been demonstrated through the Examination that sustainable

development sites are available to the Council that would help meet this currently unmet need. Allocating Pale

Lane would result in a supply just 6% in excess of the requirement, a figure that would usually be considered a

conservative but pragmatic buffer. We do not agree that this would result in an excessively large and

unsustainable total growth quantum.

7.6 Given the fragility in the Local Plan, as well as the likelihood of an evolving housing need position4, we support

the inclusion of early review triggers within the Plan. We recommend amendments to those proposed triggers in

order to create clarity on when a review is to be undertaken. Furthermore, we would support a commitment from

4 Notably SHDC unmet need and Local Housing Need under the standard methodology.

of 20

the Council that such a review would be conducted in an expedited manner, ensuring the key issues that triggered

a review are addressed.

7.7 Whilst we support the removal of the August 2018 SA Report as a supporting document to the Local Plan, this

had sought to rectify deficiencies of the February 2018 Report. The suggested removal of Policy SS3 does not

fully rectify these deficiencies and nor does the SA Addendum accompanying the Main Modifications.

7.8 The increase in housing requirement necessitates the assessment of the Local Plan Spatial Strategy, and

reasonable alternatives to it to be reassessed in the context of this higher requirement. The result of an objective

assessment would be that the current Spatial Strategy does not meet the objectives of the Local Plan, specifically

in relation to housing. The Council’s evidence points to the allocation of Pale Lane as the most sustainable of

the higher growth scenarios that would meet the objectives of the Local Plan.

7.9 Accordingly, we propose a further Main Modifications to include the Pale Lane site within the Local Plan,

supported by an updated and objective SA Addendum. This would result in the following benefits:

Meet the proposed housing requirement in full, reducing the likelihood for the need of an early review of

the Local Plan;

Create a modest buffer of 6% to provide flexibility in meeting the housing requirement;

Provide much needed affordable housing in an area that will continue to deliver far fewer than is the

evidenced need;

Deliver sustainable development in a location that has been shown to be capable of providing appropriate

supporting infrastructure including in relation to education and SANG; and

Align with the Local Plan Vision in directing growth to Fleet, developing its role as the main service centre

in the District.

7.10 In allocating Pale Lane, the Council would rectify existing deficiencies (subject to production of an appropriate

supporting SA and on the assumption the Inspector remains unmoved on his conclusions on OAHN), allowing

the Council to adopt the Local Plan and secure up-to-date planning policies, providing greater certainty in the

direction of future growth in the District.

of 20

APPENDIX A: WATES MATTER 3 HEARING STATEMENTS

Pg 1/7 Lichfields.uk 16656547v3

Hart Local Plan Examination 2018

Our ref

Date 25th October 2018

On behalf of

Subject Matter 3 – Housing: the objectively assessed need for housing and the housing requirement

3.1 Having regard to the transitionary arrangements contained in the

NPPF, 2018 is the use of the standard methodology for calculating housing

need justified?

1.1 The Council had concluded that the standard method would be used for the purposes of its plan,

prior to the final version of the NPPF confirming transitional arrangements. The Council’s Duty

to Co-operate Statement (CD9), published in June 2018, set out (para 17) that:

“Hart’s Plan is based on the standard methodology, having followed transitional

arrangements set out in the Government consultation ‘Planning for the right homes in the

right places’…”

1.2 However, the use of standard method is not justified. The NPPF 2018 (as published in final form

in July 2018) sets out very clear transitional arrangements at Annex 1, paragraphs 212-214. For

the purposes of plan-making, paragraph 214 is clear that:

“The policies in the previous Framework will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where

those plans are submitted on or before 24 January 2019…” (emphasis added).

1.3 As the Hart Local Plan was submitted before 24th January 2019, the plan’s housing need figure

should not derive in any way from the standard method, as the Council has done (noting that,

even then, it does not use the standard method figure without further adjustment). This was

raised in Wates’ response to the Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation (Policy SS1,

Representation ID 188). The Plan, and housing need and requirement, is to be examined and

tested against the NPPF 2012, and associated guidance.

1.4 It should also be noted that Government has stated its intention to revise the standard method,

to be consulted upon “before Christmas”. It is highly likely the standard method as it is currently

set out, will never actually apply for Plan Making purposes, so it would not be sound to place

weight upon it at this juncture. We note that precisely this point was made by the Inspector

determining one of the first s.78 appeals under the revised NPPF concerning housing needs1 (:

“Finally, Government guidance indicates that the new methodology for assessing the housing

needs is incomplete and so it would be premature to make and rely upon such an assessment.”

(APP/F2360/W/18/3198822 para 44)

1.5 The same reasoning applies with equal force in the present context. If the Council is to follow

through the logic of its decision to apply new standard method rather than an OAN assessment

pursuant to the 2012 NPPF, then the application of the standard method will necessarily be

informed by the anticipated changes to it.

1 APP/F2360/W/18/3198822, Land of Brindle Road, Bamber Bridge, Preston PR5 6YP (31 August 2018)


3.2 Does the use of the standard methodology fulfil the requirements of the

first bullet point of paragraph 47 of the NPPF, 2012?

1.6 No, the use of the standard method does not fulfil the requirement of paragraph 47 of the NPPF

2012 – but nor does it claim to do so. There is an important distinction between the NPPF 2018

(para 60) which requires plans to be informed by an assessment of “local housing need”

conducted using the standard method and the NPPF 2012 (paras 47 and 159) which requires

authorities to identify “objectively assessed need” for housing within a SHMA in line with the

PPG 2014. They are two different constructs in national policy.

1.7 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF 2012 sets out that local authorities should use their evidence base to

ensure their Local Plan meet the full, objectively assessed need (OAN) for market and affordable

housing in the housing market area (HMA), while paragraph 159 sets out what this evidence

base should address (including migration and demographic change, all types of housing and

housing demand). The PPG accompanying the NPPF 2012 provides further information on

assessing need and identifies that an OAN should fulfil the following criteria, and these are the

bases for HOU1a (“the SHMA”):

Be proportionate and consider only future scenarios that could reasonably be expected to

occur (ID 2a-003);

Be based on facts and unbiased evidence. Constraints should not be applied to the

assessment of need (ID 2a-004);

Utilise household projections published by DCLG as the starting point (ID 2a-015);

Consider sensitivity testing, specific to local circumstances, based on alternative

demographic projections and household formation rates (ID 2a-017); and

Take account of employment trends (ID 2a-018), market signals (ID 2a-019) and affordable

housing needs (ID 2a-029).

