DRAFT CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
PUBLIC EXAMINATION: FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS
ON BEHALF OF STOUR VALLEY ESTATES LTD
Lee Evans Planning Ref: 03375
JUNE 2015
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This further submission has been prepared by Lee Evans Planning on
behalf of Stour Valley Estates Ltd and relating to Land to the east of the
Royal Oak, Blean. This further evidence sets out the client’s responses to
the following:
Matter 1: Spatial Strategy
Day 2: Session 2 and
Matter 2: Housing Strategy
Day 3: Session 3, Questions a) to h)
Day 4: Session 4, Questions i) to x)
1.2
The further submissions assess the implications of a number of
documents submitted by Canterbury City Council for examination in so far
as they relate to my client’s representations and should be read in
conjunction with submissions:
PV 410
PO 1675
PO 1676
PO 1679
PO 1680
These documents comprise the following:
o CDLP 1.14 Topic Paper Plan Vision & Strategy November 2014
o CDLP 5.7 Housing Needs Review - latest NLP report April 2015
o CDLP 5.6 Topic Paper Housing November 2014
o CDLP 8.9 Joint Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council
Sturry Link Position May 2015
o CDLP 11.6 Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan November 2014
CCC
1.3 The nature of the submissions made in response to the submission draft
Local Plan can be summarised as follows:

The growth scenario selected by the Plan constrains housing
numbers to below the level that is required to meet local needs

The distribution of housing growth made by the Plan fails to
adequately identify a level of growth for local centre villages that is
sufficient to meet local needs and to support local services
2.
THE SPATIAL STRATEGY RESPONSES
2.1
This section makes representations on the spatial strategy (SS) and the
Housing Strategy (HS) of the Plan in the format of responses to the
Inspector’s questions set out in the Matters, Issues and Questions
document dated 21 May 2015. Some of the responses have been jointly
prepared and where this occurs they have been marked.
2.2
SS Question a): The Canterbury Futures Study provides an appropriate
starting point for the development of a strategy of development for the
district over the Plan period. This study rightly identifies that the economic
strengths of the district are generated by Canterbury itself and provides the
motivation for developing a growth strategy based on the City.
“Although the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2009)
indicated a high level of affordable housing need which might
affect the level of OAN, the Council has undertaken a full
review of its housing register and has identified total need for
1,734 dwellings to meet local need in 2014, compared to
4,708 in 2013. The Council considers that this is the most
reliable and up-to -date information available on affordable
housing need, even making an allowance for element of
hidden affordable housing need”
2.7
This statement appears to be made to justify the approach that Canterbury
has taken in adopting scenario (e) for its growth strategy. The sudden
reduction in the affordable housing need seems to result from redefining the
qualification criteria for affordable housing rather than the provision of a
large volume of new affordable homes in the district. What is certain is that
there is no evidence to support the sudden reduction in affordable housing
need which is in any event at odds with the data in the East Kent SHMA
2009 and the Litchfield review in 2015.
2.6
Moreover the date of the background supporting documents on which the
strategy is based pre dates the NPPF and the methodology of assessing
housing needs adopted by the study did not accord with that recommended
by the NPPF. The finding of more recent documents lodged, in particular
the CDLP 5.7 Housing Needs Review - latest NLP report April 2015with the
up to date information, has not been taken account of in the strategy and
this calls into question the validity of the constrained approach to housing
growth adopted by the Council.
2.7
A review of the Litchfield Study, the Housing Needs Review 2015, provides
updated evidence on need based on the NPPF methodology.
2.8
It found that there is a 6% increase on the housing need under the 2012
household projections over the previous formation rates on which the Local
Plan growth figures are based.
2.9
The study indicated that the demographic-led starting point has been
arrived as described as 620 dwellings per annum to which there needs to
adjustment to take account of market signals. For Canterbury, market
signals indicate upwards adjustment on the demographic-led starting point.
