13:46
Well, good morning everybody. It's now half past 9, so it's time for me to open today's hearing sessions into the
13:52
examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. Welcome everybody to this uh
13:57
venue for the hearings. Just to introduce myself, my name is David Spencer and I'm the independent uh
14:04
inspector appointed to examine the soundness and legal compliance of the submitted plan. Uh and this is the plan
14:11
that was published uh in early in 2024
14:16
uh for representations uh into as say the soundness and legal compliance of
14:21
the plan. Can I just check that everybody can see me and where necessary? Uh, obviously everybody can hear me and where necessary see me. Yep,
14:29
the speakers are working. Good. Thank you. Uh, can I please ask at this stage
14:34
that people ensure that mobile phones are switched off or on their silent settings, please?
14:43
And can I please invite at this early stage the council to just advise what we need to do if the fire alarm goes off
14:50
and whether we're to do a test today and any other housekeeping matters. Thank you. Okay. Good morning everybody. Um we're
14:56
not expecting a fire alarm this morning. So and if alarm does go off um please can you meet me at the nearest fire
15:02
exits but just on the far side of the room there. Um and then if you can make your way to the far side of the car park
15:08
and then await instruction from hotel staff. Um toilets are just in the corridor just outside directly opposite
15:15
this room. Um please note that there are cables taped to the floor around the room. So just be careful when you're
15:21
walking around not to to trip on any of those. Um also the hotel operates a
15:26
parking eye system in the car park. So if you have parked your car there um please ensure that you've entered your
15:32
registration details in the tablet at the hotel reception as well. Thank you.
15:39
Thank you uh for that. Can I check? Um, these sessions are being recorded by the council and I think being uploaded onto
15:46
the council's examination um web pages, but does anybody else this morning wish
15:52
to make their own recording of this event?
15:58
No. Can I just check is there anybody here present from the press today, please?
16:05
No. Okay. Thank you. Uh now these are meetings that are held in public. So
16:11
people are welcome as I can see in the audience to observe uh the part observe
16:16
um the uh the end the uh the event this morning. Uh they are to say also being
16:23
um recorded but it is only people who are seated around the table who've expressed their right to be heard
16:28
alongside obviously I'll be hearing from the council who have the right to speak at these meetings. uh these are not
16:34
wider public open meetings for uh everybody to kind of chip in. Um
16:41
with that in mind um obviously uh what I will uh endeavor to do is obviously uh
16:48
ensure that everybody who is seated around the table has uh the right to be heard. Uh it's important that uh when we
16:54
make contributions that they are reasonably to the point. They're on the issue that we are discussing uh in
17:01
relation to the agenda that's already been published uh and circulated separately. That agenda reflects my uh
17:09
matters, issues, and questions which were based on all the various representations that I've that were
17:15
submitted on the plan back in early uh 2024. People do not need to necessarily read
17:22
out or repeat what has already been provided within your statements. Please take those taken as read. What I'm
17:28
hoping for is that we get a reasonable kind of discussion. What I really want to understand and hear from people
17:34
around the table particularly from uh seated to my uh left uh and at the back
17:40
of the table is if you you think the plan or you obviously consider that the plan is not sound why that I should draw
17:46
a similar conclusion and what needs to change to the plan in order for it to be
17:51
made sound and obviously the council will be rebutting or defending uh their particular uh position. When people do
18:00
make contributions, please use the microphone so that people in the room and those observing the hearings um can
18:07
uh uh listen and can hear what is being uh said. Uh I will try and generally
18:13
direct questions to particular people to try and bring you into the conversation on particular uh points relevant to your
18:20
uh representations. But if there is a particular point you wish to make as the discussion is moving
18:25
along and before I potentially move off a point, the convention is to upend your name plate and then I'll seek to bring
18:32
you in as close as possible uh to that particular uh part of um the discussion.
18:39
Now there are obviously profoundly uh divergent views or profoundly held
18:45
divergent views on this plan uh and what it should be doing. those who are uh vehemently opposed uh to the growth uh
18:53
and the locations that are put forward within the plan. We'll also be hearing from those who think that the plan may
19:00
need to go further or should go further in terms of additional um growth. Please can we treat everyone with respect and
19:06
allow everybody to make their po points uh and treat others as we'd wish to be um treated ourselves.
19:14
Does anybody have any brief questions on just how the mechanics or how these hearings work? I think people were here
19:21
yesterday to observe day one, so you probably got a gist of how how these
19:27
things work. No, thank you. Well, in which case can I
19:32
before we get into the agenda and we're here this morning to really look at um
19:38
uh matter two and the issues one and two which is first going to look at the plan period and then the main substance for
19:46
this morning's discussion will be around housing need and the amount of housing uh that this plan should be uh seeking
19:52
to to uh accommodate and plan for over the plan period. Uh but can I first
19:58
invite uh the council probably through Mr. Shadow Rivian uh to introduce who I'm likely to be hearing for on behalf
20:04
of the council for this morning's session. Please. Yes. Good morning, sir. My name is Paul
20:10
Sherevian Casey and I at for the council and I'm going to ask the various
20:16
witnesses to introduce themselves. Hello, I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm the
20:21
operations manager for the spatial planet team at South Tai Council.
20:28
I'm Kate Nichols, director of planning at LUC and led on the sustainability appraisal.
20:36
Good morning, Michael Bulock from Mark 4 who prepared the strategic housing market assessment.
20:44
Yeah, I should sorry I should have said and now once you I wasn't sure if on the end you were part of the council's team,
20:49
but I see from your name plate you are. You're not. So, what I'd like to do now is then work our way around the table.
20:55
If people can introduce themselves and I think Mr. Martin, you'll have to explain. You'll you've got obviously two
21:01
two potential hats. Thank you. Hi, good morning everyone. I'm Joan
21:06
Harding from the Homebuilders Federation. Hi everyone. I'm James Thompson,
21:12
development planner at Banks. Hi everyone. I'm Neil Westwig, a senior
21:18
director at Litfields representing Avant Homes. Morning. Now I'm Neil Morton the director at Saviles representing Lavy
21:25
Coal Farm Limited. Uh I'm Christopher Martin. I'm uh from
21:32
Pegasus Group. I'm representing both Belway Homes Limited who are strategic
21:37
arm of Bellway and Bellway Homes Limited Northeast who are the divisional office of Bellway.
21:44
Morning all. Lee Fulture, principal planner of DPP. We're representing Stormbridge Homes.
21:52
Morning. Kevin Eton from LG Planning representing Story Homes.
22:00
Morning. I'm Dave Hutchinson, the secretary of Eastbald Neighborhood Forum. Um, with your permission, Chair,
22:07
can I give a little bit of background to the neighborhood forum so that everybody understands what we are, what we
22:13
represent, if that's possible? I think we have got time this morning. I
22:19
would as long as it's a very sort of brief overview. I mean, as I said, I've read representations, but if you if you
22:26
can keep it fairly succinct, Mr. Hutchinson. Yeah. Ju just a few points which I think are, you know, quite fundamental to the
22:32
points we're going to make during the inquiry. Um
22:37
the neighborhood, the East Ber neighborhood plan was supported in a referendum which was held in October
22:43
2021. Um 1,432 votes were cast in total with 1,362
22:52
which was 95% in favor of the plan and only 70 against. Uh that's a turnout of 42%
23:00
which is better than the turnout in recent local elections. Um the forum
23:06
area includes about 1,800 houses in East Balden. The key issues for the neighborhood plan include the importance
23:13
of the natural and built environment, the heritage of the area and the role of the green belt plays in protecting this.
23:21
The plan includes a settlement boundary largely to protect the character of the village and to address the key issues
23:27
identified by our community consultation. Thank you.
23:33
Thank you. Um I think again somebody uh Mr. Butler please next. Yeah, good good morning. I'm Mvin
23:39
Butler. I'm secretary of the clean East Balden uh Labor Party and I'm also a member of East Ben Neighborhood Forum.
23:47
Councelor David Herbert for the Southside Green Party. Thank you. Thank you for those um
23:53
introductions. So if I can invite people now to turn to u my previously
23:59
circulated agenda. This will then as I say link back to my previously published
24:04
matters issues and questions uh that were released uh early in May of this year. Uh and there are two the two
24:11
issues as I want to cover this morning. The first is the plan period. Um and then we'll move on to the housing need
24:18
but often the two are uh interlin. In terms of the plan period, my
24:24
overarching question and I'll invite the council to come in on this first in terms of particularly how you responded
24:29
to MIT issues questions 2.1 is whether it would be necessary for soundness um
24:36
to extend uh the plan period obviously I'm reading the plan period as running from 1st of April 2023 through to the
24:44
31st of March 2040. So intending to give a 17year period but as many people
24:52
seated around the table will recognize the national planning policy framework in relation to strategic policies at
24:59
paragraph 22 I think um says that plans particular
25:05
where they contain strategic policies and this is a plan that clearly identifies uh a number of strategic uh
25:11
uh policies should look ahead over at least a 15-year period uh from plan
25:17
adoption. Now as we sit here now obviously there's a way to go with this examination but
25:23
assuming a fair wind and uh you know we make good progress uh and I'm able to
25:30
issue a report I mean I think realistically adoption would be at some point in 20 26.
25:37
Um, so I understand those submissions who uh
25:42
are advocating or articulating that the plan period should be extended, but I
25:47
would like to invite the council perhaps pick out some of the key points it's raised in its response to MIQ 2.1 as to
25:55
why the council feels there are particular circumstances relating to South Tinside that mean the
26:02
plan period as submitted can still be considered to be a sound a Sound one. Thank you.
26:10
Okay. Thank you. Um, as you've referenced in our response to the MIQ
26:16
question, the council has set out that we consider the current plan period of 2023 to 2040 should not be modified and
26:23
should be kept as it is. So, the plan going forward um I think there are
26:28
circumstances which uh justify that. Um, I think everyone in the room is is well aware of the delays of the plan and
26:35
being submitted. Um so the local development scheme which was prepared um
26:40
at regulation 19 um set out that the the plan would be at examination summer 24
26:48
um and proposed identifies a proposed adoption period of end um summer 2025.
26:54
Now obviously that hasn't happened um and we are obviously in examination now
26:59
in 2025 um and therefore that has had knock on effects in terms of the the plan period
27:06
as it was set out at regulation 19 um the LDS that we um submitted at sub
27:13
along with the submission of the local plan um identifies an adoption I say in 2026
27:19
um I think the time scales there are generous in terms of identifying that
27:25
period at the end which says late 26 to take into account um uncertainties
27:31
around examination period um but I say examination has happened earlier than
27:36
what we set out in the LDS as well. So that there could be some flexibility around that in terms of what is
27:43
remaining of the plan period at the point of adoption. Um I think another important point to to set out is that
27:49
the plan has been submitted under transitional arrangements. Um and therefore at the point of adoption there
27:56
will be a requirement for the plan to be reviewed um to um to take into account
28:02
the MPPPF which was published in December 2024.