1.8 By contrast, the standard method uses just two metrics – household growth and the

affordability ratio - to produce a minimum housing figure which becomes the starting point for

the overall housing requirement. This does not purport to represent full OAN in line with the

previous framework or guidance, which addresses the factors set out above. The PPG 2018

clarifies that the standard method:

“… uses a formula to identify the minimum number of homes expected to be planned for, in a

way which addresses projected household growth and historic under-supply. ….” (PPG 2018,

ID 2a-002)

1.9 The standard method does not account for (or claim to account f0r) several factors which inform

an OAN. Separate provisions are made within the PPG 2018 to address factors which may lead

to a higher requirement figure than the standard method (see PPG 2018 ID 2a-010), but these

are not part of the standard method for determining the minimum housing need figure. The

differences are summarised below.

Demographic-led needs

1.10 The standard method (and PPG 2018) does not allow for a departure from the official household

projections as the starting point, unless ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been demonstrated. By

contrast, the PPG 2014 at ID 2a-015 and ID 2a-017 states that plan-makers should address

factors such as past under-delivery of housing in the demographic-led assessment of need which

are not reflected in official projections. These adjustments to the demographic projections in the


PPG 2014 are in addition to addressing market signals, which is a separate part of the

assessment, set out at ID 2a-019/020.

Market signals

1.11 A market signals uplift of sorts is present in both the PPG 2014 OAN methodology (as market

signals) and the standard method (as the affordability uplift). However, the standard method

applies a fixed percentage uplift based on the affordability ratio, whereas the PPG 2014 requires

addressing a wider range of market signals (prices, rents, affordability, land values,

homelessness/overcrowding) and provides no guidance as to what scale should be applied, only

that plan-makers should “…increase planned supply by an amount that, on reasonable

assumptions … could be expected to improve affordability…” (PPG 2014 ID 2a-020). Therefore,

an element of judgment is needed as to what scale this could be.

Employment-led needs

1.12 The PPG 2014 is clear at ID 2a-018 that plan-makers will need to consider the location of

housing where there is a mismatch between likely job growth and the supply of economically

active residents. In practice, this means making an uplift to the OAN in areas where there is

expected to be a shortfall in workers; an adjustment and consideration absent from the standard

method.

Affordable housing needs

1.13 An assessment of/uplift for affordable housing needs is also absent from the standard method

(an uplift for this may be considered, but it is separate to the standard method calculation). By

contrast, it has been clarified by the courts (see King’s Lynn2) that under the PPG 2014

methodology, affordable housing needs should have an “important influence” on the OAN:

“This [at PPG ID 2a-028] consideration of an increase to help deliver the required number of

affordable homes, rather than an instruction that the requirement be met in total, is consistent

with the policy in paragraph 159 of the Framework requiring that the SHMA “addresses” these

needs in determining the FOAN. They should have an important influence increasing the

derived FOAN since they are significant factors in providing for housing needs within an

area.” (King’s Lynn, para 33) (emphasis added)

1.14 King’s Lynn accepts that in some cases meeting affordable housing needs in full might lead to an

unrealistic figure (see King’s Lynn para 32) (indeed the PPG 2014 clarifies that OAN

assessments should not consider purely hypothetical scenarios at ID 2a-003). But where it is

necessary, possible and reasonable to make an uplift to deliver more affordable housing needs,

consideration of this should form part of the OAN in an assessment under PPG 2014.

1.15 In summary, an OAN undertaken in line with the NPPF 2012/PPG 2014 cannot simply be

substituted with the standard method (as the Council has done) because of the fundamental

differences in inputs, methodology and outputs.

2 Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, ELM Park Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 2464 (Admin)


3.3 Is uplifting the housing requirement by some 33% above that calculated

by the standard methodology to 388 dwellings per annum justified? What

evidence are the uplifts based on?

1.16 The Council has applied an uplift of 33% to the – incorrectly used - standard method figure.

Therefore, the figure of 388 dpa is inherently flawed because it derives from a figure which

should not be used in the first place.

1.17 The uplift of 33% is the overall uplift from the original standard method figure (292 dpa) to the

final figure of 388 dpa. The 388 dpa is arrived at as set out in Appendix 2 of CD1 – based on the

standard method figure of 292 dpa, uplifted to 310 dpa (having removed the cap) and uplifting

310 dpa by a further 25%, giving 388 dpa.

1.18 The basis for uplifting by 25% appears to be arbitrary – the reference to the 25% appears in

Appendix 2 of CD1 (and TPO1 page 7) but there is no substantive reasoning for this precise

figure. We consider a large uplift is likely necessary to meet the ‘reasonably be expected to

improve affordability’ test in the PPG 2014, but there is no justification why the uplifts proposed

are the right scale to address the acute housing need issues in the District.

3.4 Does or should the housing requirement formally include any unmet

need from Surrey Heath?

1.19 The housing requirement does not include any unmet need from Surrey Heath with the

Council’s reasons set out in TOP1 (paras 4.6-4.14). However, none of these reasons withstand

basic scrutiny. The omission of any unmet need in Hart’s housing requirement was an issue

highlighted in the representations made by Wates to Policy SS1 p.6 at Regulation 19 stage.

1.20 Firstly, the housing requirement should include unmet need from Surrey Heath because the

NPPF 2012 (against which the Hart Local Plan is to be examined, as per Annex 1 of the NPPF

2018) is clear that:

“To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should…use their

evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for

market and affordable housing in the housing market area…” (NPPF 2012, paragraph 47)

(emphasis added)

1.21 It is not adequate to dismiss unmet need because there is apparently no shortfall against the

standard method (as the Council currently does at para 4.8 of TOP1) – the standard method

does not currently apply for the purposes of plan-making in Hart and unmet need should be

measured against an OAN contained within a SHMA. This is another significant error in the

Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement (CD9) which incorrectly states at paragraph 12 that the

housing numbers in the Hart Plan should be based on the standard method. In any case, the

standard method is subject to change imminently3, and it is premature to draw conclusions

about what figures it might produce in the future now; the Council should address what is

known now.

