PINS Reference: APP/R3650/A/08/2089143/NWF
LPA Reference: WA/2008/0788
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE:
Andrew Leahy
BSc ACIOB
On behalf of:
Dunsfold Park Limited
Land at:
Dunsfold Aerodrome, Stovolds Hill,
Cranleigh, Surrey
Description:
Public Local Inquiry pursuant to
Section 78 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990
February 2009
Bespoke Property Group
Barttelot Court, Barttelot Road, Horsham, W.Sussex
Tel. 01403 823425 Fax. 01403 824075
PROOF OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE
BY ANDREW LEAHY BSc ACIOB
CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
EVIDENCE OF JOHN SWANTON – DOCUMENT LPA4/1
3.0
EVIDENCE OF PAUL FALCONER – DOCUMENT LPA1/1
4.0
EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL GREEN – DOCUMENT LPA 2/1
5.0
CONCLUSIONS
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This rebuttal evidence addresses the evidence issued by Paul Falconer BA (Hons),
Dip TP, MRTPI and John Swanton BA (Hons) MCIH, given on behalf of
Waverley Borough Council on the issues of the Affordable Housing provision and
housing strategy in the appeal by Dunsfold Park Limited.
1.2
This rebuttal evidence also addresses the issues raised by Mr Michael Green in
relation to the acceptability of Cordon Charging and other sustainable initiatives by
housebuyers and occupiers.
2.0
EVIDENCE OF JOHN SWANTON – DOCUMENT LPA4/1
2.1
At para 3.2 Mr Swanton confirms that the overall provision of affordable housing
is “reasonable”. This we have understood to be the Council’s position, ie:
accepting that a provision of 36% of units meets the targets set out by the
Council’s Local Plan and the draft South East Plan.
2.2
Mr Falconer contradicts the view given above in para 2.1, by saying at para 6.5.6
(Doc LPA 1/1) of his Proof of Evidence that the provision of affordable housing in
the Eco Village “does not meet the 40% guideline for affordable housing across
the Borough”. Clearly the Council need to decide whether the development
complies with policies and is therefore acceptable and reasonable in this regard. I
will deal below with my views on Mr. Falconer’s evidence.
2.3
At para 3.6, Mr Swanton states that “the Appellant has made a concession” in
dealing with the issue of further information provided to the Council in September
08, whereby it was agreed that in order to comply with PPS 3, and the definition of
Affordable Housing therein, applicants for Affordable Housing should be on the
Council’s Register. This was not a “concession”, the Appellant has always
understood and proposed that the eligibility of applicants should be PPS3
compliant. This was a way of determining that eligibility.
2.4
It has always been understood that just being on the Council’s Register was not
sufficient grounds for determining eligibility but a starting point. It had been
anticipated and asked for on numerous occasions that the Council would specify a
household income threshold which would apply to anyone applying for affordable
housing in the Eco Village. This is very important as PPS3 states affordable
housing should be for “specified eligible households whose needs are not met by
the market”. This is a point Mr Swanton has failed to address and would deal with
a lot of the Council’s concern as to the eligibility of households. Clearly if the
Council is un-willing or unable to provide such a housing income threshold the
Appellant will have no alternative but to do so by reference to data on local
incomes, and discussion with the RSL.
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
2.5
At para 3.7 Mr Swanton argues that the Appellant has been silent on the issue of
the access to the open market units which is the greater proportion of the housing.
This is not the case as the Housing Strategy (Vol 5) states at para 6.4.1 that the
open market units are to be offered for sale or rent to local people in the Cranfold
area for three months before anyone else is to be allowed to purchase or rent them.
2.6
At para 3.9 Mr Swanton starts what is a consistent theme of his evidence that the
Affordable Housing is not being offered to those in “greatest need”. Having
reviewed PPS3, the draft South East Plan, the Surrey Structure Plan and the saved
Local Plan I find there is no policy basis for this approach. In fact such a strict
basis for allocations would work against achieving a “mixed and balanced
community” as envisaged by PPS3. His comments as to the financial status of
applicants would be addressed by the Council stating their household income
threshold as noted in para 2.3.2 above.
2.7
At para 3.10, Mr Swanton raises concern that it is likely no one beyond those
employed in the Eco Village or in the Cranfold area is likely to be allocated an
affordable dwelling. I would regard this as highly unlikely due to the imposition of
the household income threshold as noted at para 2.3.2 above.