SS Question b): The positive answer to question a) indicates that an
appropriate spatial vision and objectives based on the Canterbury Futures
Study does provide a suitable basis for the development of the spatial
strategy for the Plan. However it is on the way in which this strategy and
objectives have been developed that questions arise and we set out in the
response to the next question our view on this matter.
2.3
2.4
2.5
SS Question c) and HS Question b), d) and g): We challenge the scale
of growth set out in the Plan against its stated objectives. One of the key
objectives of the Plan is to provide sufficient housing to meet local housing
needs and support economic growth. In selecting a strategy based around
growth scenario e set out in the Nathaniel Litchfield Canterbury
Development Requirements Study 2012 it artificially constrains growth
below the level of housing growth necessary to meet local housing needs,
including its backlog. This would necessitate delivery of 1,149 dwellings per
annum to 2031.
The Canterbury District Housing Strategy 2012 – 2016 also confirms
that
“we need 1104 new affordable homes every year. This is a big
increase since the last study in 2004, when 766 affordable
homes were needed annually.”
This Housing Strategy document appears to be at odds with the submitted
information in the background papers where in Topic Paper 1 it states that
The level of upward adjustment suggest that there will be a need to set
housing needs at that which is ‘reasonable’ between 10% and 20% higher.
2.10
The objectively assessed housing requirement then needs to take account
of the affordable housing need. At paragraph 6.6, the Litchfield 2015 Study
states that affordable housing needs in Canterbury amount to between 601
and 697 affordable dwellings per annum when utilising net formation rates
for new households and between 690 and 854 when utilising gross
formation rates for new households. Assuming the delivery of these
affordable dwellings at 30% of total housing, the outcomes of these
scenarios increase significantly the target to between 2,003 and 2,847 total
dwellings per annum. The study concludes “It is clear that there are
significant affordable housing needs in Canterbury and the Council will
need to consider whether uplift in the objective assessment of housing need
and an increase in the total housing figures included in the Local Plan could
help deliver the required affordable homes. “
2.11
The backlog of affordable housing need has been assessed in both this
document and also recorded historically in the East Kent SHMA 2009.
2.12
No uplift has been made to take account of this. Nor does the Local Plan
indicate that a higher level of housing growth is unsustainable in the District.
This calls into question whether the Local Plan has a sound evidence base.
2.13
Furthermore the Plan fails to take account the potential impact of outside
development pressures on local housing levels. In this respect there are
two issues that need to be taken into account. The first is the request by
Swale to accommodate a proportion of its housing growth. We have no
comment to make here as to whether this is a reasonable request driven by
constraints to development in that district. However it may affect local
housing targets as Canterbury does act as a centre for growth and jobs for
a wider hinterland.
2.14
The second pressure for further housing development in the district arises
from its role in providing overspill housing for London. We are aware that
the latest Greater London growth strategy indicates the need to provide
6,600 houses per annum in areas surrounding the Greater London authority
area. For Kent this does an impact on the level of housing growth districts
which are able to contribute to that annual requirement.
2.15
Whilst it is not possible to quantify the extent that Canterbury can contribute
to that shortfall in the absence of a regional planning document it is clear
that those areas served by the high-speed rail link could have the potential
to partially resolve the shortfall. This too will add to development pressures
in the District.
2.16
Thus Canterbury’s approach needs to be assessed in the light of the NPPF
and NPPG guidance. The NPPG approach to assessing housing need is
the most up to date guidance on this matter.
2.17
The NPPG sets out the methodology of calculating housing needs.
Wherever possible, local needs assessments should be informed by the
latest available information. The growth figures are based on pre 2012
household formation information and do not follow the advice of the
Litchfield updated Housing Needs Review 2015 which suggests that a
review of housing growth figures should be undertaken. Furthermore the
2012-2037 Household Projections which were published on 27 February
2015, and are the most up-to-date estimate of future household growth are
not assessed as part of the Local Plan Strategy. .