1.22 Surrey Heath’s current plan comprises the Core Strategy which contains a housing requirement

(Policy CP3) of 3,240 dwellings 2011-28, equivalent to 190 dwellings per annum. The SHMA

(HOU1) identified Surrey Heath’s OAN to be 382 dpa 2014-32 (HOU1a para 35)4. This means

3 As clarified in the Government statement accompanying the NPPF in July 2018, published as part of the 2018 PPG. 4 Rushmoor Council is currently consulting main modifications to its emerging plan which meets its OAN as set out in the SHMA. Once adopted, no unmet need against the OAN will exist from Rushmoor in the HMA.


that since the base date of the SHMA (i.e. 2014) a backlog of need has been accruing within the

housing market area, at a rate of 198 dwellings per annum. This is not being met in Rushmoor5.

This is need which is going unmet through plans now and should be addressed in the Hart Local

Plan in order for the Council to demonstrate that the plan meets paragraph 47 of the NPPF

2012.

1.23 Notwithstanding that existing unmet need should be measured against OAN in HOU1, it also is

unjustified to not meet needs arising now on the assumption that future unmet needs may

reduce or disappear altogether because more sites may be found in Surrey Heath. The Council

cannot evidence or demonstrate with any certainty that future unmet needs will diminish, and

should prepare its plan based on evidence of need and supply now. That evidence of need should

be based on a SHMA (e.g. HOU1) and supply based on the planned housing requirements set

out in the local plans for the area. On these bases, there is unmet need in the HMA which Hart

should meet.

1.24 Furthermore, given the constraints that exist across the HMA (with Surrey Heath largely

constrained by Green Belt, Rushmoor largely urbanised and Hart relatively unconstrained) it

would not be unreasonable for Hart to provide for unmet need from Surrey Heath; that at least

should be tested through a Sustainability Appraisal addressing the HMA’s unmet need. The

Surrey Heath Final Draft Issues and Options Local Plan states (para 3.17) that Surrey Heath

Council do not consider that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated in order to

release green belt because alternative approaches – i.e. meeting needs elsewhere in the HMA –

should be considered first.

1.25 A very similar situation has recently been explored in Waverley6 where no provision to meet

Woking’s unmet need was made citeding similar reasons to Hart Council (e.g. unmet need was

not arising until later in the plan period, Woking may be able to increase supply, etc). The

Inspector rejected those arguments, stating:

“…the NPPF states that local planning authorities should meet the objectively assessed need

within their housing market area… Waverley…is significantly less constrained…making no

allowance in Waverley for Woking’s unmet need is therefore not a sound position.

The under provision exists now and has been growing since the start of Woking’s plan period;

it needs to be addressed. It is true that any future review of Woking’s local plan will provide an

opportunity to re-examine housing opportunities and adjust its assessment of unmet need

against a new OAN calculation, but it is very clear from Woking Borough Council’s evidence…

that the town will very probably remain unable to accommodate a significant proportion of its

OAN in the future…” (Waverley Local Plan Inspectors’ Report February 2018 paras 27-30)

1.26 Similarly, the Mid Sussex Local Plan was required to increase its housing requirement to

address almost all of the unmet need from neighbouring Crawley, after the Inspector7 noted

limited opportunities in other authorities.

1.27 On the basis of the requirements of the NPPF 2012 (particularly para 47) the Hart plan is

unsound because it is not demonstrating how needs are being met across the housing market

area.

5 Rushmoor’s emerging plan is currently undergoing main modifications and is expected to be adopted soon. It plans to meet solely Rushmoor’s own needs (as per HOU1a) and does not make provision for unmet need from Surrey Heath 6 Waverley Local Plan Part 1 Inspector’s Report published February 2018 http://www.waverley.gov.uk/downloads/file/5963/waverley_local_plan_part_1_examination_inspectors_report 7 https://www.midsussex.gov.uk/media/2892/id11-inspectors-interim-letter-housing-20-feb-17.pdf


3.5 If the use of the standard methodology for calculating housing need

was considered to be inappropriate, is the objectively assessed need figure

of 382 dwellings per annum set out within the Strategic Housing Market

Assessment (SHMA) robust?

1.28 No, the OAN of 382 dpa set out in the SHMA (HOU1a, see also HOU2a) is not robust. We

explore this in further detail in our Technical Appendix, but in summary:

1 Neither the 2012-based nor the 2014-based population/household projections are suitable

for the purposes of assessing housing need in Hart because they draw upon migration from

a period in which housebuilding was at historic lows in the District (see Technical Appendix

Figure 1). These historic lows were not due to factors which might occur again (for example,

market cycles), rather an artificial constraint which was placed on housing supply by the

Council;

2 As per PPG 2014 ID 2a-015 the assessment of need should reflect this. Whilst HOU2a

attempts to address this issue by presenting scenarios based on longer term migration

trends (10 and 15 years), these periods still encompass the years in which the moratorium

was in place, having a dampening effect on the average level of completions (and therefore

migration) (see Technical Appendix Figure 3). Therefore the basis of the OAN assessment –

the demographic-led needs – is flawed (also affecting any elements flowing from it or

applied to it, including a market signals uplift or affordable housing needs assessment).

These points regarding issues around the housing moratorium and the effect on projections

were raised in Wates’ representations Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation, see response

to Policy SS1 p.5; those representations note that prior to 2008 average completions had

been around 374 dpa.