2.8
In coming to his view Mr Swanton that the affordable housing offer does not meet
the “local housing need” he seems to have overlooked the major beneficial effect
the provision of housing on this scale will have to the local market and in
particular existing Council’s tenants, as set out in the Savills Report and at section
4.5 of my evidence.
2.8.1
In section 4 of his proof, Mr Swanton seeks to identify elements of PPS3 which
support his view that the affordable housing should go to those in “greatest need”
and those in “local housing need”. I have to say my reading of PPS3 does not
support this contention. The companion document to PPS3 “Delivering Affordable
Housing” Nov 06 at Para’s 15 – 19,(CD A3a) sets out the role of Local Authorities
in delivering affordable housing through the planning process. In none of these
paragraphs does it refer to those in “greatest need” or “local housing need”. It does
refer to the Local Authority having a “strategic role” and developing a “strategic
approach” with an evidence base.
2.8.2
The extract at 4.1(1) states “to address the needs of the community”, surely the
definition of “community” should include those who work in the local area as well
as those who live there. If we are to progress the intentions of PPS3 with regard to
sustainability we will have to change the way we look at housing and who
occupies it.
2.8.3
The reference at 4.1 (2) to “in particular those who are vulnerable or in need”, does
not mean that we have to prioritise these groups ahead of all others. We also need
to consider how the market works and how fluidity can be brought into it by new
provision as I have stated at para 2.7 above.
2.8.4
The extract at 4.1.2 of PPS3 para 27, gives “vulnerable people” as an example not
as a policy priority, this extract includes other examples such as keyworkers and
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
those moving from social housing to home-ownership all of whom could be
assisted by the affordable housing provision in the Eco Village.
2.8.5
It should be noted that the extracts from PPS3 that Mr Swanton provides at 4.1(3)
and 4.1.(4) as well as 4.1.3 (1-3) fully support the proposals that have been made
for the affordable housing in the Eco Village.
2.8.6
If the Council agrees an income threshold as proposed in para 2.3.2 above, then
Mr.Swanton’s comments at 4.1.4 (1) will be addressed.
2.8.7
The extract at 4.1.4(2) are is totally consistent with the proposals the Appellant has
made.
2.8.8
The extracts from PPS3 at 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 totally support the strategy for housing
in general and the affordable housing in particular that the Appellant has adopted.
Indeed the references to the Council’s strategic planning role and strategic
approach to housing expressed clearly with an evidence base for housing
strategies, is exactly why the Appellant has instructed the Savills Report and asked
my company to review all of the relevant policies at all levels of Government.
2.9
At para 4.2.2 Mr Swanton identifies an extract from the draft South East plan
which again supports the approach adopted by the Appellant. In particular the
affordable housing provision exceeds that targeted by the plan (ie36% vs 35%)and
adopts a tenure split that matches its targets (ie: 25% Social rented and 11%
Intermediate vs 25% Social rented and 10% Intermediate).
2.9.1
At para 4.3.2 Mr Swanton includes an extract from the Surrey Structure Plan
which underlines the Council’s lack of understanding of what it is required to do.
Firstly it refers to the fact that “Keyworkers” should not be prioritised ahead of
others in demonstrable need. “Keyworkers” is a term defined by Government to
identify certain public sector workers including but not exclusive to Policemen,
Firemen, and Planning Officers who provide essential public services, and
therefore require housing near to their work place, in areas where that would be
difficult for them to live due to the high cost of housing. The proposals for the Eco
Village are not based on those who work in the Eco Village or the Cranfold area as
Keyworkers. To do so would be outside the definition that Government has
prescribed.
2.9.2
This extract goes on to say that “local authorities should devise separate targets for
the provision of keyworker and other affordable housing provision based on local
assessments”. This the Council has failed to do despite having the benefit of a
Housing Needs Survey by David Couttie Associates in 2005 and the Strategic
Housing Market Assessment by Fordham Research in 2008.
2.10
At para 5.1 Mr Swanton identifies that the Council’s Corporate Plan makes the
facilitating of the provision of affordable housing as the Council’s highest priority.
This begs the question why are the Council trying to refuse the largest single
opportunity to address the acute shortfall in affordable housing provision that the
Council has ever had.
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
2.11
The extract from the Local Plan that Mr Swanton has set out at para 5.2.1, also
supports the provision of affordable housing in the Eco Village, so long as the
Council set a household income threshold for access to the affordable housing and
“local people” include those who work in an area as well as live there.