28:08
I think as well um it's also important to to recognize the the evidence base which has been prepared to support this
28:16
local plan does not extend beyond the 2024 um end of the plan period. Um I think
28:22
the council um recognizes that should the plan period be extended it would
28:28
mean that there would be a significant amount of work that would be have to be undertaken to uh support that change in
28:33
the plan period. Um which would lead to additional delays in terms of being able
28:39
to to get a plan adopted. Um, so we consider that the approach that we've
28:45
taken and keeping the plan period as it is is probably going to be the the most efficient way of getting a plan adopted
28:52
for for the council.
29:07
Thank you. And just allied to that before I bring in uh potential others on this issue of the plan period. I mean
29:12
the the bottom line I think if I can sort of um sum up the position of some of the table in terms of extending the
29:19
plan period is is additional housing uh requirement that would need to be provided potentially over an additional
29:26
year or two years. Uh my rudimentary maths um if we accept the housing um
29:32
need figure requirement figure um for south time side would be about an
29:37
additional if it say it's another year another 310 two years
29:43
watch out for my lightning maths 620 um
29:49
uh from the council's position the reasonable is saying you know the evidence base does the evidence base
29:54
exist kind of uh on the one hand simply extrapolate that forward. Um
30:02
is there the evidence base that can support that or is it really kind of tied to the
30:09
2040 kind of plan period in terms of what would need to be done? I don't know if the council could just potentially
30:15
articulate what if we reminded to go down a main modification of that that
30:20
what what sort of things would need to be potentially unpicked or or looked at further in more
30:26
detail. So shall I shall I deal with this? Um I may be corrected by those who know
30:32
better. Um we'll see. Um first and foremost the evidence base um is
30:40
comprehensive. It has to be comprehensive. And we are dealing here not only with
30:45
housing numbers but other development too. Meeting the burough's development
30:50
needs as a whole. That includes employment uh social infrastructure as
30:56
well as physical infrastructure of all types. Um it's not simply a question of
31:02
extrapolating the housing figure and then adding on a couple of sites.
31:09
Um there is a there would be a need to review the evidence base as a whole to
31:16
see what impact extending the plan period would have on all development
31:23
needs and the implications on infrastructure
31:28
and the timing of that infrastructure that process in itself could take quite
31:33
a long time. So if it were to be engaged through a modifications process,
31:40
there is a real possibility that it would extend to many many months of extra work in order to make sure that
31:48
the evidence base supported the further year or two of the plan period. So one
31:54
has to um look at the emergence of this plan and the issues that have beset it
32:02
uh in order to understand whether or not there is justification for undertaking that course of action
32:10
and not being able to anticipate at this stage what its implications and outcomes might be.
32:17
That's the first point. Second point is if one goes back to the
32:22
uh 2013 MPPF uh and the policy has remained much the
32:28
same and remains the same nonetheless. It says strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from
32:35
adoption. It doesn't stop there. What it goes on
32:41
to say is to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities
32:46
such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure. So what it's saying is you need to look
32:53
at it over this kind of period as a minimum in order to anticipate and
32:58
respond to those issues and it refers specifically to strategic
33:03
policies in that context. And the strategic policies which have been promoted
33:09
through this plan are such that they're intended to meet the burough's needs for employment and housing land specifically
33:16
over that period of time. albeit there is a shortfall of a year. The question
33:22
is whether that objective is in some way materially compromised.
33:28
Um my submission is that that policy objective is not materially compromised as a result of the plan period being a
33:35
little shorter particularly in a context where there
33:41
will be a requirement in any event to look ahead uh with a revised plan. uh in
33:48
short order and likely also with a much higher housing requirement having regard
33:55
to the assessed need.
34:02
And just to reinforce that, um, the same policy, paragraph 22 goes on to say,
34:09
"Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and
34:15
towns form part of the strategy, policies should be set within a vision
34:20
that looks further ahead, at least 30 years to take into account likely time scale for delivery. It's not saying that
34:27
the plan period should be 30 years. It's asking for a vision. And what I'm suggesting is that that vision
34:35
and the ability to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements is not
34:40
compromised by the slight shortfall in the plan period and that the advantages
34:46
of proceeding with the current plan and its current period far outweighs the
34:52
potential difficulties that may arise in trying to extend it at this stage.
34:58
So I hope that helps. Thank you. And I probably I mean I'm
35:03
sure many around the table are aware obviously for plan examinations. Now there was obviously the letter from the
35:10
minister to the chief executive of the planning inspector at 30th of July last year. So there are to be any pauses to
35:17
plan examinations. We're looking at a window of around about six months. So I
35:22
need to bear that in mind if there's significant uh additional uh work or requirements um
35:29
likely um or necessary uh to make a plan uh a plan sound. Obviously that sets out
35:36
the council's position. Obviously read your uh your statement. I'm reasonably clear uh on on your position.
35:44
For those who do advocate or articulate that the plan period um should be
35:50
extended uh in light of national planning policy, is there anything further anybody around
35:56
the table wishes to say in relation to what you've uh provided through your statements uh and the council's kind of
36:03
submissions that um is not simply a case of just being able to kind of extrapolate the housing requirement.
36:10
that in itself would sort of uh like pulling at a a loose end on a on a woolen jumper. It's going to it's going
36:16
to unravel and take more more time to kind of fix than perhaps people envvisage. Uh Mr. Westwick first I think
36:23
please. Sir, it's just a a brief point not to want to go not want to uh go over
36:28
what you said, but essentially um what we see heard from the council is that it there may be some for starters this is a
36:34
problem the council's making in the delay in the plan but essentially um what we've heard is it may be a little
36:40
bit difficult to do the task but all we heard was many months delay not not not
36:45
an elongated period for an infinite amount of time. My view is that yes it may be a slightly more difficult task
36:51
but I believe the MPPF is clear it is for a minimum of 15 years per the council haven't got um I don't think
36:57
just because the task is slightly difficult and will cause some minor delay that it shouldn't be undertaken
37:06
can I invite Mr. Westwick, yourself and others. The council makes the also the specific point. Obviously, this is a
37:12
plan being examined against the September 2023 uh MPPF
37:18
um under transitional arrangements through the subsequent national planning policy framework. You know, this is this
37:23
is an authority that's going to be, you know, expected to produce an updated local plan in quick order. Does that
37:30
provide any assurance at this stage to find a plan with potentially 14 years
37:37
plan period sound in that context.
37:43
I think from my point of view, sir, it unfortunately doesn't. I think um history has demonstrated that South Dide
37:49
do not produce plans in short order. Um we're sitting here today after an elongated process. So unfortunately that
37:55
doesn't give me myself much comfort.
38:07
Thank you. Um I'll go to Mr. Aton next and then um Mr. Martin.
38:15
Thank you sir. Yeah again just going back to paragraph 22. It's quite clear required a minimum 15 years. Um it
38:22
doesn't kind of go and say unless justification is set out otherwise it's quite clear in that point and I think
38:28
pick up on Mr. West Point point past lack of delivery the evidence of that
38:34
delays in the current local plan process. Um if anything there's more of a reason to at least do 15 years rather
38:41
than reduce it to give it that certainty and it links to other points of well which is safeguarded land about planning
38:47
ahead to recognize that constraint the green belt has had on delivery in South Tide.
38:53
Um so yeah I think I think it's quite clear that that minimum period should be
38:59
should be targeted.
39:04
Thank you. Um Mr. Martin please. Thank you sir. Um
39:12
to some degree I have a little bit of sympathy with the planning officers given the situation that we're in as
39:18
you've alluded to sir in terms of the letter and where we are and the delays that's had to the examination but having
39:25
said that this is something that has been flagged certainly in representations I prepared to the
39:31
regulation 19 stage and I believe others around this table at that point in time we were saying the plan period was
39:37
looking very tight in any slippage um you know would mean that you would be
39:43
under that minimum 15-year period. Um so there was an opportunity at that point in time for the council to extend out
39:51
that plan period. Um so it's not something that has suddenly sprung upon them to some degree. It's something that
39:57
has been signaled and flagged through representations previously. Um
40:03
from my point of view I'd agree with um Mr. Eric May. There's areas of interpretation, areas of judgment. In
40:09
this case, the MPPPF is really clear that it's a minimum of 15 years from adoption. There's no ifs or buts or, you
40:17
know, exceptions or anything like that. So, and the PPG again is clear. The the
40:22
the um the accompanying PPG, it talks about a minimum 15-year plan period. So,
40:28
that's talking about the bare minimum really. Ideally, you should be looking even a bit a bit further bit further on
40:34
than that. Um, so to my mind they do need to extend the plan period. I think
40:40
it's pretty clear. I think there's an issue there that if you go ahead with a plan that's less
40:47
um, it could be challengeable potentially because it's not in accordance with national policy. Um and
40:54
I know that the council have also raised the matter about um you know this is a transitional plan the transitional
41:01
arrangement and that there will be a review in short order of a of of the plan given what the
41:07
MPPF says but are we not round this table today to check test the soundness of this plan and we to some degree we
41:14
have to put aside the fact that there will be a review it you know even if there is going to be a review this plan itself has to be sound and has to be fit
41:21
for purpose Um so I mean unfortunately I think it is a situation where I think
41:29
they need to be looking to extend the plan period. Thank you.
41:34
Thank you. I mean others may want to come in on this point but I'll I'll come back to you Mr. Martin as the last last
41:40
contributor and um as say others want may want to come back. I've heard from the council from Mr. Shadow Shadow.
41:47
Uh I think you placed an emphasis on the word should within paragraph um 22 of
41:53
the MPPF. It's it's not a must. Um obviously it's a uh it is a national uh
42:01
planning uh policy um document. Uh so
42:06
whether that's uh something that provides some flexibility
42:12
uh in these circumstances and whether as you say Mr. Martin is considering whether this plan is sound and obviously
42:18
the council consulted back in 2024. I appreciate there's been a passage of time but at that time it consulted on
42:26
and published what it considered to be a sound plan. Now unfortunately events
42:31
mean we're sitting here now I think probably much later than when uh the examination was um originally uh
42:38
envisaged. Um does that provide kind of exceptional circumstances as the council
42:45
put as part of their their um reasoning to kind of not extend the plan period?
42:54
Um to my mind no because um there's nothing within the MPPF or the PPG that
43:01
talks about exceptional circumstances that allow a authority to plan less than
43:06
15 years. If there was, I would imagine it would have been in there. Um, there's a good reason why it's a minimum of 15
43:12
years because you have to provide certainty for residents, certainty for businesses, and if you're planning over
43:18
a shorter period, then that doesn't create that certainty for long-term investment. Um, to my mind, should or
43:25
must. I mean, that's splitting hairs there. They're two modal verbs, and both are directing you to do something.
43:33
Um, you know, if it was more looser, they could have used could. or may. But you know, to me, it's still
43:40
pretty clear about what the government's intending local planning authorities to do.
43:56
Thank you, Mr. Butler, please. Thank you, sir. Um, we wouldn't uh want
44:03
to see an extension to the plan period. we would support the the position that the plan should go forward and the dates
44:09
as it is. I think you've already just made the point about uh the period of the consultation on regulation 19 but
44:17
also make the point that from the residents and public's point of view uh the significant response to the plan was
44:24
at regulation 18 when the engagement was very much higher and the frustration uh
44:30
from our community that we're not in a position to have a plan in place.