As shown in Figure 3 of the Technical Appendix, even the 15 year scenario presented in

HOU2a (see HOU2a Figure 2) draws upon a period which includes the moratorium where

completions were much lower than this, at just 339 dwellings per annum. Therefore even

the 15 year scenario, which suggests a demographic-led need of 301-323 dpa (as shown in

Table 1 of this Technical Appendix) is below what should be considered the minimum

demographic-led projection;

3 The scale of market signals uplift applied in the SHMA is not one which, on reasonable

assumptions, could be expected to improve affordability. The method – of applying a fixed

percentage uplift to the official projections – will in any event produce an inherently flawed

number because of the fundamental problems with those projections;

Again, this issue was raised in the Wates’ representations cited above whereby an

alternative approach which was based on a percentage dwelling stock growth was

presented. This shows that at a rate of 1.3% per annum (which is the rate needed nationally

to achieve 300,000 homes per annum) would be 507 dpa for Hart (see representations p.5),

but that because Hart’s affordability ratio was worse than nationally, a greater uplift would

be needed to have an impact on affordability.

This approach is reasonable because basing the housing number on existing stock as a

starting point means the number is not affected by any flaws found in the projections (as is

the case in Hart). As set out in para 3.16 of the Technical Appendix, higher rates (of 1.3%)

would not be beyond what could be expected to occur given growth rates elsewhere, notably

Cherwell and Aylesbury Vale. There is no reason why a similarly high rate of growth is


undeliverable in Hart – by way of example a rate of 1.5% per annum would yield 584 dpa

for Hart;

Alternatively, were the correct demographic-led projection established, it might be

appropriate to make a fixed percentage uplift in a similar way to CD1 Appendix 2 (which

makes a 33% uplift for various market signal type factors).

4 The Council has deferred affordable housing needs from the SHMA (HOU1a) to its

Affordable Housing Background Paper (HOU5), and believes they form part of the

requirement and not the OAN. King’s Lynn makes it clear that affordable housing needs

should influence the OAN, given they are an important element of meeting needs within an

area. The fact that the Council’s considers 485 dpa to be deliverable means this should

inform the OAN, not the requirement – albeit in the context of a Local Plan this is moot;

NPPF 2012 para 47 compels Local Plans to seek to meet the full OAN for market and

affordable housing.

1.29 In order to fulfil the requirements of the NPPF 2012/PPG 2014, there are several elements of

OAN which must be addressed in the Council’s evidence but currently are not; as a result the

OAN of 382 dpa is a significant under-estimate. The requirement of 485 dpa in HOU5 is

evidence that in the Council’s own view, its OAN could have been higher, but this still represents

a very modest growth rate for an area as unaffordable as Hart.

1.30 In our view, a housing figure informing the Plan of at least c.500 dpa would be a figure which

addresses past-under delivery, delivers at a rate of 1.3% of stock (507 dpa) which could be

expected to improve affordability and provides an uplift which would contribute to meeting the

District’s severe affordable housing needs (485 dpa), all the while being a level which could

reasonably be expected to occur. This level of housebuilding has been observed and exceeded

numerous times in recent years in Hart without there being a plan in place, there is no reason

why putting a plan in place could or should not increase and sustain delivery to these levels.


Technical Appendix – Matter 3

Our ref

Date 25th October 2018

Subject Objectively Assessed Housing Need and the Housing Requirement - Hart

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Technical Appendix has been prepared by Lichfields on behalf of Wates Developments

Limited (Wates) in the context of the emerging Hart Local Plan (PSLP). It provides further

detail on our response to Matter 3: Housing: the objectively assessed need for housing (OAN)

and the housing requirement.

1.2 As Hart’s PSLP has been submitted before 24th January 2019, it will be examined against the

NPPF 2012 (and PPG 2014), as per the transitional arrangements set out in Annex 1 (para 214)

of the NPPF 2018. Therefore we have reviewed the Council’s evidence against the requirements

of the NPPF 2012/PPG 2014, which are summarised at our response to question 3.2 in the

Matters Statement.

2.0 Summary of Council’s evidence to date

2.1 The Hart Proposed Submission Local Plan (PSLP) (CD1) covers the period 2016-32 and Policy

SS1 “Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Growth” sets out that the plan will meet the need for

6,208 homes 2016-32 (388 per annum). Table 1 of the PSLP shows a supply of 6,346, equating

to a small buffer of 2% over the requirement. The PSLP (para 101/Appendix 2) states that this

figure is based on:

1 The Standard method figure as published September 2017 – 292 dpa;

2 Removal of the cap as the Council is confident it can deliver more than 292 – giving 310

dpa; and

3 A further 25% uplift applied giving 388 dpa. Appendix 2 states that this is based on

contingency allowances, flexibility, affordable housing supply, etc.

Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath SHMA 2014-32, November 2016

(HOU1a)

2.2 HOU1a (“the SHMA”) undertook the assessment of need based on the PPG 2014 for Hart,

Rushmoor and Surrey Heath (“the housing market area/HMA”). It assessed the need for Hart to

be 382 dpa (with the HMA OAN 1,200 dpa), based on:

1 A starting point based on the 2012-based population/household projections) giving 254 dpa

for Hart and 785 dpa for the HMA;

2 A market signals uplift of 15% giving 292 dpa for Hart and 903 dpa for the HMA;

3 Employment-led needs – based on growth of 1,200 jobs per annum, this generated a need

for 361 dpa Hart (1,135 dpa HMA) (this includes some allowance for headship rate uplift –

see SHMA Figure 11.17);


4 No further uplift for affordable housing, but OAN rounded up to 1,200 dpa for HMA, giving

382 dpa for Hart.

Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath SHMA – Summary and Discussion of

OAN in the light of DCLG’s proposals and updated data, December 2017

(HOU2a)

2.3 HOU2a presented alternative scenarios based on consultation responses to the SHMA, using the

2014-based projections (published in 2016), longer term migration trends and partial catch-up

headship rates. The outcomes of these scenarios for Hart and the HMA (in terms of dwellings

per annum 2014-32) are shown below.