2.12
The attempt at justifying the Council’s previous efforts in delivering affordable
housing at section 5.3 only serves to underline the fact that the Council will never
address the shortfall in provision by promoting small exceptions sites around the
Borough. The units generated are woefully short of the 622 units per annum they
have identified as needed. Mr Swanton has identified 584 units as delivered over
16 years, which is an average of 36.5 units per annum.
2.13
Mr Swanton sets out in section 6 the allocations scheme set out by the Housing Act
1996 and the Choice Based Lettings Scheme (CBL) as well as CLG guidance on
such schemes. Firstly it should be noted that CBL schemes are open to tenants in
Boroughs which partner with the Council. Therefore tenants can originate from
outside the Borough. This accords with the Government’s aims to widen
opportunities for Tenants to access housing, and undermines the Council’s stance
that such housing should only be available to those in “local housing need” or
“greatest need”. The Council prioritises those with a “local connection” as stated
at para 6.2.5. However should it not be that a “local connection”, which is not
defined, should include those working in the area?
2.14
The Council’s banding of priority needs is set out at Table 1, which the Appellant
and the RSL have adopted when assessing those in the same level under the
sustainability criteria in the Lettings Plan.
2.15
At para 6.3 Mr Swanton sets out the Local Need in the Cranfold area. Despite
requests to identify where those who are registered work, the Council has never
been able to do so. This would if available, identify how many “local people” on
the register actually work at Dunsfold Park or in the Cranfold area and therefore
would meet the highest levels of the sustainable criteria.
2.16
This para 6.3 goes on to detail how high the need in the area is, and how this is
supported by the evidence collected by the Housing Needs Survey 2005. It is
therefore with some disbelief that one considers their stance in seeking to refuse
the Eco Village proposal on the grounds of Affordable Housing Provision.
2.17
At Para 6.3.3 Mr Swanton refers to 93 vacancies being available between 2007 and
2009 in the Dunsfold, Alfold and Cranleigh areas, as set out in Table 4. It should
be noted however that up to 90 of those vacancies included new provision in both
Dunsfold and Cranleigh, (See Para 5.3.1) so those vacancies can be regarded as
“one-off” and not representative of normally available properties for re-letting,
which is what most people on the Housing Register have to wait for.
2.18
It should also be noted that at Para 5.3.1 Mr Swanton makes reference to 72 Units
at East Street Farnham, which is the second largest affordable provision the
Borough has identified over a 14 year period. However this scheme as yet does not
have a planning consent and is therefore not guaranteed to come forward.
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
2.19
In section 7.0 Mr Swanton details various issues he has identified with the Housing
Management arrangements. I note below the answers to his queries.
2.19.1 Para7.1.2 – It has been stated by the Appellant that the RSL who has been
chosen to manage the units will do so under the standard terms for leases as
set out by the Housing Corporation (now Tenants Services Authority
(TSA)). This is in line with PPS3.
2.19.2 Para 7.1.3 The proposed Social Rents are Target Rents as acknowledged by
Mr Swanton and therefore will be increased in line with the annual increase
allowed by the TSA.
2.19.3 Para 7.1.4 The “day to day housing management” will carried out by A2
Dominion the nominated RSL. It is disingenuous of Mr Swanton to raise
this as an issue, as it has already been explained in discussions and
information provided to the Council that the affordable housing will be
managed as normal for such housing by an RSL in line with PPS3.
2.19.4 Mr Swanton raises the issue of the rights of Keyworkers at para 7.1.5, this
is the first time he or the Council has raised such a concern. Assuming he is
referring to Keyworkers as defined by central Government, then a change
in their employment circumstances should not lead to a requirement to
leave the affordable housing, until they are ready and willing to do so. In
other words, the normal approach would apply.
2.19.5 At Para 7.1.6, Mr Swanton raises concern that all employees at the Eco
Village or in the Cranfold area would apply for the affordable housing. As
stated at para 2.3.2 above this issue would be dealt with by the Council
stipulating a household income threshold.
2.19.6 At para 7.1.7 Mr Swanton raises the issue as to what happens when tenants
change jobs. Clearly the direction of Government policy is that security of
tenure is important, and the provisions of the TSA approved RSL tenancy
contract would operate to protect a tenant no matter what their employment
circumstances. Therefore tenants would not be asked to leave their home if
their employment circumstances changed as is the normal practice of
RSL’s. Obviously they could move to a home nearer their work under the
Choice Based Lettings Scheme.