44:35
Obviously, we don't agree with everything that's being proposed uh means that it's now important to get
44:41
this plan in place and anything that uh meant a further period I think would
44:48
lead to more uncertainty. So, we would certainly favor uh the plan period to be as is. Thank you.
44:57
Thank you. Obviously mindful it's it's the council's plan. If the council wants to come back on anything that's been
45:03
raised, I'm going to I'm going to call them broadly the sort of development um sector industry is the or land promotion
45:10
industry is that's what they're doing. So Mr. Shadow Raven.
45:15
Yeah, I'm just trying to it's working. Um yeah just very briefly um uh the MPPF
45:22
is the secretary of state's guidance its policies um upon which you must
45:29
place considerable weight of that there is no doubt however um this process also
45:35
involves the exercise of planning judgment and you are here to exercise that
45:40
judgment in a professional and objective way and paragraph 22
45:46
and does not preclude the exercise of that judgment
45:54
provided you give reasons for your recommendations
45:59
having regard to the requirements of that policy
46:06
and that is a question of judgment for you
46:14
that's all I need to say
46:30
to also add as a matter of practical experience, this is not the only plan that is seeking to go through or has
46:36
gone through on the basis of a slight shortfall in the plan period. It's not uncommon.
47:08
Thank you. If I can pick up the second part of um
47:13
the issue around plan period that I'd identified in my matters issues and questions. we've kind of to one end of
47:19
the spectrum been looking at sort of the end date and whether that should be um moved forward to to 2041 or 2042.
47:28
The other thought um I was having or sort of applied in other plan
47:33
examinations is whether um given where we are the plan period should be brought
47:39
forward given the use of the standard method for calculating housing need
47:44
applying the latest affordability um ratios in terms of those being sort of
47:50
forward uh looking um projections and whether there was a uh a soundness issue
47:57
that the plan period also needed to be brought forward um to reflect as I say
48:02
the latest affordability ratio and again I'll invite the council to respond to this point in terms of the
48:10
um
48:15
the reasoning or the council's kind of view on why that wouldn't be necessary for soundness
48:22
uh in this particular instance. Yeah. Uh so I'll just quickly introduce myself. I'm Rachel Cooper, one of the
48:29
senior policy officers in at Southside Council. Um as we set out in our hearing
48:35
statement, um the the need of 309 dwellings is based on the 2022
48:41
affordability ratios. Um if we applied the 2023 affordability ratio,
48:48
that would bring the need to 310 dwellings perom. So I think it's the
48:53
council's view that rebasing the plan for one additional dwell dwelling peranom would not be proportionate and
48:59
given the reasons sort of we set out earlier in terms of the evidence base.
49:07
Thank you. Does anybody else have views on rebasing the start of the plan
49:12
period? Um it's it's typically more an issue where the affordability ratio has gone in a a a uh
49:21
a different direction and points to higher housing need. But I'm not hearing any kind of dispute from the council's
49:27
analysis that it's roughly stayed the same whether it's the 2022 or the 23 uh
49:33
affordability um ratios. Thank you. Before I just move off the plan um
49:38
period, obviously I've got to uh apply myself to this. Mr. Shadowavian says the judgments around whether this um remains
49:45
sound. I think I just want to just understand a little bit more clearly understand why the the point is being
49:52
made about extending the plan period and people are inviting me on that basis consistency with national policy.
50:00
um test of soundness imprinciply but the consequence of that is I think for most
50:06
people sitting around the table a higher housing number and requirement over an additional period would also have
50:12
ramifications about whether we can uh extrapolate employment land um figures
50:19
uh over a similar period um the council indicated I think Mrs. lambs refer to
50:25
it. Yeah, it would be months to kind of look at this. Can I just understand just
50:31
a little bit more? I mean, we're looking at things like the infrastructure delivery plan, traffic modeling
50:39
in terms of trying to potentially accommodate an additional 300 or 600 H
50:44
circuit 300 600 houses and relevant uh hectarage of employment floor space.
50:51
Yeah. What would happen is before you got to the issue of considering infrastructure requirements
50:57
um and attendant um requirements associated with the increased number,
51:03
you'd first have to review the um spatial strategy. Where are those
51:08
additional houses going to come from? Should it be within the green belt? And if so, and as is most likely, if so,
51:16
where within the green belt? So, one would have then to um undertake a
51:22
further green belt review um by way of an addendum to accommodate
51:28
the extra number and that would feed into the sustainability appraisal which would
51:35
then have to consider strategic options and then consider sight specific options
51:42
in the way in which the SA has done so thus far. um
51:50
that work cannot all take place at once. There has to be a sequence.
51:56
Um and um once we've identified what that need is
52:02
and what the spatial alternatives are to consider then what the infrastructure requirements related to those
52:09
alternatives is so it can be SAD. So it it's a long process. one has to consider
52:16
the resources which are available to the council to undertake that process. That's a material factor.
52:22
Um because you can't assume uh that the resources will be there to achieve the
52:28
outcome in a timely way. And then there is the issue of consultation
52:33
and responding to that consultation because any change through the
52:39
modifications process has to be fair and give objectors the opportunity to make
52:44
representations and in order for it to be effective consultation, we have to take it into
52:50
account in determining whether or not the choices made are appropriate having regard to those responses.
52:56
And um the implications of that are are manifold. But I think one can anticipate
53:02
that there is a real risk, not just a risk, but a real risk that that process
53:08
will take well in much longer than six months.
53:14
And moreover, that we can't know what the outcome might be in terms of its impacts on other elements of the plan.
53:29
I think that that is an assessment that can be made um um on the basis of
53:35
experience and common sense.
53:42
Thank you. I think just being um devil's advocate for a moment with the council
53:48
um maybe others around the table might have a view. The council's looked at a
53:53
lot of sites as part of this plan preparation process. They've been through sustainability appraisal.
53:59
We'll come on to this as part of other discussions around the thoroughess of which the council has kind of looked at
54:04
things whether that to some extent kind of mitigates um the kind of the timing
54:12
implications of potentially looking for additional land supply. Put that on one side of the equation. I think what I
54:19
would say to the room and from experience drawn from other plan examinations if additional supply is
54:24
needed or is is a consequence of the main modification.
54:29
Uh I can't think yet of a plan examination that hasn't where that hasn't occurred that that consultation
54:36
is carried out as part of any kind of pause. So it's not only a case of trying to looking for that additional supply
54:42
going through the kind of various processes. It's also then carrying out probably at least a six week
54:47
consultation analyzing that consultation responses. Can that reasonably be done
54:53
within a six month pause window? Um, but I think I give the
54:58
council the f not not saying, you know, the pudding is being overegged, but
55:04
is is there a degree of evidence that exists already that would mean it would be relatively
55:10
straightforward to identify additional supply? If we were talking about circumstances
55:16
where um the plan period remained the same
55:21
but that you were of the view that it would be appropriate to include further sites in order to um fulfill a proper
55:31
requirement having regard to the assessed need then that will probably be fine because that
55:38
assessment has already been done. You can look at further sites and make judgments about the need for further
55:43
infrastructure in those circumstances and be satisfied that other elements of
55:49
the plan would remain constant notwithstanding the additional
55:54
requirement. But here we're talking about an additional year on the plan period and
56:00
its consequences. Um that could well have implications
56:06
also for highways infrastructure assessment and and modeling for example which has
56:14
been done. Um I don't know is the answer but there is difference between the two
56:20
and it's not it's not just a question of identifying further sites.
56:27
Thank you. Before I move off the issue of plan period and we get into the substance of housing need, are there any
56:32
further submissions anybody wishes to make in relation to plan period? What I've just heard from the council?
56:40
No. Okay. Thank you. Leave that with me into my uh intray of judgments to make.
56:48
Um we now move on to issue two. I should have said at the start obviously we're sitting for this morning uh in relation
56:55
to housing need I will probably be taking a midm morning break you'll be pleased to hear at an appropriate time
57:00
so I'll signal when that that is that's like to be in about 45 minutes um time
57:07
but I want to start the discussion on on h separate discussion on excuse me housing need
57:13
um and uh the first area I just want to start from and just uh I don't think
57:20
this is a um an issue of significant dispute.
57:26
But in a terms of just applying the standard method um to derive local housing need whether the output that's
57:33
been identified as um Miss Cooper's already referred to uh using the 2022
57:39
affordability ratios is 309 um net new homes a year. whether that's
57:46
uh soundly based. We'll come on to whether we should be using the standard method as the the basis for deriving
57:54
housing need. But starting from you know the starting point of national planning
58:00
policy framework says to use the standard method where we to do so is the
58:07
output reliably 309 dwellings peranom is it can't remember if it's Mr. or Dr. But
58:13
look, it's Eva. Okay, D.
58:22
Uh yes, in terms of the in terms of the running the standard method, then yes, the 309 is the is the outturn figure
58:32
and that's set out within the strategic housing market assessment in terms of the various kind of inputs um that have
58:37
gone into that in terms of you know the affordability ratio using the 2014
58:43
household projections correct etc. Yeah. Yeah.
58:49
As I say, I don't think from looking around the table that specific output in itself is um contested, but I'll just uh
58:58
uh check that that's that still remains um the case.
59:05
So in terms of then um going to the sort of the next item on
59:11
the agenda in terms of kind of the principle of using uh the standard method as indicated national planning
59:18
policy I think this is at uh when we go back to the September 2023 national
59:23
planning policy framework. This is paragraph 61 states to use the standard method uh and the component parts of the
59:30
formula unless exceptional um circumstances uh exist. I think as I set
59:36
tried to sort of set out in my agenda, I think the rationale for that is that I think from the government's perspectives
59:42
try and get a degree of consistency across the country uh in terms of how housing needs um are calculated.
59:50
I think one of the areas that's clearly been raised within the representations particularly from those seated um on my
59:57
left is whether the use of the 2014based uh household projections
1:00:04
uh is reasonable and kind of justified in a South Tinside context whether there
1:00:10
are uh exceptional circumstances to apply uh alternative
1:00:16
uh projections as a starting point. Uh and again I think this refers to my masses issues questions 2.4.
1:00:24
Um I presume I'm again looking to uh Dr. Bulock as the uh I don't know if I can
1:00:31
call you the author of the Indeed. I was going to suggest if we defer to Miss Cooper for the initial
1:00:37
council position and then if there's any further questions I can follow up on those. Thank you.
1:00:43
Um yeah, so the council haven't identified any exceptional circumstances to deviate from the 2014 household
1:00:48
projections. Um the PPG is clear that 2014 based projections should be used um
1:00:55
and that they provide stability for planning authorities and communities and take into account historic underd
1:01:00
delivery.