Table 1 Summary of alternative figure (dwellings per annum) in HOU2a

Hart HMA

Dwellings per annum

Dwellings per annum

November 2016 SHMA Starting Point 254 785

DCLG 2014-based Projections 212 686

with headship rate adjustment 232 767

DCLG 2014-based Projections, updated with MYEs 218 724


10 Year Migration 230 710


15 Year Migration 301 751


Employment-led (1,200 jpa) 311 1,022

with headship rate adjustment 334 1,110

Source: HOU2a Figure 2

2.4 HOU2a concluded that neither the updated projections nor the alternative migration scenarios

provided a justification to amend the OAN set out in the SHMA (HOU1a), and therefore the

OAN for Hart and the HMA remained as in the previous SHMA (382 dpa for Hart, 1,200 dpa

across the HMA). HOU2a also noted that as published in September 2017, the standard method

yielded 293 dpa for Hart (939 dpa for the HMA), or 310 without the cap applied (989 for the

HMA). This is below the 382 figure (1,200 HMA) concluded in the SHMA and no changes to the

housing figures were recommended in HOU2a (this would have been premature in any case,

because the transitional arrangements for the NPPF 2018 had not yet been made clear).

Affordable Housing Background Paper, March 2017 (HOU5)

2.5 HOU5 sets out the Council’s response to affordable housing need and the additional dwellings

per annum it was seeking to provide over and above its OAN of 382 dpa. It re-iterates the

findings in HOU1a, i.e. that there is a shortfall of 306 affordable homes per year to 2032 (based

on HOU1a, see HOU5 Table 2.2)

2.6 HOU5 explores various scenarios of overall delivery and affordable housing delivery (up to 750

dpa total) and recommends an increase in the housing requirement from 382 dpa (the OAN set

out in HOU1a) to 485 dpa (representing a 27% uplift). It concludes that this could deliver 194


affordable homes per annum in total, contributing to meeting more of the identified affordable

housing need.

2016-based Sub-National Population Projections and housing need using

the ‘Standard Method’, June 2018 (HOU8) (JGC)

2.7 A further paper – HOU8 -was prepared on behalf of the Council in June 2018 to provide an

update based on the recently published 2016-based population projections and the standard

method. As the 2016-based household projections had yet to be published, HOU8 sets out an

estimate of what the 2016-based household projections might produce by using applying the

2014-based headship rates to the 2016-based population projections. It estimates that the 2016-

based household projections would yield growth of around 200 per annum over a 10 year

period.

2.8 HOU8 notes that Hart would be subject to a 50% (uncapped) uplift under the standard method,

which when applied to a starting point of c.200 dpa would give c.300 dpa (depending on exactly

which period/household projection figure is used). When capped (at 40% uplift) the figure

derived from the standard method for Hart would be c.280-290 dpa (see Figure 12 of HOU8).

2.9 HOU8 does not set out the potential implications for OAN in Hart, potential implications for the

plan requirement or how the figure relates to previous SHMAs which have looked at OAN in the

context of current PPG (including employment, etc). HOU8 is simply a statement of fact

regarding what the new projections/standard method might produce for Hart and does not

appear to have fed into the requirement in the PSLP.

Summary

2.10 The Council had previously been advancing its plan – and has submitted evidence for

examination – based on an OAN derived from the NPPF 2012/PPG 2014. In the context of the

transitional arrangements set out at paragraph 214 of the NPPF 2018, the Council should

continue to advance its plan on this basis. However, the Council has – incorrectly – changed its

approach in the plan, to a housing figure which derives from the standard method. This is

directly contradictory to the transitional arrangements set out in NPPF 2018 Annex 2.

2.11 In any case, the Council’s current evidence which purports to follow the PPG 2014 methodology

(as set out in HOU1a/HOU2a) which concludes on an OAN of 382 dpa and a requirement of 485

dpa is not robust and is not an appropriate basis for an OAN for Hart, for the reasons set out in

Section 3.0 below.

3.0 Review of Council’s evidence (HOU1a, HOU2a and HOU5)

Demographic-led Needs

3.1 The Council’s OAN, as set out in the SHMA (HOU1a), is based on employment-led figure, which

exceeds the demographic-led needs plus a market signals uplift. However, the demographic-led

needs in Hart are inherently flawed because recent migration trends are affected by the housing

moratorium was in place (put in place to allow for a mitigation strategy for the Thames Basin

Heaths Special Protection Area to be implemented).

3.2 Figure 1 shows net completions in Hart since 1996/97. Prior to the moratorium being in place,

the lowest level of housebuilding was seen in 1998/99, when 163 dwellings were completed.

After that, completions steadily rose to a high of 642 in 2004/05. Completions fell to their


lowest in 2009/10, when there -17 net completions, and across the three years 2008/09 to

2010/11, a total of just 105 dwellings were completed (c.35 per annum on average). Figure 1 also

shows the average number of completions in the years feeding into the 2012-based and 2014-

based population projections1 – which form the basis for Council’s evidence in HOU1a and

HOU2a. Even though the base period for the 2014-based projections included some years in

which completions were recovering, the average number of completions was still only 168 per

annum – brought down by the extremely low level of completions seen when the moratorium

was in place. This is a very low average in the context of housing delivery levels seen before (in

the early 2000s) and since (in the mid-2010s).

Figure 1 Net Completions in Hart 1996/97 to 2017/18

Source: Hart District Council AMR/Five Year Land Supply Statement

3.3 Figure 2 shows that migration trends in Hart have broadly followed trends in housing

completions, with a notable peak in the mid-2000s (when completions were at their highest),

before falling (particularly internal migration) in the late-2000s (when completions reached

their lowest). Migration in recent years has very slowly been increasing, although not in line

with the scale of completions. This could be, for example, because recent housebuilding in Hart

has been releasing pent up demand from within the District, rather than there being a

resumption of net in-migration.

3.4 However, it is evident that any demographic trend which draws upon the period where

completions were at their historic, artificial low (i.e. 2008/09 to 2010/11) will be carrying

forward levels of unusually low migration as a result.

1 ONS sub-national population projections are informed by the preceding 5 years of trends for internal migration and 6 years for international migration.

2012-based SNPP, 132


-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Ne

t Co

mp

leti

ons

pe

r an

nu

m


Figure 2 Migration (Internal, International and Total) - Hart - 2001/02 to 2016/17

Source: Lichfields based on ONS

3.5 The Council’s evidence attempts to address this issue, notably in HOU2a, which presents 10 and

15 year migration trend scenarios (drawing upon the periods 2006-16 and 2001-16 respectively).