2.18
The NPPG advice states that the assessment of development needs are an
objective assessment of need based on facts and unbiased evidence. In
constraining the supply to meet only a proportion of the assessed housing
need the Council has not followed the advice of the NPPG.
2.19
It states that “Plan makers should not apply constraints to the overall
assessment of need, such as limitations imposed by the supply of land for
new development, historic under performance, viability, infrastructure or
environmental constraints. However, these considerations will need to be
addressed when bringing evidence bases together to identify specific
policies within development plans.”
2.20
No consideration of these matters is given by the plan or supporting
background documents. In these circumstances the Plan cannot reflect the
spatial vision or objectives of providing homes for local needs.
2.21
SS Question d): no comment
2.22
SS Question e): It is accepted that the evidence base does examine
alternative levels of growth for the district and sustainability appraisals have






been carried out on these alternative growth scenarios. However we
consider that there are two issues arising from the evidence base that
needs to be considered. The first issue is that the sustainability appraisals
produced by AMEC do not appear to balance those positive and negative
impacts of each growth scenario in order to come to a reasoned conclusion
the best strategy for the district.
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
Nor are there any other documents which seek to weigh the benefits or
disadvantages of higher growth scenarios with the significant benefit of
providing sufficient housing to meet needs.
Consideration is given to alternative spatial strategies to meet the identified
level of housing growth adopted by the local plan. However most
importantly Topic Paper 1 confirms for the rural areas a policy of general
constraint except for modest level of development to meet local needs in
most villages. This is the only option which has been proposed for the
contribution of villages towards the overall housing needs. Whilst we are
fully supportive of basing the strategy of growth around Canterbury itself the
failure to examine the level of housing growth necessary to meet local
needs in the villages is a key omission.
In this respect we point to representations made on behalf of Stour valley
Estates Ltd that seeks to allocate housing land at Blean which will both
help to meet the overall housing land supply in the district and to meet local
needs and sustain the local communities.
A strategy of rural development as part of the overall strategy may have an
impact on the delivery of key infrastructure along the Sturry/ Herne Bay
corridor (in terms of the level of housing growth) but the infrastructure
identified is only brought about to serve the allocated sites in this area.
2.27
A structured strategy of growth at key villages such as Blean which benefits
from god public transport links with Canterbury could represent a more
sustainable form of growth for the district overall. However no alternative
spatial growth strategy based on this premise has been satisfactorily
assessed in the local plan background documents.
2.28
The implications of not carrying out this alternative strategy assessment for
the key villages in Canterbury district relate principally to the following
issues:
inability of providing for housing needs arising in the locality and
aging population less able or willing to support local facilities and
potential for declining school population from the locality and
the potential for long term population decline and
falling revenue from taxes and
lack of adequate investment in many infrastructure services such
as water, foul and surface water drainage
2.29
SS Question f): no comment
2.30
SS Question g): We consider that Canterbury’s growth strategy, which is
based on the delivery of housing on strategic sites, is a high risk and
inflexible one.
2.31
We do not intend to examine in any detail the financial risks and
implications associated with the reliance of a few large sites paying for
major new highway proposals such as a new A2 interchange, Sturry bypass
and Herne bypass. Nor do we have the detailed knowledge to do so.
2.32
We take note of the viability assessments submitted in support of the
Council’s case. On the surface they do not appear to examine in any detail
an assessment of current financial market lending requirements/restrictions.
2.33
We simply make the point that because of the major financing
arrangements that need to be in place for each of the sites there will
inevitably be some uncertainty over the timing for bringing new sites
forward.
2.34
Slippage in the programme of housing delivery could be significant.
Canterbury City Council’s Topic Paper 2 on housing dated 2014 and
forming a background paper to the local plan indicates that in order to
satisfy housing needs, delivery on the sites in the Herne Bay corridor need
to commence the year 2015 – 16 with a total of 1,666 dwellings to be
provided on these sites by 2019. A further 400 dwellings are to be delivered
on the South Canterbury site at the same time.