1:01:13
Thank you. And I think in terms of this some of these specific um issues around
1:01:20
whether um there are these kind of exceptional um circumstances probably overlaps into
1:01:27
sort of part of my uh agenda item five. Uh and we'll come on to this in terms of
1:01:33
um others who are pointing to kind of recent population um figures but
1:01:40
um it is sometimes put at plan examinations to use the 2018 why don't
1:01:45
we use the 2018 um household um projections but
1:01:50
understand the schmar has kind of looked at this it's kind of sensitivity checked
1:01:57
what what does that tell us is it kind significantly um different to the 2014
1:02:05
um projections. Might there be reasons for this? I understand whether it's Mubar or M Dr. Bullet, there are var
1:02:12
there are variant runs of the 2018 household projections that could give you a raft of kind of different
1:02:19
different answers, but there's one that's often referred to as kind of the principal run.
1:02:25
uh from my reading of the schmal the outturn for that for the 2018 projections is not significantly
1:02:32
different to the 2014 but I don't know if you're able to somebody's able to assist on
1:02:41
this particular point I'm happy to take that sir I think the the point is that
1:02:48
there's a very ppg is very clear about the
1:02:53
about the data to be used to looking to to assess a future housing need. I think
1:02:58
the point is that new data comes out quite frequently, quite regularly. And
1:03:03
my considered view is whenever we're looking at new data coming out, it's to understand the kind of magnitudes and
1:03:10
directions of data rather than the absolutes. And the point is that there is consistency in terms of the overall
1:03:17
trends in population change um affecting South Southside, which I think is the
1:03:23
key point here. um that you do get different sets of data coming out, but they're all pointing to a similar
1:03:29
projection in terms of the kind of makeup and the character of a locality.
1:03:43
Thank you. And when I'm looking at this issue, I mean appreciate it is covered in some detail within the strategic
1:03:49
housing market assessment. um the schma I mean I was drawn to paragraph 240 to kind of draw
1:03:56
a kind of particular conclusion around the kind of as I describe it the kind of the principle kind of out output or run
1:04:02
of the 2018 projections compared to the 2014
1:04:10
kind of reveal that there's not that significant a difference in terms of the kind of the as you say the kind of
1:04:17
consistent picture. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think as you were saying there, the uh paragraph 240
1:04:22
identifies that over the 10-year period from 2023 to 2033, um under the 2014 projections, there's a
1:04:31
rough household growth of 292 compared with 294 under the the 2018 projections.
1:04:45
Thank you. You know, I appreciate the kind of the move to standard method has taken a lot of the debate out of how we
1:04:51
calculate and derive um housing need. How I missed the days of objectively assessed housing need which probably
1:04:57
took a whole day. Um but nonetheless uh I think whilst there's um
1:05:05
some recognition and support around the table for the applica or how the
1:05:10
standard method has been applied as the starting point uh for um deriving
1:05:16
housing need and ultimately the housing requirement for the plan in South Tinside. Uh there are those who take um
1:05:22
an alternative uh or invite that um an alternative view is taken. I want to
1:05:27
sort of touch upon items five and six um of my agenda um particularly for um
1:05:34
East Balden uh neighborhood forum in terms of your representations. I know those are echoed by uh the local uh
1:05:41
Labor Party and others as well in terms of
1:05:46
what population trends might be telling us, what recent population figures uh
1:05:52
are indicating. If we look at the latest um 20021 census,
1:05:58
I think your view or your forum's view, Mr. Hutchinson, is that there's been a picture of sustained population decline.
1:06:07
That's still the picture in your view from the latest census outputs which
1:06:13
points to I think you suggest through um various figures within uh your statement
1:06:20
or your forum statement that the plans could potentially be overproviding or
1:06:26
providing for housing need significantly in excess of what is actually in your
1:06:31
view um required. So if I can invite you to just outline the approach you you
1:06:38
would invite me to take please. Yes sir. Thank you. That that's correct.
1:06:43
Um just a bit of background. In 2002, we wrote to the secretary of state uh for
1:06:50
leveling up housing in communities uh about the use of the standard method
1:06:56
and whether there was any way that um there were exceptional circumstances
1:07:01
which could justify using another basis for calculation. um the secretary of state wrote back on
1:07:08
the 20th of July 2022 and I'm quoting from his letter which uh
1:07:14
we submitted as an appendix to our submission. Um he said the standard
1:07:19
method does not impose a target. It is still up to the local authority to determine its housing requirement and
1:07:26
this includes taking local circumstances and restraints such as the green belt
1:07:32
into account. Um on that basis we argue that there are
1:07:37
exceptional circumstances for using a different figure. Uh the population
1:07:43
trend in South T side has consistently been going down and we now have the um
1:07:50
the figures from the 2021 census which show a much lower figure for projected
1:07:56
households than either 2014 or 2018.
1:08:02
So we proposing that um given the flexibility conceded by the secretary of
1:08:08
state, the council should use that lower figure from the 2004 2021 census.
1:08:17
um which if that was applied to the calculation instead of 309 houses per
1:08:25
year uh that would give us a figure of 145
1:08:30
houses per year which obviously is much more much less intrusive on the capacity
1:08:37
and on the green belt of the burough.
1:08:43
Thank you Mr. Hson. I think that then looking at the forums uh representations
1:08:48
you're saying that would we look at those figures I think if I read your um statement correctly they'd
1:08:55
be saying we'd need around about or South time should be planning for around about 2,850
1:09:01
dwellings less than what's currently put forward in policy SP2.
1:09:08
Yeah.
1:09:28
I can turn again back to the council please. I'm sort of mindful obviously the council's from a position of as it's
1:09:34
pointed out to me planning practice guidance says to use the 2014based
1:09:41
um household projections obviously being invited uh by the forum and and others. I'll
1:09:47
bring the bring other people in shortly um to look at this alternatively in
1:09:52
terms of latest um census outputs and what that might mean uh for household
1:09:58
projections within the context I think going back to Dr. Bulock's point of
1:10:03
looking at wider trends and I think what's been put to me is that since you're saying since I think Mr. from
1:10:09
your statement since 1961 the trend in South Tinside has been population
1:10:15
um decline debate about whether that's still a valid kind of thing to be be
1:10:21
planning for but my reading of the schmar doesn't necessarily tally with
1:10:27
that in terms of population is potentially projected to increase
1:10:32
um I don't know if Dr. that you can outline. I'm mindful of
1:10:38
we're looking at household projections on the one hand and whether there are issues around looking at census later
1:10:45
census outputs that I need to be uh aware of uh in terms of consistency
1:10:52
and what potentially looking at some data in isolation might point to versus
1:10:58
what potentially you could get from looking at a wider a wider data set.
1:11:05
I have actually prepared a crib sheet here so to help because I thought this this question may come up. It's a perfectly valid and reasonable question.
1:11:13
Um in addition the 2022 projections are now out as well. Now bearing in mind
1:11:19
we're talking about population not households. So that's so the base is talking about population. Uh, and I know
1:11:26
it's not appropriate to introduce new information, but basically what I've done is summarize the population change
1:11:33
um, 2023 to 2033 by the three different projections, the
1:11:39
2014based, 18-based, and the 22based and look at what how they compare with
1:11:46
the 2021 census. Now, one of the issues with the 21 census was a degree of under
1:11:54
representation and undercount which has been reported in a number of areas um
1:11:59
because of COVID and and and what was going on at that moment in time. But
1:12:04
what I have done is tried to summarize the point that in the 2021 census there
1:12:10
was a reported population of 14 well bas 148,000
1:12:16
that compared with the 2014 projection at 2021 of 150,700
1:12:24
basically a 2% difference for the 2018 projections it was 152,000
1:12:32
population which is a 2.7% variation from the 2021 census. And then for the
1:12:38
2022 projections that have just been published, there's a 0.6% difference
1:12:43
from the census. Um they're talking about 148 and a half thousand population. So the point being that yes,
1:12:52
the census did report a lower figure, but there are questions around whether
1:12:57
that fully reflected the total population. And the actual range that we're talking
1:13:03
about in terms of differences that are being shown in the different projections would suggest to me that the position
1:13:10
that's being taken about using the 2014based projections, which informed the household projections, is is still
1:13:17
reasonable. And I'm happy to prepare that in a note if that would be helpful, but it's just
1:13:24
to try and summarize the points around these degrees of differences between population projections.
1:13:32
Thank you. Um that that's helpful. If I can bring in others and I'll probably
1:13:38
come back to uh a point on this, but um invite Mr. Butler first and then um
1:13:43
councelor Herbert for the Green Party. Thank you, sir. Um this became a key
1:13:49
issue for communities uh and residents um during the consultation period when
1:13:55
people realized that um the need for housing sites was being driven by the
1:14:01
housing requirement figure and that led people to try and understand how this
1:14:07
came about. It's a very technical process, but the public did pick up on it. And I think that um the 2014based
1:14:17
idea became con consistently uh under attack as time went forward during the
1:14:23
consultation on this plan and I think it's there to say eventually became discredited because in people's minds
1:14:29
because it was so much out of date in their view. Now Mr. Bock just talked
1:14:34
about total population. The the important issue here is the issue of of households because that's driving the
1:14:42
need and in this situation we find that the census showed whether there was any
1:14:48
undercounting or not a significantly reduced number of households compared with any of the projections that were
1:14:55
being used and therefore that was the reasons that we thought that we should
1:15:00
seek sorry the forum should seek advice as to whether uh there could be exceptional circumstance ances because
1:15:07
of the nature of South Tinside and its extreme constraints with the large amount of green belt within the burough.
1:15:14
So from that point of view we we do believe that there is that case to be
1:15:19
made and would ask you to consider it seriously.
1:15:33
Thank you councelor Herbert please. I would agree with the forum
1:15:38
representation. Um I'm not sure where the uh census
1:15:44
figures from Mr. Bullet come from because when you look at it, the only thing I can see is a maximum of 3%
1:15:50
increase in the population uh projected up to 2032 which I think
1:15:57
would you could extrapolate on. So looking at that as a percentage of the 72,000 houses in South Tinside, 3% would
1:16:06
give a target of 127 houses a year, similar to the ballpark figure that's been mentioned.
1:16:18
In addition to uh the letter from Mr. Scott, uh there were several ministerial
1:16:24
ministerial pronouncements about housing targets. Uh Michael Generick, the
1:16:30
secretary of state for housing in 2020 said that the standard method of assessing local housing need does not
1:16:37
present a target in plan making but instead provides a starting point backing up information in the letter.
1:16:46
Michael Gove then the secretary of state for leveling up housing and communities
1:16:51
in 19 9th of December 2023 said that it provides a clear protection for the
1:16:57
green belt in the MPF. It will facilitate flexibility for local
1:17:04
authorities in relation to local housing need clarifying a local lock on any
1:17:09
changes to the green belt boundaries.
1:17:15
It says as a starting point, not a target. So consistently throughout the
1:17:20
government, you've got this uh information there.