The use of longer term trends might be appropriate when attempting to account for cyclical

factors such as market cycles, but is less useful in understanding long term trends where they

include a period in which a specific policy constraint on housing was in place. Unlike market

cycles, such an event is unlikely to occur again, therefore to assess future needs based on this

event would be an unrealistic estimate of future need.

3.6 As shown in Figure 3 the use of a 10 year trend still incorporates all of the years in which the

moratorium was in place, and completions averaged 256 per annum. The use of a 15 year period

covers a period where net completions were slightly higher (339 per annum), but again still

incorporates all of the years in which the moratorium was in place. Had the moratorium not

been in place, completions almost certainly would have not fallen to the levels observed (even

with the recession) and the average level of completions (and therefore migration) across all the

base periods would have been higher.

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Net Migration Net Internal Migration Net International Migration


Figure 3 Net housing completions in Hart across various base dates

Source: Lichfields based on Hart District Council

3.7 By way of example, were the level of housing completions between 2008/09 and 2010/11

replaced with alternative figures, for example the previous low of 163 observed in 1998/99, the

15 year average would have been around 373 dwellings per annum. Even this is likely to be

conservative estimate given that completions would have been unlikely to fall to historic lows

and remain at those levels for 3 years, however it serves to demonstrate that projections based

on either the official projections or the alternatives set out in HOU2a are not appropriate

because they do no address past under-delivery of housing in Hart, thus failing to address PPG

ID 2a-015.

Summary

3.8 The SHMA (HOU1a) does not represent a robust basis for OAN for the purposes of Hart’s plan

because it has not addressed historic under-delivery associated with the moratorium and the

consequent impact of this “one off event” on the demographic projections as required by PPG

2014 ID 2a-017. Even the 15 year scenario does not robustly address the issue of the housing

moratorium, and therefore the true scale of demographic-led needs is higher than the 15-year

trend scenario (which suggests a minimum demographic-led need for 301-323 dpa for Hart).

Market Signals

3.9 The principle of a market signals uplift is not in dispute; HOU1a accepts that an uplift is needed

and applies a 15% uplift to its starting point. However, there are two fundamental flaws with the

SHMA’s approach:

1 The ‘typical’ approach (of applying a given percentage uplift to household projections) will

only produce a robust figure if the household projections themselves are reasonable in the

first place. For the reasons set out above, they are evidently not; and



15 Year - 2001-16, 339

10 Year - 2006-16, 256

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Ne

t Co

mp

leti

ons

pe

r an

nu

m


2 The scale of uplift is not one which on reasonable assumption could improve affordability,

as required by PPG 2014 ID 2a-020.

Applying a percentage uplift to demographic projections

3.10 Lower quartile house prices in Hart are currently (as of 2017) 14.4 times work-place based

earnings; a ratio which has risen significantly in the last few years. Looking at several recent

Inspector’s reports from elsewhere across the wider South East shows that the 15% market

signals uplift applied in Hart is low in comparison:

1 Waverley – Inspector’s Report dated February 20182. The Inspector noted that in Waverley

the affordability ratio had worsened from 13.1 at the start of the plan period to 15.5 and was

one of the least affordable areas outside London (IR para 20). On this basis, an uplift of

25% was applied;

2 Mid Sussex – Inspector’s Interim Findings on the housing requirement published in

February 20173. Citing worsening affordability since 2009, a ratio (as of 2015) of 12.6 and

Mid Sussex being the 22nd least affordable authority outside London, the Inspector applied

a 20% uplift (see IR p. 6);

3 Canterbury – Inspector’s Interim Findings dated August 2015. The Council’s evidence

(prepared by Lichfields) at the time was based on the affordability ratio up to 2013, which

was around 9.0 and had been fairly steady since the recession. At the time of preparing the

Council’s evidence, little precedent existed as to what scale of uplift should be applied.

Lichfields concluded that pressures in Canterbury were worse than the ‘modest’ pressures

in Eastleigh (where a 10% uplift was recommended4), and applied a 20% uplift; this was

subsequently accepted by the Inspector5;

4 Cambridge/South Cambridgeshire – Inspector’s Reports published September 2018.

The Councils’ evidence6, published in 2015 and referring to data from 2013, concluded

that the affordability situation in Cambridge was similar to that in Canterbury and

applied a 30% uplift. In 2013, the ratio in Cambridge was around 10.07. The Inspectors’

Report for Cambridge8 stated that a 30% uplift represented a ‘substantial but

reasonable’ uplift (IR para 29).

For South Cambridgeshire, the Council’s evidence concluded pressures were similar to

‘modest’ pressures in Eastleigh and Uttlesford – as of 2013, the affordability ratio in

South Cambridgeshire was just under 9.0. The Council applied a 10% uplift, which was

subsequently accepted by the Inspectors9.

3.11 The affordability ratio in Hart (in terms of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile

workplace-based earnings) has steadily risen following the recession from around 9.4 in 2009 to

over 14 now. This compares to a ratio nationally of 7.3 – which has been stable for around 10

years. Figure 4 below shows how the ratio in Hart has compared to the above areas since 2009.

2 http://www.waverley.gov.uk/downloads/file/5963/waverley_local_plan_part_1_examination_inspectors_report 3 https://www.midsussex.gov.uk/media/2892/id11-inspectors-interim-letter-housing-20-feb-17.pdf 4 The Eastleigh Local Plan in which the Inspector suggested a 10% uplift was found unsound and did not continue to adoption. 5 It is important to note that the overall uplift applied in Canterbury to reach the final OAN – once market signals, employment and affordable housing were accounted for – was 30%. However, the 20% proposed for market signals alone was accepted. 6 https://cambridge.blob.core.windows.net/public/ldf/coredocs/rd-mc-040.pdf 7 The Council’s evidence ‘Objectively Assessed Need: Further Evidence (November 2015)’ shows (Figure 3.4) a ratio of just over 10.0 as of 2013. However this was based on data published by DCLG, and ONS have since taken over the publication of affordability data, resulting in some revisions. The current ONS data shows in 2013 the ratio for Cambridge was 9.87 8 https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/5930/report-on-the-examination-of-the-cambridge-local-plan-2014.pdf 9 https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/5931/report-on-the-examination-of-the-south-cambridgeshire-local-plan.pdf para37


Evidently, affordability has been steadily worsening across all areas, but the ratio in Hart is now

amongst the worst areas outside London. Hart now stands at a similar level to Waverley, Mid

Sussex and Cambridge where 25%, 20% and 30% uplifts respectively were applied (albeit these

uplifts were applied when affordability may have been slightly different to the current level).