2.20
In his Conclusions at section 8.0, Mr Swanton rehearses the points he has made, I
would deal with the main issues as follows.
2.20.1 Mr Swanton’s assertion at para 8.2 that the open market units will not be
prioritised for Eco Village workers or those in the Cranfold area is incorrect
as noted at para 2.4 above.
2.20.2 At para 8.3 there is a subtle change in Mr Swanton’s view in that the
affordable housing needs to be provided for those “most in need” as set out
in the main body of his evidence to those in “genuine need within its
communities” in his conclusion. If the Council cares to set a household
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
income threshold to be included in the S.106 agreement, with an
appropriate increase per annum, then those who live and work in this
community, will be housed in a sustainable manner by the Lettings Policy.
2.20.3 Mr Swanton’s concern at para 8.5 that the allocation proposals for the Eco
Village affordable housing do not accord with the requirements of PPS3
and the draft South East Plan is totally incorrect for the reasons set out in
my Proof of Evidence and this rebuttal evidence.
2.20.4 Mr Swanton’s contention at para 8.6 that the lettings policy for the
affordable housing would “exclude and deny choice to members of the
local community” is unfounded. His concentration on the Council’s
statutory duty under the 1996 Housing Act is also mis-guided as by his own
admission the Council’s priority under planning policy and its Corporate
Plan is to facilitate the delivery of affordable housing. The Housing Act is
only relevant where the Council owns or controls the affordable housing as
in its own stock.
2.20.5 Mr Swanton’s use of the term “Keyworker” at para 8.8, is out of context as
the Appellant has never contended that employees at the Eco Village or in
the Cranfold area are “Keyworkers”. The definition of Keyworkers are as I
said in para 2.10.1 certain public sector employees, who are eligible for the
Housing Corporation’s (now HCA) Key Worker Living Programme. (See
CD A3a, “Delivering Affordable Housing” Nov 06 Para 61)
2.20.6 At paras 8.9 – 8.10 Mr Swanton acknowledges the Council’s failure to
deliver affordable housing, yet still contends planning should be refused on
the mis-guided basis that it should address those in “greatest housing need”
which is neither supported by policy or in line with the Government
guidance in PPS3 on the creation of mixed and balanced communities.
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
3.0 Evidence of Paul Falconer Document LPA1/1
3.1
Mr Falconer sets out at section 6.5 his views on the affordable housing provision in
the Eco Village proposal.
3.2
Mr Falconer’s statement at 6.5.1 that the Council does not have a policy for
affordable housing provision outside the identified settlements in their Local Plan
is correct. However in discussion with the Planning and Housing departments
during the application period, the Eco Village has always been considered by both
parties as a new settlement and therefore subject to a requirement for 30%
affordable housing provision set out in Local Plan Policy H4.
3.3
Mr Falconer’s contention at para 6.5.3, that the provision by the Council of 584
units over 16 years in the face of an identified shortfall of 622 units per annum,
does not support the idea of an exception to policy for this new settlement, begs
the question of how he see the Council addressing the shortfall?
3.4
At paras 6.5.4 - 6.5.7, Mr Falconer makes reference to the Surrey Structure Plan
policy DN11, ( 40% affordable housing provision), which requires local authorities
in Surrey to set targets which reflect this pan Surrey target. In its Local Plan,
Waverley Borough Council has set its target at 30%, which it is at liberty to do.
The Surrey Structure Plan target is for the Council to address not applicants on
individual sites. Nor does the target in DN11 state that it is relevant to all
applications where the local Council does not have a policy. In any event, the
Structure plan will fall soon with the advent of the South East Plan.
3.5
At para 6.5.10, Mr Falconer makes the point that the housing mix does not
specifically meet the full requirements of Policy H4 of the Local Plan. This may be
so but it has not been an issue raised by the Council during the planning
application. This is mainly I believe, because the difference only relates to those
units of less than 3 Beds or less [WHICH IS IT: 3 BEDS OR LESS, OR LESS
THAN 3 BEDS?], and it has been an aim of the housing strategy for the Eco
Village to deliver larger units as affordable housing to address the identified
shortfall of such units in the area.
3.6
Mr Falconer at para 6.5.12 confirms the density of the Eco Village complies with
policy.