1:17:28
There's also guidance in the House of Commons Library published in the 27th of August 2021 called calculating housing
1:17:35
need in the planning system which states in 2.4 before it it's a starting point
1:17:40
not a target. Line constraints and the standard method are not
1:17:46
uh starting points and not a target. The standard method is intended to be the
1:17:52
starting point in determining how many homes an local planning authority can and should deliver, but it's not a
1:17:58
target. Local planning authorities must take into account for example land
1:18:03
constraints such as a green belt. So you've got in the House of Commons libraries guidance to ministers and
1:18:10
government backing up what's just been said about the flexibility and I would
1:18:15
think exceptional circumstances in a an urban situation as we have. Green belt's
1:18:21
precious. Once it's gone, it's gone. We need to preserve it. and the figures on
1:18:26
the housing protections, the population protections, ministerial uh
1:18:31
pronouncements on how to interpret the MPPF give us the council leeway to
1:18:37
adjust the housing target.
1:18:44
Thank Thank you for that. Obviously, I'm mindful sort of sitting here today, we're we're I think I said earlier we're
1:18:51
under the transitional arrangements of the September uh 2023 um national planning policy framework. So, I'm sort
1:18:58
of mindful that um subsequent uh iterations of the MPPF
1:19:03
were published. Um my examination for consistency with national policy is still bound back to
1:19:09
that version of the um the MPPPF uh and the associated um chapters of the
1:19:15
planning practice guidance. Just looking more widely before I come back to the council from the uh the neighborhood
1:19:23
forum and and others. I think you're also telling or inviting me to draw the conclusion as well that not only is this
1:19:29
potential kind of um overestimation of population And then by by association household uh
1:19:37
protections an issue for South Tinside it could similarly apply uh to other
1:19:43
authorities within the northeast. So potentially a a kind of a compounding of
1:19:49
the kind of the overprovision uh of housing across this uh across this
1:19:54
region I think is how I've read uh some of the representations or inviting me to kind of look at it more w there's a
1:20:01
wider potentially a wider issue. It's not just uh a South Tinside matter when
1:20:08
we come on to look at uh in due course um uh around Greenbell exceptional
1:20:13
circumstances whether uh uh other authorities can can assist
1:20:19
or uh help meet some of South Tinside's um needs. I think that's that's people
1:20:25
are sort of generally nodding. Uh obviously to pick up Mr. Butler's point,
1:20:30
yes, my report will have will look carefully at um this particular issue,
1:20:35
but if I can just turn to the council and obviously others can come in uh on this issue if they so wish. I mean are
1:20:42
there I mean looking at the kind of the figures that um Dr. Bulock provided in
1:20:48
terms of overall population projections. Trying to look at uh how this all then
1:20:55
translates into household um projections, whether there are other factors at play in terms of even if
1:21:04
population and um and factoring in there could be potential issues with the 2021
1:21:11
census. Does it necessarily follow that even if population is decreasing or is it relatively stable that that then
1:21:17
means fewer households or households getting smaller or other factors that
1:21:24
are potentially informing um the uh the household um
1:21:30
projections and should I have an eye or a mind on it's clearly presented in the
1:21:36
schma miss Cooper referred to it earlier in terms of the formula for the standard method passed under delivery and we want
1:21:43
to look at the schmar uh I think there's a helpful uh figure uh within that
1:21:49
document I think I've got made notes figure 2.4 four I mean house building
1:21:55
seem to kind of peak around about 201617 and then over the following six years
1:22:02
it's been significantly under the then housing target has that potent is that
1:22:08
something I need to kind of bear in mind or have an eye on in terms of whether
1:22:14
household formation is being potentially suppressed uh within South Tinesside
1:22:21
a number of things there. But um yeah, I'll just pick up on the point of um population increase, decrease or
1:22:28
stability not necessarily translating into households directly. Um I think it's table 2.15 of the looks at
1:22:36
household types and changes over the plan period. Um and it identifies an
1:22:41
increase in one person households of over 54%. Um, so I think that just demonstrates,
1:22:47
you know, households are becoming smaller and therefore more of them per
1:22:53
population.
1:23:04
I think it was a general point I was kind of raising whether you know if we look at um population figures on the one
1:23:12
hand that might be sort of pointing uh in terms of a particular trend or you
1:23:18
know I'm invited to kind of say um actually the 148,000 for the 2021 census
1:23:24
is a reasonable figure. um
1:23:31
whether there's some sort of just general caution I should have in mind about
1:23:37
looking to looking at population projections as a way of informing kind of household
1:23:45
um projections and and translating them and whether there are other factors I need to kind of have in my mind when
1:23:51
looking at the schma and other evidence that points to population might be doing
1:23:58
this uh even if I were to accept the the the
1:24:03
most recent census figure but I need to have an eye on or mind to actually in
1:24:09
terms of household formation and household projections. there are other factors that are potentially driving
1:24:16
those figures and giving a kind of robustness or reliability
1:24:21
um to um the the the standard method.
1:24:27
Yes, welcome to my world trying to discern all of this material. I think there's a there's a I suppose a couple
1:24:33
points hopefully might that might help you out. I mean first of all we know from the so so basically as people
1:24:42
broadly be aware household projections are produced they're then used to derive so population projections are produced
1:24:48
then they are used to derive household projections and what the office for national statistics does is it looks at
1:24:55
the relationship between households and dwellings works out the proportions of people likely to be household reference
1:25:01
people and on that basis do the projection of the households. Now, we've got data for 2014 and 2018, not for 2022
1:25:09
yet. But what is important to note is that under both the 14 and the 18
1:25:16
projections, the actual household growth, when we've looked at the period 2023 to 33 in the Schmar, the actual
1:25:25
household growth is virtually identical. um annual change is 292
1:25:32
under the 2014 base projections and 200 and 294
1:25:37
under the 2018 base projections. So there's very little difference there. I think what I do when I was when I was
1:25:44
working this data out, one thing I did want to note was that the actual base
1:25:49
populations are different in the different projections. Um so the actual
1:25:54
growth associated with those populations are different. Now on that basis what is
1:26:00
interesting is that the 2014based projections
1:26:06
were showing a population increase around 2,600 over that period 23 to 33.
1:26:14
The subsequent projections are talking of higher figures. The 2018 was talking
1:26:19
about 3,800. the 2022 base talking about 3,500 more
1:26:25
people over that period. But the proviso there is that the base populations are
1:26:31
slightly different. So what we're saying is that the latest projections are showing an acceleration in population
1:26:40
growth. The only issue that I would acknowledge
1:26:45
is that they are predicated on um slightly different base figures than the
1:26:51
2021 census. Although what I would say is the 2022 base projections are using
1:26:58
the census as a key component of that analysis. So basically in conclusion what we're saying is that we are
1:27:04
expecting the population to be going up across that time site over that period
1:27:09
and the resulting need when that and then that will get translated to the
1:27:15
household change. So we're expecting that to be yeah pretty much consistent
1:27:21
with what we what we've seen.
1:27:27
Thank you. And some people in the room might be sort of curious as to why we go so far back to the 2014 projections.
1:27:34
We've got the 2018 projections. Why should we not use those? Um not with any
1:27:40
project we might be on the cusp of kind of 2022 projections, but nonetheless just that four-year period. Um why why
1:27:48
do you think the standard standard method is pretty clear to use the 2014
1:27:54
um projections um for the benefit of those who might think well why can't we use slightly more upto-date projections
1:28:00
for 2018 what what were the issues around the 2018 household projections okay I mean it's quite simply there's a
1:28:08
policy position that we are you know there is under the standard method there's a requirement to look to use the
1:28:14
2014 14 based projections and I think what I would do is go back to my original point that when we're looking
1:28:22
at household and population projections it's the same kind it's similar kinds of trends that we are seeing overall the
1:28:27
numbers may different a may differ a little bit but they do vary a bit I think the other general point is
1:28:34
government are very keen on accelerating house building in England and that is
1:28:41
consistent with the use the 2014based projections when we compare those with later ones, they tended to be more
1:28:47
bullish in terms of baseline populations and growth and that is consistent with government the government's ambition to
1:28:54
be significantly increasing house building across England specifically. So there is a point there. I think the
1:29:00
other point I would make and it we it does come onto some of the wider discussion that with we're talking about
1:29:05
using the standard method um to establish baseline position within all of that there is that acknowledgement
1:29:12
that it's not just around the household change it's also about economic change it's about providing housing for
1:29:18
economically active for different groups of the population so the point I'm making is that even if the 2014
1:29:25
projection more bullish it's helpful because what it does It sets a broader
1:29:30
canvas if you like from which the various needs that that we need to be providing for can be increasingly be
1:29:37
met.
1:29:51
Thank you for that. So if we can bring in others I think just on the sort of general point of the kind of the the
1:29:58
starting point uh for looking at housing need and the application of the standard method and whether there are kind of
1:30:04
exceptional circumstances to kind of take a different kind of starting point. Appreciate we're going to come on to
1:30:10
probably after the midm morning adjournment whether uh other adjustments that um should be considered but Mr.
1:30:17
Martin, is there anything further you wish to add on what I've been hearing this morning?
1:30:23
Thank you, sir. Um, it's really to, uh, build upon Dr. Bulock's point and more
1:30:29
generally um the pitfall I guess of using and
1:30:34
relying on demographics solely is if you have an area that has a declining
1:30:40
population all you end up doing is reinforcing that decline because you're using trends that have a down the
1:30:47
downward trend basically that's why the government specifically say it's a starting point because then you need do
1:30:53
need to sense check it and I would bring it back to the fact that paragraph Paragraph 16 of the MPPF is very clear
1:31:00
that local planning authorities need to prepare positively for growth in their area. Paragraph 60 talks about the
1:31:09
government needing well sorry authorities need to significantly boost the supply of new homes. And then of
1:31:14
course you'll be aware there's a soundless test of a plan being needing to be positively prepared. I would think
1:31:21
if you're just purely going off demographics and you're purely going off demographics that are showing any sort
1:31:27
of decline, you are just planning for decline and it completely goes against and it's completely at odds with what
1:31:33
the government's telling us we need to be doing. So I mean our our representation is very clear uh and I
1:31:40
know we'll be going on to it another point but as a minimum it's the standard method that is the starting point and
1:31:46
you build from there. I don't think there's any exceptional circumstances to say you look at the standard method and
1:31:52
you go backwards. I mean the PP the PPG is very clear about that. It has to be exceptional local circumstances and in
1:31:58
this case I don't think there are any. Thank you.
1:32:03
Thank you. before I bring in others. I mean obviously the the other part of uh MPPPF paragraph 61 is I mean the
1:32:10
exceptional circumstances uh in terms of using an alternative approach have still got to reflect
1:32:17
current and future demographic trends and market signals. So um that's
1:32:22
obviously something else to kind of uh bear in mind if they're looking at an alternative
1:32:27
uh approach. Um councelor Herbert next please.
1:32:33
uh looking at sort of population trends and the housing market reflecting that
1:32:41
uh the uh number of vacant properties in South T side from the regulation 18
1:32:47
regulation 19 uh plans uh increased from 1.6% to 3% according to the figures. So
1:32:55
that would say a slackening in the market lowering in demand and half of
1:33:00
those properties are long-term vacant over six months which is nearly a thousand properties. So I think that
1:33:06
that sort of gives you some indication what's going on with the housing market there. Talk about the national housing drive.