However, this does indicate that – based on an appropriate demographic starting point, an

uplift in the region of 20-30% is likely to be needed in Hart. Given that a 20% uplift was applied

in Mid Sussex at a time when affordability was relatively better (at 12.6), applying an uplift at

the top of this range – i.e. 30% would better reflect the severe situation in Hart currently.

Figure 4 Comparison of affordability ratios - Hart and comparator areas

Source: ONS

3.12 It has already been established above that the official projections and the alternative presented

in HOU2a do not address previous under-delivery and therefore underestimate future

demographic-led needs in Hart. However, were the Council to correctly establish its

demographic-led needs, based on migration and housebuilding levels which are not dampened

by the moratorium, then a market signals uplift in the region of 30% (not the 15% applied in

HOU1a) is one which (based on comparators) could reasonably be expected to improve

affordability. Indeed, the Council themselves apply a 33% uplift above the standard method

figure (CD1 page 141) in order to account for many of the same issues which the NPPF 2012’s

market signals adjustment (NPPF para 17 bullet 3 and PPG 2014 ID: 2a-019) seeks to account

for (e.g. affordability, rates of delivery, the benefits of boosting housing supply).

Stock-based approach

3.13 Wates’s representations to the Regulation 19 consultation (see response to Policy SS1 p.5-6)

present a stock based approach to a market signals uplift which is a suitable approach for

benchmarking market signals uplifts in Hart because it does not depend on the official

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Rat

io o

f lo

we

r q

uar

tile

ho

use

pri

ces

to e

arn

ings

(w

ork

pal

ce)

Waverley

Mid Sussex

South Cambs

Cambridge

Hart

Canterbury


projections, which in the case of Hart are influenced by a period of artificially suppressed

housing delivery.

3.14 For context, the 2012-based projections which underpin HOU1a suggest a need for 254 dpa in

Hart (see HOU1a Figure 8.24). 254 dpa represents just 0.65% of the current dwelling stock in

Hart, therefore even with an apparently ‘significant’ uplift (such as 30%) this will still yield a

relatively small number which is a small percent of the current stock, and unlikely to have a

significant influence on affordability.

3.15 For context, a growth rate nationally of 1.3% is needed to achieve 300,000 homes per year; the

Government’s target at which it considers it might be able to address affordability. Hart is

significantly less affordable England overall (as shown above, as of 2017 it is in fact twice as

unaffordable), and therefore as a minimum it would be reasonable to expect Hart to deliver its

‘fair share’, i.e. 1.3% annually. Were Hart just to deliver the national average (i.e. 1.3%) this

would equate to 507 dpa. 507 dpa represents almost double the household projections (i.e. an

uplift of 100% - appearing to be very significant indeed), but in the context of a very low starting

point, 507 dpa would actually represent an average growth rate in line with the national average.

In other words, because the starting point in Hart is so low, even a 100% uplift would not

actually generate a figure which is unreasonable.

3.16 Given the significant affordability issues in Hart, it would be entirely reasonable – indeed

necessary – for Hart to see a greater rate of growth than the national average (in the same that

areas of lower demand could reasonably be expected to deliver less than 1.3% growth per year).

By way of example, a rate of 1.4% would yield 545 dpa and 1.5% would yield 584 dpa. These

rates of growth are not unreasonable in the context of growth rates in plans elsewhere in the

South East, notably Cherwell and Aylesbury Vale. Cherwell’s adopted Local Plan has a growth

rate equivalent to 1.8%, which is set to increase further when it undertakes its Local Plan Review

to accommodate its share of Oxford’s unmet needs. More recently, the Inspector into the Vale of

Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-33 has found that the Plan’s requirement should be increased to

31,500, equivalent to 1,575 dpa, or growth of 2.0% per annum. Evidently such levels of growth

have been deemed reasonable and deliverable by Inspectors, and there is no reason to conclude

that Hart could not also sustain a rate of growth of atleast 1.3%.

Summary

3.17 The approach in HOU1a to market signals is flawed because it applies a percentage uplift to a

flawed starting point, and if this approach were to be used it is imperative that the starting point

is correct. Our analysis suggests that an uplift of 15% is insufficient for Hart based on the scale of

affordability pressures and the uplifts applied elsewhere, and that (if the correct starting point

were established) an uplift in the order of around 30% would be more appropriate.

Alternatively, a stock-based approach provides a benchmark for what level might be reasonable

– at 1.3% (the national average needed for 300,000 homes per annum) the figure for Hart

would be 507 dpa. Growth rates as high as 1.8-2% have been seen elsewhere, and there is no

reason why Hart could not deliver 1.3% per annum (507 dpa), particularly given these rates have

been seen several times historically in Hart without there being a plan in place.

3.18 The PPG 2014 is clear that uplifts for market signals should be those which on reasonable

assumptions could be expected to improve affordability and that scenarios should be those

which could be expected to occur (and not purely hypothetical). From a market signals

perspective, there is clearly significant scope for Hart’s OAN to be in excess of 15% above the

starting point (as concluded in HOU1a), indeed this is necessary for there to be a prospect of


improving affordability. At the very least, growth of 1.3% per annum (507 dpa) is needed, and

this should be treated as a minimum given the scale of affordability pressures in Hart.

Affordable Housing

3.19 The Council’s evidence identifies a significant need for affordable housing – as set out in HOU1a

Figure 10.27 there is a need for 130 affordable rented homes and 180 subsidised purchase

homes per annum in Hart.

