Setting a 5YHLS target post-RSS where no up-to-date Local Plan - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Robert, In the West Midlands you have a confused situation where the adopted RSS (2008) remains part of the development plan as it hasn't been withdrawn as yet but the housing figures are derived from historic household projections. A Phase II revision was produced and the Panel reported I think in 2009 and this proposed a new dwelling requirement for each LPA. However it was never adopted and now will never be adopted. A number of emerging Core Strategies/Local Plans are at various stages with some adopted, some submitted and some at earlier stages. The adopted plans tend to be based upon the RSS Phase II housing evidence which was tested whilst some of the emerging ones are using locally derived figures. Through this confusion appeal decisions have taken a number of different starting points for calculating what the housing requirement should be. The earlier ones tended to go with the Phase II figures as these had been examined and tested. One or two more recent ones have referred to the Phase II figures but then taken account of the latest household projections as the base date for the RSS II has become more out-dated. You might care to look at the Shottery appeal decision in Stratford-upon-Avon which was determined by the SoS on 24th October 2012. There the Inspector supported by the SoS assessed the LPA's housing requirement as contained in its consultation draft CS but favoured the appellant's criticism of it as not being the figure that the Council's SHMA was suggesting as the real housing need figure. In summary I suspect inspectors will be extremely reluctant to accept any locally derived housing figures that have yet to be subject to examination. Where the last tested housing figure has been overtaken by more recent data on household/population projections, Inspectors tend to form a view based upon the latest evidence.

I’m afraid the reasonable assumptions made by the contributors to this discussion are way off mark. For the Planning Inspectorate has concluded that the annual housing target for a District which has no Local Plan and is in a Region where the RSS target has been revoked is …. the RSS target! So whilst the contributors may have thought it made sense to consider how Inspectors would address a locally-derived target, the real answer is they don’t have to: they can follow this Inspector’s approach and rely instead upon a regionally-derived figure from a bygone era. In the case of the Decision below, the East of England Plan was revoked on 3rd January 2013 and St Albans District’s draft Local Plan is years from Adoption. But as the Decision makes clear, the LPA can rely at Appeal upon its East of England target even though it’s only around half the 2008-based ONS household projection and the Council has no Duty To Cooperate agreement to export unmet need. As Andrew Lainton asks in his comment on the Decision “why should such a green belt authority ever produce a new plan which is very likely to come up with a higher objectively assessed need figure and without a policy driven approach to distribution which allocates overspill need to other authorities in the sub-region?” Why indeed? Decision: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.5206217&NAME=/Decision%20letter.pdf

Thanks Andrea, You may also be well-placed to offer an opinion on the 'why do a plan?' question, given that you have a fully adopted 'LDF' (in old language). I'm guessing there is more to a plan than just the housing numbers. Notwithstanding NPPF para 153. But of course I understand Andrew's point. If you are the sort of authority that doesn't want to meet the needs of its residents and businesses, now or in the future, nor one that wants to take responsibility for making decisions (difficult or otherwise), not doing a plan would be a very attractive option. I still struggle with one fundamental issue in all this. When did providing such a basic human need as shelter become such a bad thing?

It si tempting to say to Adam that the answer to his closing question is when local elected members were invented.

Andrea I believe the 360 per annum target from the RSS was also St Albans' Option 1 figure considered a couple of years ago. However, this was decisively rejected in 2010 in favour of an annual target of just 250. Although the 2008-based ONS household projection figure for the District is 688 per annum, 250 remains the annual housing target in the Council's shelved draft Local Plan: still many years from being put in front of an Inspector at Evidence in Public. And as Andrew and Adam imply, given the Planning Inspectorate's willingness to rely at Appeal on the revoked RSS target, where's the incentive now for St Albans to get to EiP any time soon?

Thanks Andrea I don’t think it is clear that the Inspector adhered to Government advice of applying the Option 1 figure. Instead, I think it’s clear, from Paras 26 and 30 of her Decision, that the Inspector explicity applies the RSS Target of 360. To use revoked Policy H1 from a Regional Strategy which no longer exists, is, as you say, a disincentive to working to provide housing need based on meeting forecast housing need. Surely using an advisory Option figure (even if that's possible), from two years before the NPPF was published and three years before the RSS was revoked, and based on out-of-date household projections, would be just as big a disincentive, too? Based on the Inspector’s Decision, won’t LPAs without a Local Plan and with no RSS be just as able to ignore the 2011-based projections as the 2008-based ones? I’m more than happy to bow to your local knowledge if you consider the ONS projections are undeliverable in South Tyneside, but would ask you to consider that this is not the case everywhere, even in the current economic climate. As for having an up-to-date Plan: as was implied by others earlier in this post, if a new Plan for St Albans means a higher target than the 360 allowed at this Appeal, why bother? Finally, many thanks for the link to “What Homes Where”.