1:33:13
Well regionally there's massive differences in demand and obviously
1:33:18
south and south London southeast massive demand there. In the northeast, the
1:33:24
population trends and the demand are totally different. And I think that housing markets should be addressing
1:33:30
regional needs, not just national needs.
1:33:55
Thank you. Um, is it Mr. Morton next, please?
1:34:02
Thank you. So, it's just a just a general point really. I know we're dealing with detailed demographic
1:34:07
issues, but as a a general planning point on population, surely part of the problem in South
1:34:14
Tinside is there hasn't been a local plan in place for well core strategy 2007 allocations DPD 2012. The supply of
1:34:24
housing has pretty much run dry. Um, I'm sure we'll come on to housing delivery
1:34:29
test and fiveyear supply position, but the housing hasn't been built in this
1:34:34
location and that's going to have a knock-on effect on on population.
1:34:41
Thank you. Um, bringing I've forgotten the name for the gentleman from Mr. Banks, sorry, from Banks Properties.
1:34:47
It's Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Um yeah, just reiterating there um what's just been
1:34:53
said, but also to provide an alternative view that you know if if population is
1:34:59
decreasing or only rising slowly, that should be a a worrying trend not just
1:35:04
for Southside but the wider northeast and to improve economic growth. you
1:35:11
know, we need to actually build more houses um to encourage people that are already living here to stay here and
1:35:18
also to attract wider people moving from elsewhere into the northeast and more
1:35:24
specifically southside. So, it's just yeah, just to make that point as well that you know and also as said the
1:35:32
housing delivery has been poor in recent years. So, that's obviously only going to contribute further to that problem.
1:35:42
Thank you. Uh Mr. Butler, please. Thank you, sir. Um in terms of uh the
1:35:49
comments that we'd be planning for decline if we use um purely uh demographic information, I don't think
1:35:56
that's uh the position this this plan would take us in. If we're looking at uh
1:36:02
trying to provide uh suitable housing and the right housing in the right places uh for this plan uh we do need to
1:36:10
take into account societal trends such as the increase in single person households and this will have an impact
1:36:16
on housing mix in particular as we move forward to consider other elements of the plan the representations we made
1:36:23
made about the need for greater housing for older people for instance. So I'd
1:36:28
hope you bear that in mind that we can look at the population trends and use
1:36:33
those positively to plan in the proper places.
1:36:39
Before I take excuse me um midm morning um adjournment I identified a point
1:36:47
seven of my uh agenda to kind of just bring some of this together whether
1:36:52
exceptional circumstances um do exist uh in South Tinside. I focused in on the
1:36:59
2018 household projections uh as a kind of uh uh whether they would provide that
1:37:06
um that basis and what that figure would look like. Uh I just want to to check
1:37:12
with the council that again I'll be looking at the schmar and would you point me to the kind of the principal
1:37:19
run of all the kind of the variance of the 200 if I'm looking at the excuse me
1:37:25
the 2018 household projections it would be the the sort of the I
1:37:31
appreciate there are there various kind of uh runs on those those projections
1:37:37
but I think from what I've been hearing this morning. From what I've been reading, if I look at the principal run,
1:37:42
the output is not that different to using the 2014 um projections.
1:37:49
That's correct. Yeah. And within the schma, you want to be looking at table 215, which is the principal projection
1:37:56
um looking at um change over time, which picks up what's been discussed around household type and age. And then also
1:38:03
table 216 which is which is looking at that change in households under the different scenarios published as part of
1:38:10
the um 2018 projections then also comparing those with the principal
1:38:16
projections from 2014 and 16 which were there at the time and 18.
1:38:23
And at this moment in time just so I'm absolutely clear on this point Dr. Look, we have the 2021 Sm um but we do not yet
1:38:30
have 2022 based projections. We have the 22based population but we
1:38:37
don't have the household yet. Okay.
1:38:59
And just finally sort of picking up the point from councelor Herbert and thinking around Herbert and thinking around if there is an alternative what
1:39:06
does that potentially look like. I think the only sort of figures I'm really being presented with are really from the
1:39:12
East Balden neighborhood forum who've kind of suggested that if you use their methodology or approach it' be around
1:39:19
about 2,850 homes less. I think it's the output. I think that's probably the modification you're suggesting I would
1:39:26
need to bear in mind for the for the plan. Um there was a reference to kind
1:39:32
of vacant homes or uh yes vacant homes, empty homes within um the burough, how
1:39:38
that potentially feeds through into kind of household um projections. I appreciate this will always be a degree
1:39:44
of churn within the housing market. Not all properties are occupied at at any one time. Um but are are there
1:39:51
particular can you recall from the from our evidence Dr. Bullet where there are particular factors around vacancies or
1:39:58
because obviously you're coming up with a net uh kind of figure. Um
1:40:04
what you also have to bear in mind is there's a relationship between households and dwellings. There's usually more dwellings than households.
1:40:11
Um, when it comes to vacancy, if you're looking at more than 3% in a in an area,
1:40:19
then it's probably worth looking a little bit more as to why the what are the underlying drivers for that. Um,
1:40:26
when I started research in the '9s, there was some broad broad benchmark of
1:40:32
2% of um, social and 4% of private were general benchmarks for what we call
1:40:38
transactional vacance, i.e. allowing people to to move around. I've kind of
1:40:44
settled on a figure of around 3% as long as it's within that kind of 3% or below,
1:40:49
then I'm generally satisfied that that that is part of the general market
1:40:54
requirement to allow people to move around. That being said, there may be particular issues in very particular
1:41:01
neighborhoods around stock condition, stock quality, etc., which may be exacerbating vacancy, but that was not
1:41:08
specifically covered in evidence base because I was satisfied that overall the vacancy rates were talking about were
1:41:14
reasonable and proportionate.
1:41:21
Thank you. We're just coming up to 11:00, so I'm going to take a midm morning uh adjournment now. Um when we
1:41:28
resume, we'll be back on point eight of my agenda for this morning. um
1:41:34
generally take around about 15 minutes for midm morning adjournment. So we're just before 11:00. So people can be back
1:41:40
in this room please for quarter 11 and then we'll resume uh the discussion. Thank you.
1:59:14
Okay, it's just gone quarter 11 or just come up to quarter past 11. So, I'm going to resume these examination um
1:59:20
hearings, please. Can I just check with people? Is the temperature of the room okay? People comfortable? Not too hot,
1:59:27
not too cold. Good. Okay. Okay, we're resuming discussion around uh housing need. Uh and I'm on
1:59:35
point eight of my agenda. I think so I'm sort of looking at the other side of the coin now in terms of those uh
1:59:41
submissions or representations on the plan which suggests that the housing uh
1:59:47
need and the housing requirement figure that the plan should be uh seeking to accommodate should be uh higher than the
1:59:54
standard method output uh of 309 um dwellings uh peranom. Uh
2:00:01
we're first going to look at kind of whether there are economic factors that would justify that and uh instigate a
2:00:08
necessary change to the plan and then secondly whether there are social factors in terms of looking at the
2:00:13
amount of affordable um housing um to be planned for. In terms of the economic
2:00:19
factors, I think I'm drawn to I think it's it was then part of the PPG
2:00:25
planning practice guidance paragraph 2 A10 in terms of what might when might it
2:00:31
be appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure than the standard method indicates.
2:00:37
Uh and there was reference to um uh various factors um including growth
2:00:45
strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable uh and things like strategic
2:00:51
improvements. They're likely to drive an increase in the need uh for homes locally.
2:00:57
Uh in terms of planning for a higher uh housing figure to support, we'll start
2:01:04
with local and regional economic growth. various representations point me to uh
2:01:09
the strate the council's own sort of local uh economic growth strategies and
2:01:16
the strategies of the the then northeast uh local enterprise partnership in terms
2:01:22
of the number of jobs um to be planned for or whether from the council's perspective and whether how this was
2:01:29
looked at including as part of the schmar whether the council has looked at this but ultimately concluded did that
2:01:37
there are not the kind of the factors here that would warrant or justify a higher housing need figure than the
2:01:44
standard method uh indicates. Is it Miss Cooper first? Uh yeah. So I think we set most of that
2:01:50
out in our year and statement. Um I think we sort of set out each of the the
2:01:56
parts of the the PPG. Um, and the Schmar does look at a range of alternative
2:02:02
demographic scenarios, but ultimately concludes that there are no exceptional circumstances for an uplift
2:02:12
to the house of number.
2:02:19
Thank you. And in terms of the I think some of the representations that are before me sort of question whether the
2:02:25
the schmar so housing market assessment did look at this in kind of sufficient detail given there are very clear
2:02:33
kind of economic ambitions um to deliver additional jobs uh within South Tinside
2:02:40
uh and this part of the world whether there's going to be sufficient housing to kind of meet those kind of economic
2:02:48
uh expectations. conditions that are still going to result hopefully in kind of sustainable patterns um of growth.
2:02:57
I don't know again if the council wishes to kind of respond um to those I think you do pick it up as part of your reply
2:03:04
to or statement as part of my MIQ um 2.6 just in kind of general terms.
2:03:15
Um yes, so obviously the the plan does sort of seek to to meet the economic
2:03:20
ambitions of the council and the wider regional area. Um we do that through
2:03:26
allocating enough economic land to meet that need. Um but as as we sort of set
2:03:31
out in our hearing statement that land is for the most part within existing
2:03:37
economic areas with the exception of Wly Collery which is
2:03:42
a modest allocation. is unlikely to have a discernable impact on the local
2:03:48
housing need. Um and then I think we touched yesterday on the IMP. Um the IMP
2:03:55
topic paper looks at the impact of well potential impact of amp on housing and
2:04:01
again it it kind of comes to the conclusion that there won't be a particularly notable impact on h housing
2:04:09
need in South Tide.
2:04:15
Thank thank you. I mean, probably for the benefit of people in the room, I've kind of done things slightly back back to front in that I picked up the
2:04:22
employment kind of side of SP3 yesterday and we looked at the kind of the
2:04:27
council's um approach in terms of its policy on labor um demand um scenario uh
2:04:36
in terms of responding to as Miss Cooper's referred to things like the the
2:04:42
AMP uh that drives the highest or informs was the highest employment um
2:04:47
land figures compared to the alternative scenario which is the labor supply. What
2:04:53
would be the number of jobs employment land you'd need um to uh
2:04:58
uh provide employment for the the anticipated kind of household um growth? But I just wonder if I can at this point
2:05:04
invite in or bring in those who make sort of the general submissions um that
2:05:10
basically the plan is not going to provide enough homes to meet kind of economic um ambitions. We're not going
2:05:18
to pick on anybody in specific but I see Miss Miss Harding for the home builders federation has made reps on this point.
2:05:24
I know uh um Lichfields on behalf of Avent Homes uh
2:05:30
again um I think Mr. Martin on behalf of uh various clients have also made similar submissions but I'll I'll bring
2:05:37
in Miss Harding first for the homebuilders federation and then we'll hear from others.