3.20 There are two flaws in HOU1a which mean it does not properly address affordable housing

needs in line with the methodology set out in PPG 2014;

1 Its assessment of newly arising need derives from it’s demographic-led need (which is the

official projections) – as these are inherently flawed and an under-estimate of future

growth, any affordable housing needs assessment flowing from it is similarly infected by

these issues; and

2 HOU1a does not undertaken the exercise set out in PPG ID 2a-029 and consider an uplift to

the OAN where it could help meet needs (an approach which has been clarified in caselaw).

Instead, this uplift is considered by the Council in HOU5 and is (incorrectly) stated to be

part of the requirement, and not the OAN.

3.21 The PPG 2014 at ID 2a-029 states that:

“The total affordable housing need should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery

as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, given the probable

percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by market housing led developments. An

increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it

could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”

3.22 HOU1a at paras 10.120-10.129 sets out how it accounts for affordable housing needs in the final

OAN, in summary it makes an uplift for the amount of concealed households. However, this

does not follow the exercise set out above, namely comparing the need to the likely rate of

delivery, and considering an uplift as appropriate.

3.23 It has been clarified by the courts (see King’s Lynn10) that under the PPG 2014 methodology,

affordable housing needs should have an “important influence” on the OAN in a given area:

“This [at PPG ID 2a-028] consideration of an increase to help deliver the required number of

affordable homes, rather than an instruction that the requirement be met in total, is consistent

with the policy in paragraph 159 of the Framework requiring that the SHMA “addresses” these

needs in determining the FOAN. They should have an important influence increasing the

derived FOAN since they are significant factors in providing for housing needs within an

area.” (King’s Lynn, para 33) (emphasis added)

3.24 King’s Lynn accepts that in some cases meeting affordable housing needs in full might lead to an

unrealistic figure (see King’s Lynn para 32) (indeed the PPG 2014 clarifies that OAN

assessments should not consider purely hypothetical scenarios at ID 2a-003). But where it is

necessary, possible and reasonable to make an uplift to deliver more affordable housing needs,

consideration of this should form part of the OAN in an assessment under PPG 2014.

10 Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, ELM Park Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 2464 (Admin)


3.25 The Council deferred such an uplift to HOU5, which considers it to be part of the requirement.

This directly contradicts King’s Lynn, which is clear that affordable housing needs should have

an important influence on the OAN because they are significant factors for providing for

housing needs in the area, an interpretation which is consistent with paragraph 159 of the NPPF

2012. The Council’s own evidence at HOU5 considers that 485 dpa is deliverable, however we

consider that a rate of 1.3%, or 507 dpa would still be deliverable. Such a figure would clearly

help deliver more affordable housing whilst remaining within what could reasonably be

expected to occur.

4.0 Summary

4.1 There is no justification for the use of the standard method as the basis for the Hart Local Plan,

however unfortunately the Council’s evidence base which has been prepared with regard to the

PPG 2014 is also not a robust basis for determining OAN for Hart. Its key failing are as follows:

1 Failing to address in any robust manner the historic under-delivery as a result of the

moratorium, as required by PPG 2014 ID 2a-015. This means the SHMA’s analysis flowing

from this (including the market signals uplift and affordable housing) are also inherently

flawed;

2 Failing to make an adjustment for market signals which on reasonable assumptions could

be expected to improve affordability, as required by PPG 2014 ID 2a-020. Applying a fixed

percentage uplift to a flawed starting point (as the SHMA has done) simply produces a

figure which is also inherently flawed, and in any case our analysis of comparators shows

that 15% is likely to be too low. The SHMA does not consider any other options, such as a

stock growth based approach, which would not depend on the projections but could provide

a useful benchmark for what Hart might be expected to deliver if it delivered simply at the

national average rate (of 1.3%), or more given the scale of affordability pressures. A rate of

1.3%, or 507 dpa, is still well within what is ‘reasonable’, particularly given higher rates of

1.8-2% seen elsewhere;

3 Failing to address affordable housing needs as required by the PPG (and clarified in King’s

Lynn) within the OAN itself. Instead the Council defers this to the requirement, which does

not reflect the NPP 2012 (para 159) or King’s Lynn. HOU5 shows that the Council believes a

figure in excess of 382 dpa is deliverable, and this should have formed part of the OAN.

4.2 In addition to the flaws in HOU1a/HOU2a regarding Hart’s OAN, TOP1 also shows there is a

shortfall of housing need in the order of 443 dwellings across the HMA against the SHMA’s

OAN (TOP1 Table 7), although clearly the shortfall would be higher if Hart’s OAN were found to

be higher than that in the SHMA (which, for the reasons set out above, we believe is). The Hart

Local Plan should make provision for this unmet need given the requirements set out in the

NPPF 2012, namely that authorities need to meet housing needs across their HMA. The Hart

Local Plan currently omits any of this unmet need, and we set out at our response to question

3.4 in our Matter 3 Statement why this is unsound. The inclusion of unmet need from Surrey

Heath would therefore also provide an indicator that the housing figure in Harts’ Plan should be

higher.

4.3 Taking into account the flaws in the Council’s evidence base, the evidence for Hart indicates that

a housing figure in the region of at least 500 dwellings per annum would be an appropriate basis

for the plan. This would:


1 Reflect starting point demographic-led needs likely to be at least c.320dpa (but likely more)

once accounting for the distorting and dampening effects the housing moratorium has had

on the trend period from which the household projections draw;

2 Reflect the significant uplift necessary to address market signals and affordability in Hart.

3 Would broadly match the 1.3% stock growth per annum which nationally needs to be

achieved to meet Government’s 300,000 p.a. target.

4 Levels above 500 dpa would address more of the significant affordable housing need in the

District; and

5 Contribute to meeting some of the unmet needs that exist across the Housing Market Area.

REPRESENTATIONS - Hart District · 2.9 In total, only 1,591 dwellings of the committed supply...

Documents

Transcript of REPRESENTATIONS - Hart District · 2.9 In total, only 1,591 dwellings of the committed supply...