2.35
Whilst it is acknowledged that the plan makes provision for the delivery of
some housing on the sites in advance of the infrastructure provision no
account is taken of either a delay in the start on sites or the halting of
building in adverse economic conditions which would hit the 5 year supply
immediately and the delivery of infrastructure.
2.36
Having examined previous Highway Agency and KCC Highway comments
into development along the Sturry/Herne Bay corridor it is clear that any
new housing will adversely affect flows across the Sturry Railway crossing
which is over capacity already. Thus development of some new housing in
advance of the infrastructure is unacceptable as a matter of principle.
2.37
These questions and uncertainty over the ability of the allocated sites to
deliver housing, at least in the short term, will have an impact on the fiveyear housing land supply.
2.38
There is no contingency arrangement in place to secure the bringing
forward of other unconstrained sites to make up the shortfall. The NPPF is
clear and unequivocal, local authorities must identify and update annually a
supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of
housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%
(moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and
competition in the market for land. There is no procedure set out in the plan
for a land requirements review to take place or for a contingency strategy to
be adopted.
2.39
2.40
SS Question h): the establishment of a settlement hierarchy provides a
positive means by which to assess development proposals which do not
form housing allocations in the plan. However the strategic approach to the
location of development expressed in policy SP4 fails to allow for flexibility
in decision-making.
constitutes small scale development. In previous local plans the
definition of small scale suggests schemes of 10 units classified as
beings scale. This would prevent the bringing forward of a larger
development on land either within joining the settlement which
would otherwise be acceptable.
2.41
In the case of the Blean site, representations have been made for
development in excess of 45 units. This example, by way of illustration
appears to be specifically excluded by the draft policy framework by the
words ‘small scale’ in the policy. Even if the authority were to support this
development it would be a departure from the development plan.
2.41
SS Question i): no comment
2.42
SS Question j): We consider that the evidence base inadequately supports
the viability of individual settlements within the overall hierarchy. We have a
concern that there has been no analysis of the viability of facilities and
services within the villages which would support the strategy of no
significant changes within them.
2.43
We would expect a background report examining the following issues to be
available in support of the Council’s approach towards development the
identified service centres:

Analysis of local housing needs to establish the extent of housing
development necessary to deliver the amount of affordable
housing. For example the identified need at Harbledown/Rough
Common (close to Blean) was for 17 units which would require
over 55 dwellings to deliver that number. This is a scale of
development within the village that exceeds the definition of small
scale

Analysis of capacity of local school to accommodate further
development.

Analysis of capacity of other facilities and services including
capacity of the local doctors surgery to take additional patients
The policy fails to support the strategic approach to the location of
development by virtue of the following points:

Clause 1 of the policy supports new housing within urban areas. It
does not support housing development which is based on an
extension beyond existing identified urban boundaries even if
there is a recognised shortfall in housing land supply

Clause 2 allows for only the small scale provision new housing in
the identified service centres of a number of villages amongst
which is Blean. There is no definition in the plan of what
2.44
SS Question k): if the Council is to support housing development in the
local villages that are capable of accommodating more than minor
development it should be formally identified in a policy or land allocations in
order to provide clarity.
3
HOUSING STRATEGY RESPONSES
3.1
Question a) Confirmed
3.2
Question b) see paragraph 2.3 onwards for response
3.3
Question c) It is clear that London will have an annual shortfall of 6,600
dwellings which will need to be provided within the areas surrounding the
Capital. Kent is one such area that should be required to meet some of
this shortfall given its location and infrastructure links. Those areas closest
the London (in distance and/ or time) should be considered first.
Canterbury’s link via the High Speed One service therefore makes it a
potentially suitable location. Blean is linked by regular buses to this
service also fits this criterion. However the extent of development should
be determined on a sequential basis.
3.4
Question d): see paragraph 2.3 onwards for response
3.5
Question e): The Councils figures do not take into account the latest
projections which indicate the household formation rates have increased
by 6%. The NPPF make clear that any housing needs assessment must
use the latest information. A failure to use this information will result in an
unfulfilled housing need in the area.