2:05:43
[Music] Thank you very much. Um, I just want to highlight as well as well as the the
2:05:49
PPG, the MPPF also sets out that plan policies should seek to address potential barriers to investment. Um,
2:05:55
and included in those barriers are housing. Um, so we just wanted to make sure that housing is not a barrier. Um,
2:06:01
we were one of the people who suggested that perhaps the schmar had taken rather a light touch in terms of its assessment
2:06:08
um, in relation to what is required in the PPG in terms of looking at growth strategies and strategic infrastructure
2:06:14
improvements. um they have highly highlighted the main documents. So they have highlighted
2:06:19
where the evidence is in terms of the potential um employment growth, the number of jobs that the council are
2:06:25
looking um looking to have, their aspirations um for 25,000 new jobs um for South Tide
2:06:32
by 2031. Um we obviously also have the IAMP that's currently um at reg 19 in
2:06:39
terms of where it's happening with its own area action plan um the second area action plan and how that's going to
2:06:44
develop and whilst um I note that the council have suggested that 90% of the potential workers are in the northeast
2:06:51
that does still leave another 10% and also um that the northeast is quite a
2:06:56
very large area very general impact in terms of where people would be coming from um obviously in terms of
2:07:03
sustainability um and the location of the AMP, it would make sense for those people to be within
2:07:09
um the area of the the AMP in terms of being in South Tide or within Sunderland. Um so it would make sense
2:07:16
that there is going to be the potential for um people commuting if they are traveling from further a field. Um I
2:07:24
would be suggesting that the council should be looking to ensure that they do have the the housing that comes alongside that um strategic employment
2:07:31
site to make sure that there is um not unsustainable commuting patterns to make sure that those people are are local to
2:07:38
the area um and can work there. So I would be suggesting that at the moment
2:07:43
there is a lot of evidence to suggest that there are growth strategies in place. um there is the potential for
2:07:48
housing to be a barrier to investment and employment in the area um and that I
2:07:54
don't have the evidence in front of me to suggest that the council's um current housing figure is sufficient to meet
2:08:00
those um additional needs that are there from the employment base.
2:08:09
Thank you. Uh does anybody else wish to kind of come in on this this first point around economic
2:08:16
development or supporting economic development? Mr. West, just a incredibly brief point. Um HBF
2:08:22
have covered everything uh very well. It was just that the housing figure is the bare minimum minimum. I am is a once in
2:08:28
a generational um employment growth employment zone and essentially that development should be taken to account
2:08:35
in the housing figures. Just to reiterate that that 309 figure is the bare minimum. doesn't I can't say any evidence it's taken into account any
2:08:41
growth of the IM skill.
2:08:54
Thank you. And then Mr. Martin next please. Thank you sir. Um
2:09:00
it's really to build on what Mr. Westwick just said there the 309 figure
2:09:06
is a demographically derived figure. it does make no real adjustment for any
2:09:11
sort of uplifting growth strategy over and above a baseline. Um it's clear from
2:09:17
looking at the local plan itself that they are aiming as they should be for
2:09:23
economic growth above a baseline. Um and I don't think the schmar particularly
2:09:28
deals with it in a very convincing way. Um I'd point you to paragraph 4.26 26 of
2:09:33
the schmar which I think says something that it considers that a minimum local housing target of 309 homes per year
2:09:40
reflects an aspiration for achieving economic growth but then it goes on and says southside is part of a wider
2:09:46
functional area extending across time and we as evidenced in commuting and travel to work patterns it's therefore
2:09:51
reasonable to assume that new jobs created in south timeside could be done by people within a wider functional
2:09:57
economic area to me that is again completely contrary to what the MPF says
2:10:03
which is trying to create sustainable patterns of development uh and trying to get have people live where the jobs are
2:10:10
rather than encouraging more in commuting to the area. I'd also probably
2:10:15
want to draw your attention to the fact that um the the employment land figure
2:10:21
is is um derived from a policy on response and a 309 dwellings panum is
2:10:28
not a policy on figure. Therefore, there is a fundamental mismatch between economic growth aspirations and
2:10:34
aspirations for housing growth. Um,
2:10:40
it's um so to to my mind it's more than just the AMP. It's the wider economic
2:10:45
growth strategy. You you can't really in some respects have your cake and eat it.
2:10:51
If you have your economic growth for sustainable development, you need a housing growth to go with it. And at the
2:10:56
moment from the evidence I'm not convinced that's the case.
2:11:11
Thank you for that. Um is it Mr. is it Fure? Thank you sir. Yeah I would just concur
2:11:18
with everything that's being said. It's it's wholly unsustainable to rely on incommuting from other areas and I just
2:11:26
wanted to flag the point that in relation I am for it to be as successful as we need it to be for the region
2:11:33
people will want to live in Sunland and Southside and Southside have clearly
2:11:38
recognized this previously by reaching out to Sunland to discuss shade
2:11:44
expansion and be being able to facilitate land for that um in which Sunland weren't able ble to to provide.
2:11:50
So, it's been considered previously but hasn't really been reflected within a
2:11:56
new local plan. Thank you. Um, before I bring in others
2:12:02
who may have a different view on things, I mean, for for my recollection of representations, and I'm probably not
2:12:08
not surprised with this, I don't think anybody's kind of putting forward to me an alternative or a higher specific
2:12:15
figure. I think you're sewing sewing the seed that you know this is something that needs to be looked at further and
2:12:20
it would be for the council to where I to kind of come to that conclusion to to look at I don't think anybody's
2:12:26
articulating well the housing need figure needs to be X or or Y just on the point of kind of
2:12:36
having in mind kind of sustainable patterns where people are living where people are working obviously the
2:12:42
council's pointed me to uh the um I think it's document how 14 I
2:12:49
think it's the Arab paper it's 2016 so I'm mindful it's of some vintage
2:12:56
um obviously the AMP is cross boundary with
2:13:01
Sunsland is there any kind of I think from my
2:13:07
mind and thought sort thought processes drawing conclusions around reasonably kind of tight geographies here South
2:13:14
Tid's a relatively small burough. Sunderland's relatively close. Gates Head's relatively close.
2:13:21
Should I be overly concerned about what might be happening in terms of sustainable um development of
2:13:27
sustainable kind of commuting travel patterns? Is a reasonable degree of fluidity across what is ultimately a
2:13:34
kind of a relatively small kind of geography? Mr. Martin,
2:13:40
thank you sir. Um yes I think you should be because uh being a planner who not
2:13:46
only looks at local plans but was also at the coal phase with development management what comes up time and time
2:13:52
again now is active travel and being able to have people within employment and services within cycling and walking
2:14:00
distances particularly and um when planning applications go in that that
2:14:06
councils often want us to look at that in the first instance. Um having
2:14:11
incomuting from adjacent areas is not really compatible with that.
2:14:30
Thank you. If I can bring in others on this this issue about whether there should be further housing to support
2:14:36
economic growth in particular. Mr. Hutchinson for the forum.
2:14:41
Thank you, sir. Um, just a comment on what's been previously said. Although
2:14:47
the council, excuse me, may have a an active travel policy, I think it's a well-known fact that people still do
2:14:54
commute. Um, sometimes significant distances for employment. So, that might
2:15:00
be a point, but I don't think it's a significant point. Um, just a couple of other points. Um the AMP has already
2:15:07
taken up large areas of arable and green belt land. Uh not necessarily all within
2:15:13
the burough of South T side but within the green belt which in the northeast generally is being significantly
2:15:20
reduced. Um the other point I would like to make is that uh the unemployment
2:15:26
situation in South Tide um in December 2024 was 5.7%
2:15:35
against a national average of 3.8%. So there's a significant more number of
2:15:41
people that are unemployed who potentially could have jobs within the
2:15:47
IM. So, so, so again, I think that uh
2:15:52
that sort of counters the argument for further homes to be bought because they already live within the burough. We
2:15:59
would also agree with the council's assertion that um 90% of current IMP
2:16:05
workers uh are anticipated to live within the northeast and within
2:16:10
commuting distance. Thank you.
2:16:15
Thank you for that, Councelor Herbert. Next please. I've already heard from Miss Cooper that uh
2:16:23
the IM won't have a significant effect on housing in South Tai. It's location which will be on the
2:16:29
followers be extensions of metro will open up that employment opportunity
2:16:35
to the wider area to ride wider region. So the workers will be drawn from a
2:16:40
wider area not just from South Tide. South Tinside there's about 50% of the
2:16:47
working population move out of Southside on a daily basis to work. If you provide
2:16:54
employment opportunities in Southside, you will prevent that need to commute
2:16:59
and you will then be able to promote the act of travel and use of public transport which would be a a more
2:17:07
sustainable way to to do things.
2:17:15
Thank you. If I can come come back to the council please. And I think that the
2:17:20
um points that were put to me both in representations and what I've I've just heard. I think the description that the
2:17:27
the strategic housing market assessment has kind of given this I think quote a light touch that has not looked
2:17:34
sufficiently at whether there should be an uplift uh for economic
2:17:39
um purposes. Um I don't know if the council or Mr. Bulock want to respond
2:17:46
um to the charge presented happily and I think the the schmar does
2:17:52
give a narrative around acknowledging that the the9 is a is a reasonable
2:17:58
representation. I think one of the really important points around this debate is very often we'll look at we'll
2:18:06
look at um as as way you're familiar with looking at different rates of economic activity migration etc.
2:18:13
One of the key points that through the work we've done on amp as well as in Southside is the whole sense of
2:18:19
upskilling the existing population to fill the jobs up that are being created.
2:18:26
So in my mind there is a pool of talent within Southside already which can be
2:18:32
used to try and support the jobs and the economic growth ambitions of the local authority. I think that's a really
2:18:39
important point. Does that speak to um the point that's
2:18:47
made to me? I think it was also raised yesterday at the employment session around the level of unemployment
2:18:53
within South Tinside and ask um Dr. Bulock first. Yeah,
2:19:01
certainly I mean economic activity rates, unemployment rates etc. are pointing to I mean I don't have the data
2:19:08
immediate to hand but you know living within the locality I'm fully aware of some of the economic challenges of um of
2:19:16
populations
2:19:24
thank you bring in Miss Harding again for the HBF on on this point
2:19:34
yeah Um I just want to say while I I don't agree with don't disagree with the aspiration for upskilling the population
2:19:40
is that's a very worthy cause um I would be quering what the council are doing to upskill that workforce to ensure that
2:19:46
they are actually going to be um able to take employment in the IMP or or other
2:19:51
employment that is available um as they go for growth um without evidence I say in the Schmar that that there is some
2:19:57
form of funding or courses or um support from the council to make that happen Um,
2:20:04
I would be very begrudging to take that as a potential way to meet those employment needs.
2:20:16
Thank you. I mean, the council obviously has pointed me, as I mentioned, to the Arab paper. I mean, I appreciate, as I
2:20:22
said, that's now some some time ago, but just picking up the point from the homebuilders federation. I don't know if
2:20:29
it's something the council can go away and come back to me on in terms of what there is in terms of strategies or
2:20:37
programs at the moment that's kind of going to kind of assist local people to fulfill
2:20:44
um the employment being created at the IMP
2:20:55
if I could just reiterate what's already been put in our answer to MIQ's on this
2:21:01
that study did indicate um that the vast majority of those who will be employed in IAP prospectively
2:21:09
about 90% do come from the northeast. Uh also take into account the fact that
2:21:16
there is significant out community from South Tide as well.