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
4.0
Evidence of Mr Michael Green Document LPA 2/1
4.1
At para 5.10 of his evidence Mr Green sets out his views on the potential for success
of the “Dunsfold Concept” He is right to identify that the concept of transport /
community benefits and “Cordon Charging” will cost extra to operate over and
above that allowed for in the form of Council tax.
4.2
Mr Green characterises these costs as likely to lead to a “whole additional raft of
taxation”. He has however failed to review the proposal in full. The Appellant is
well aware that to get “Buy in” from prospective occupiers, the concept has to be
seen as a whole, and not cost them considerably more than living or operating a
business elsewhere in the locality.
4.3
Government faces the challenge of “Buy in” each time it raises the bar with regard
to sustainable initiatives and the same is true here. The higher Codes for Sustainable
Homes will require a change in culture as to the way we live. The Dunsfold Concept
is to take those initiatives as far as is possible with the technology available at the
time of construction. Therefore people will know what they are buying into,at the
outset.
4.4
Mr Green contends at para 5.10.3 that due to evidence he has gathered and exhibited
at Appendix MKG7, there would be a “limited potential market” for such housing in
this location. The evidence put forward are two emails from reputable Developers,
decrying the idea of “road user charging associated with new developments”. If I
were asked the question in the way Mr Green has phrased it in his email to the
respondents, I would have answered the same. However the question posed is
totally out of context with the Dunsfold Concept. It is asking for a comment on one
element of the sustainable initiatives, without advising of the other benefits that the
overall Eco Village will deliver. Ie: It asks the recipient to respond to the idea of a
“Stick” without stating any of the “Carrots”
4.5
With regard to the costs of delivering the Dunsfold Concept, the Appellant has
always maintained that a new way of paying for the community benefits would be
necessary, and has acknowledged that Council Tax would not be rebated in this
regard.
4.6
The Appellant has offered that part of the Commercial space to be built within the
heart of the Eco Village will be owned and managed by the Community Land Trust,
(See my PoE Para 5.8) that will also own the Public Realm, Public Open Space and
Community Facilities. In this way an income can be generated in addition to normal
service charges paid by occupiers, to keep the latter within commercially acceptable
limits. Ie: Low enough not to discourage potential tenants or purchasers.
4.7
It is for the above reasons that I feel Mr Green has failed to understand the
“Dunsfold Concept” as he has called it, or its funding. Nor has he appreciated the
positive way in which the Eco Village is seeking to promote changes in culture and
attitudes to carbon reduction.
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009
5.0
Conclusions
5.1
Mr Swanton’s evidence supports the fact that there is an acute under provision of
affordable housing in the Borough.
5.2
Mr Swanton’s evidence demonstrates that this shortfall in provision will not be
addressed either by the Council’s promotion of affordable housing in existing
settlements or by rural exceptions policies.
5.3
Mr Swanton’s evidence seems to misunderstand the Eco Village Housing Strategy
in so far as it relates to the letting of the Affordable Housing. Most of his concerns
would be addressed by the Council providing the household income threshold below
which it would deem applicants registered on the Council’s waiting list to be unable
to access housing in the open market in accordance with PPS3.
5.4
Mr Swanton has misconstrued the use of the term “Keyworker” which has never
been used by the Appellant in making this application.
5.5
Mr Swanton has confused the Council’s statutory role under the 1996 Housing Act
with its role as a facilitator of affordable housing under planning policy and
guidance.
5.6
Mr.Falconer’s contention that the Council should apply the County Council’s target
of 40% for affordable housing is incorrect as it is not appropriate to an individual
site and is actually there to guide the Local Council in setting its own targets. It
should also be borne in mind that the draft South East Plan is shortly to come into
force as an adopted Plan, with a target of 35%, which the proposal exceeds.
5.7
Mr Falconer’s views with regard to the level of affordable housing provision are at
odds with those of Mr Swanton who states that the provision is “reasonable” at the
level offered of 36%.
5.8
For the reasons set out above, I would conclude that the Council has not taken
sufficient regard to the effect of this level of provision of affordable housing in the
local market area, and has focussed its attention too narrowly on the issue of the
lettings policy being lead by sustainable criteria in accordance with PPS3.
5.9
For the reasons I set out in section 4, Mr Green seems to have mis-understood the
positive sustainability objectives of the Eco Village and the funding proposed to
maintain them throughout the lifetime of the Village.
A.M.Leahy BSc ACIOB
February 2009
A M Leahy
Proof of Rebuttal Evidence
February 2009