In a number of ways the St Albans decision is bizarre as it the inspector takes a different stance to previous appeal decisions both by inspectors and the Secretary of State on both what sites to include as being deliverable and to the calculation of the housing requirement against which the 5 year supply should be considered. I have posted elsewhere my views on the implications of footnote 11 to the assessment of deliverable sites but suffice to say that whilst there is nothing untoward in including sites without planning permission in the 5 year land supply, unless sound evidence demonstrates that they are available, suitable and achievable then they should not be relied upon. Although a decision letter doesn't reveal exactly what evidence the Inspector relied upon to come to the views she did on the deliverability of green belt redevelopment sites and Council garage sites to take but two examples, I suspect this is a case where the Inspector was very keen to find that the Council had a 5 year housing land supply to enable her to avoid balancing a shortfall against Green Belt policy. Or maybe I'm just being too cynical! As for her calculation of the housing requirement, as soon as I read it I thought this was wrong and challengeable. I'd agree entirely with Brian that the Inspector was not taking the option 1 figure as a fall back position as if she was she'd have referenced it. Based upon my cynical views of this decision, I think she was trying very hard to justify adopting the RSS figure and reasoning why she discounted more recent evidence pointing to a higher need. Whilst the vacuum in a recently scrutinized housing requirement placed the Inspector in a difficult position, in my opinion hjer decision is contrary to the NPPF since it is accepted that the previous RSS figure does not meet the objectively assessed housing need. Paragraph 14 does allow LPAs to balance the objectively assessed development needs if the impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits but that's in the context of Plan making. In St Albans there is no up to date Plan where this balance has been carried out and found sound. I'm not familiar with the area but I suspect that the RSS figure for St Albans was repressed because of Green Belt and other policy reasons with the un-met need being redirected to other parts of the region. That is entirely legitimate strategic planning but the new Plan for St Albans cannot assume that this redistribution of housing need will be possible in the future as it depends upon the cooperation of neighbouring authorities. In effect the Inspector is agreeing to a future requirement that depends upon the effective cooperation of adjacent authorities that at the time of her decision cannot be relied upon with any confidence. That is a matter for the new Plan to determine following the Duty to Cooperate being satisfied. By adopting a housing requirement based upon an out dated and now revoked RSS her decision is not in accordance with the approach set out in the NPPF. It will be interesting to see if the appellant challenges it on that basis.

I'm interested in other people's views on the arguments in the last two paragraphs of the last post. Going back to my original question, Michael seems to be arguing that, prior to Local Plan adoption, LPAs have no basis for informally adopting any housing target below identified housing requirements (presumably unless they can demonstrate that the shortfall is being picked up by other LAs within their HMA). I note also that the NPPF does not appear to offer any route for LPAs to adopt an interim housing target ahead of Local Plan adoption. It merely states that LPAs should identify five years worth of housing against their HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. This is very different to the advice provided by CLG back in 2010, when it was suggested that LPAs could revert to 'Option 1' housing targets supplemented by more recent information as appropriate. Although i can see the rationale behind the NPPF approach, it places LPAs that are subject to major constraints but have no adopted Local Plan in a very weak position vis-a-vis housing developers at planning inquiries (though the inspector's approach in the St Albans appeal cited above contradicts this!).

Robert, just to clarify that my comments are based upon both my interpretation of the NPPF and summarising how housing requirements are being calculated by Inspectors and by the Secretary of State. I think this is consistent with the CLG advice back in July 2010 which said a 5 year housing land supply still had to be calculated and that Option 1 numbers could be used "supplemented by more recent information as appropriate." The NPPF is clearly an important material planning consideration which post dates the CLG advice letter but it doesn't alter the point that housing requirements should be calculated on the basis of the latest available figures. Whilst this may well mean that LPAs cannot meet a 5 year housing land supply using the latest figures, this is but one material planning consideration (albeit an important one) to put in the planning balance weighed against Green Belt and or other considerations. The problem with the St Albans decision is that in my opinion the Inspector confused a Section 78 appeal with a Local Plan Examination because she assumed that the previous RSS strategy will be continued to enable St Albans to keep a surpressed housing requirement. Although that might be what happens this can only be known when the Plan is examined in light of the Duty to Cooperate. The Inspector's recent decision on Coventry illustrates the problem of trying to pursue a repressed housing requirement before discharging effectively the Duty to Cooperate.

It appears the Planning Inspectorate has concluded that its Inspectors are indeed entitled to base Decisions on revoked housing policies from revoked Regional Strategies. The basis of the Decision referred to above has been repeated elsewhere (albeit in a Hearing rather than an Inquiry). http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.5245912&NAME=/DECISION.pdf The logic used by both Inspectors is very similar:: Hearing Decision 25/03/2013 : (Para 10) "While the Regional Spatial Strategy has now been revoked, this remains the most up to date figure for housing provision which has been formally tested and adopted". Inquiry Decision 12/03/2013 (Para 29) "The RSS ... provides the only figure that has been srutinised through the independent examination process." So, in effect, the Planning Inspectorate considers that whilst revoked, the RSS housing target remains the housing target until an LPA adopts a new one via the Local Plan process. When (or if?) that may be. Is that really what Mr Pickles had in mind when he revoked them?

Our RSS is being revoked this week (East Midlands) and our examination starts next Tuesday. Documents, statements etc at www.westnorthamptonshirejpu.org. We might get some clues on this matter. Watch this space, it could be interesting!