3.6
Question f): No comment
3.7
Question g): No comment
3.8
Question h): There appears to be only limited consideration of the housing
mix and tenure issue. No provision for self-build or private rented sector.
3.9
Question i): Yes, in part. However see comments in paragraph 2.7
onwards.
3.10
Question j): The latest available Housing Information Audit for 2013/14
indicated that Canterbury District had an estimated five year housing land
supply surplus of 1345 dwellings. However there are two factors which
have not been taken into account. The first is that over the past five years
for which figures are available the District has supplied an average of 475
dwellings per annum. This should be measured against a requirement of
780. This represents a persistent under provision. The NPPF states that in
these cases the land supply should be increased by 20%.
3.11
This would bring the requirement up to 936 dwellings per annum and a
total requirement over the 5 year period of 4,680 dwellings. In this event
the estimated surplus would be 565.
3.12
The second factor related to this issue is that the 5 year supply figure
relies on a number of sites being brought forward which are allocated in
the draft Local Plan. These strategic sites rely on the bringing forward of
major infrastructure to deliver the overall housing numbers. We note that
over the first 5 year period Canterbury estimate that a total of 950
dwellings are estimated to arise from these sites. We contend that this is
unreasonable and that limited account should be made to housing from
these sites given the significant infrastructure requirements and market
conditions that may delay the provision. In this circumstance there would
be a shortfall of 385 in the 5 year housing land supply if no housing is
delivered from these sites.
3.13
In realistic terms the delivery from these sites may be half of the predicted
5 year supply which would give Canterbury a 5 year supply with no
contingency. However other factors also need to be taken into account.
3.14
The HIA makes no mention of the SHMA report of 2009 which identified
the need for substantial increases in the rate of provision of affordable
housing to meet a massive backlog of need. This document forecast the
need to supply 1104 dwellings /annum to meet the demand including the
backlog of under provision. More recent data from the Litchfield review of
housing needs 2015 suggests that to make provision for the full backlog
the annual supply needs to be increased to in the order of 2000 dwellings.
3.15
The figures above assume that the housing targets in the draft local plan
are confirmed. However it should be recognised that a housing land
supply based on unconstrained demographic projections would increase
the 5 year shortfall.
3.16
We are therefore of the view that Canterbury City Council has a housing
shortfall in its 5 year supply which has not been met. In these
circumstances the NPPF is clear. At paragraph 49 it states that,
“Housing applications should be considered in the
context of the presumption in favour of sustainable
development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should
not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority
cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing
sites.”
3.17
Question k): See previous answer
3.18
Question l): Within the first 5 years of the plan
3.19
Question m): No Comment
3.20
Question n): Inevitably some will lapse. However the allowance should
equate to no more than 5%- 7% on the grounds that the land owner is
unlikely to let their land value decrease. A similar allowance should be
made on the identified allocated sites carried forward from the previous
plan.
3.21
Question o): Confirmed
3.22
Question p): No comment
3.23
Question q): No. Given the high risk strategy adopted by CCC to housing
land supply there is no contingency in policy SP4 which would allow other
sites to come forward without departing from the plan.
3.24
Question r): see response in paragraph 2.25 – 2.27 and 2.39 onwards
3.25
Question s): The options tested fail to consider the growth at key villages to
supply a proportion of housing growth. See also paragraph 2.24, 2.42 and
2.43
3.26
Question t): No comment
3.27
Question u): The draft Canterbury District Local Plan requires the provision
of 15,600 over the period 2011 – 2031, an annual rate of 780 which it splits
into 5 year blocks with an annual need of 600/annum for the first 5 years
and 840 for the remaining periods. There is no indication (or justification)
why the plan has a lower rate of provision for the first 5 year block. Such a
delivery is well below the annual need arising and fails to comply with the
NPPF requirements.
3.28
Question v): No. See previous commentary
3.29
Question w) and x): No comment