2:21:22
So there are a number of dynamics to take into account and underlying all of that in terms of
2:21:28
looking at the soundness of this plan in terms of housing provision um and and meeting um housing needs
2:21:36
generated by employment opportunities as they arise. It's important to bear in mind that this
2:21:44
council is of the view formed the view on the evidence um that the requirements caused by I am pretty modest overall in
2:21:52
terms of its impact on the housing market and and housing numbers. Um so um
2:21:58
it would be in a way putting a finger in the air to say well if we are to um
2:22:05
advance a figure which is higher um than the standard method what should
2:22:11
that figure be because we'll be looking at having to justify that probably in
2:22:16
green belt terms as well in exceptional circumstances and at the moment we are as an authority
2:22:24
uh not able to identify a figure that needs to be higher
2:22:30
than a standard method in order to make the plan sound. We consider the plan is sound as it's currently based.
2:22:47
I think it's part of the point Mr. Shadow Ravian that people might say around the table the council doesn't
2:22:52
have that figure because it hasn't kind of investigated or considered that or
2:22:58
kind of dug dug a bit deeper to to kind of see what that could potentially mean.
2:23:03
The evidence base the evidence base is what it is. Uh and we can address that
2:23:09
point specifically if there's a need to in due course.
2:23:16
Thank you Mr. Martin and then Mr. Westwick please. Thank you sir. Um again I'll just
2:23:23
reemphasize as well it's not just about the IMP it's the wider growth initiative
2:23:29
and it's this it's the uh indirect and induced economic effects of the AMP on
2:23:34
the wider area as well that needs to be taken into account. Um
2:23:40
I I think we're doing ourselves a little bit of a disservice if we over focus on the IMP and ignore the wider economic
2:23:47
goals and to go on to the point about uh you having any sort of uplift on on the
2:23:53
on the 309 figure there are numerous plans where that's been done. There's
2:23:59
numerous methodologies that you can look at that would make let you arrive at a sensible figure. Thank you.
2:24:08
Thank you. I'm always mindful I'm I'm examining the plan in front of me and you could be drawn to other comparisons,
2:24:15
but I've got to look at the evidence before me. I will go back to look at what's been derived from the scenario
2:24:22
which is the labor um supply in terms of the amount of employment jobs needed to
2:24:29
uh support the planned housing growth versus as you say Mr. in the kind of policy on um scenario that the plan um
2:24:37
adopts and the kind of degree of difference between the two. I'm just thinking I mean I've kind of to
2:24:44
some I'm I'm just looking at this plan obviously but just casting my mind to
2:24:49
what's happened if any local plans more recently have been adopted or found
2:24:54
sound within uh this part of the world
2:24:59
where I don't know you say many plans have an uplift applied to them um
2:25:10
yeah quite a few up here I Darlington's one that springs to mind immediately.
2:25:37
Okay. Uh Mr. West, please. So again it's a brief point it's just I'm slightly
2:25:43
struggle on the evidence base. My reading of the AROT report was actually that then page 12 requests the council
2:25:49
Sunland South D look at um objectively assess needs in a bit more detail as in dig deeper as you said sir um and then
2:25:56
the schmar essentially then reverts back the report so it all feels a bit circular and the evidence doesn't seem to be there to assess the impact of IM
2:26:04
in any great depth. It might be something the council can pick up in their in their note.
2:26:33
Thank you. Um I think on the IMP is currently being made or
2:26:39
anticipated to be made in terms of um securing employment for local people
2:26:46
potentially what that um could mean. As I've indicated obviously
2:26:51
the Arab report paper is now you know nearly nine years old.
2:26:57
um whether again that's something the council
2:27:02
um not necessarily update um
2:27:11
I'm just thinking it's probably something I probably will need to think about a bit more one of the things I am
2:27:17
curious about I mean I was I'm going to draw my own conclusions but just think about plan making more recently from my
2:27:24
recollection Sunderland is the most recent update mo most recent adopted
2:27:30
local plan in this part of the world.
2:27:35
No, probably probably Darlington, sir. Okay. Is Darlington in the same econ
2:27:41
functional economic market area or can be can be are there specific are the
2:27:48
specific factors in Darlington that I may need to have bear in mind I don't know treasury related or anything else
2:27:55
that Yes sir. They they uh they factored in Treasury and also the effects of tease
2:28:00
works on their numbers essentially exactly the same concept as I am. As I say I want to draw my own
2:28:06
conclusions but I mean Sunderland struck me as the more
2:28:12
recent or most local recent kind of plan examination. um whether there the inspector there was
2:28:18
presented with the same issues around the AMP and uplift housing need but I
2:28:26
will reflect Mr. Westick on what as you say the circularity point of
2:28:33
the Arab paper as say bearing in mind it's its age and how far the schma has
2:28:41
either picked that up or not not picked it up and we're we're sort of um
2:28:48
not necessarily caught in a in a circle, but whether there's a case of kind of reinforcement that's I need to be
2:28:55
concerned about. Let's let's assume you are concerned
2:29:00
about it. Um what should follow after that? U it might mean that you want a an
2:29:06
update to the Arab report or a review to see if there's been any change of circumstances whereby its conclusions
2:29:13
might have altered. and what the implications of that might be
2:29:19
for us. Is that something which we could do?
2:29:27
Well, I'm getting some nods.
2:29:35
So, as I I appreciate that offer, I'm going to reflect on it. I'm not initially I'm not here right now going
2:29:40
to say, "Yeah, I want you to to do that." But I I taking a positive signal
2:29:46
that were I to arrive at that conclusion, that's something that the council could feasibly
2:29:52
do. Um Okay. Yeah, absolutely. But that's only if you
2:29:57
think it's necessary. Um at the moment, we're content to rely upon the evidence as it is. And al
2:30:04
there's also another point to consider which is we we're dealing here with issues of soundness.
2:30:11
And um if you're of the view that the evidence
2:30:16
base is insufficient upon which to base a conclusion that the plan is sound then that's all well and good. If it's a
2:30:23
different question which is an aspirational one which is should we be planning for more housing in order to um
2:30:31
cater for economic growth or encourage greater economic growth and a local land
2:30:36
supply relative to that growth. Um that's aspirational rather than
2:30:43
soundnessbased
2:30:51
because there's no evidence before the examination to suggest that a shortfall
2:30:56
a positive shortfall in housing is going to in some way compromise the economic
2:31:03
objectives of the burough as inconsc.
2:31:09
It comes down to choices and the availability of choices and the amount of growth
2:31:16
those choices predicate um do not necessarily um
2:31:25
u correlate with issues of samples. That's what I'm saying.
2:31:50
Thank you. Okay, I will reflect on um what has been said and uh the potential
2:31:57
for further work uh in relation um to the Arab um paper. I've kind of through
2:32:04
the agenda taken sort of items eight and nine together. I take the point from Mr.
2:32:09
Martin that there's kind of wider economic issues here rather than just to focus solely on the um uh the AMP. But
2:32:18
before I move on to uh affordable housing, uh is there anything anything
2:32:25
further anybody wishes to say in relation to economic an uplift to support economic uh
2:32:33
growth ambitions? Marding
2:32:41
Only if you wanted to know what the Sunderland Inspector's Report says. I could direct you to paragraph 52.
2:32:52
I don't think it's a document that's in front of the examination at this stage.
2:32:57
Um, in which case I'm happy to leave it with you to look in your own time. Okay. I really shouldn't be looking at
2:33:03
things that are not in front of the examination. Um it is a relative I think if memory serves it's a relatively
2:33:09
recent kind of plan examination in this part of the world against
2:33:15
an earlier draft of the MPP. Is it something that I would if I requested to be paid? To be perfectly frank with you, um it's
2:33:22
a public document. It's a public decision and um some might
2:33:28
say it will be rather perverse for you not to consider what the conclusions were bearing in mind the inter
2:33:34
relationship between the two authorities and and the economic markets.
2:33:42
So there's no way we would discourage you from from looking at that. And if you have any questions which arise from
2:33:49
your consideration of that document um then uh in my respectful view uh they
2:33:57
should be communicated to us [Music]
2:34:10
to the to the examination not just to us. Yes indeed.
2:34:15
With that in mind then can uh I appreciate as you say it's Mr. Shut is a public document just to make sure I'm
2:34:22
looking at the right version and anybody else is looking at the right version. Can I request that the council adds it
2:34:27
to the examination library as one of the post? We will do that submission documents. Thank you.
2:35:02
Okay, I'm going to move on then in terms of any other uh potential uh
2:35:07
adjustments. uh and again taking the standard method figure as a starting
2:35:13
point. My question to the examination was whether it'd be necessary for soundness to plan for a higher level of
2:35:19
housing need um to assess uh to help meet affordable housing needs within South Tinesside.
2:35:25
uh I don't think the strategic housing market assessment uh for South Tinside
2:35:30
is different to many others across the country in terms of identifying a higher
2:35:36
need for affordable housing than the overall um housing need figure. I think I quoted the figure there of 361
2:35:42
affordable um dwellings. uh and without inviting the council in the first instance
2:35:49
say whether it's considered through the schmar or other processes to adjust the overall uh housing uh
2:35:57
figure uh to deliver uh more affordable housing within the burough.
2:36:07
Um yeah, again I think we've set out our position in the um hearing statement that the PPG states that total
2:36:15
affordable housing need can be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market
2:36:20
and affordable housing developments. So the local plan sets affordable housing requirements based on a
2:36:27
combination of the identified need and viability. Um so we kind of looked at
2:36:33
that 361 affordable dwellings perom in the context of what would that mean um
2:36:40
if we were to to aim to deliver that um and we would need in to deliver over
2:36:46
1,500 dwellings perom um and I think yeah the council came to the conclusion
2:36:51
that is not a deliverable strategy
2:36:56
that would be based on an average um 20% affordable housing requirement.
2:37:05
[Music]
2:37:12
Okay, thank you. Uh thank you for that. uh for those uh I think there are
2:37:19
various people around the table I think do take the view that the housing um
2:37:24
figure should be uh increased as a a response to the affordable housing um
2:37:30
situation again I don't think anybody's kind of putting forward to the examination a specific figure that
2:37:36
should be or specific adjustment but again the general
2:37:42
principle that um the 309 N
2:37:47
as a starting point should be adjusted upwards um given the particular circumstances in in Southside.
2:37:56
I bring in Mr. Eton first and then Miss Harding.
2:38:01
Yeah, just on that point. So I don't think anybody from the statements have similar submissions are saying that the C deliver
2:38:08
plan period. The comments are more should be done to the more not the entire amount that
2:38:15
period
2:38:38
So in your view, Mr. kind of looking at increments up from 309 and seeing what
2:38:44
that could mean for affordable housing delivery. Yeah, I think it's I think as a starting
2:38:50
point, I think the schmar identifies a considerable need to use the figure 361's been identified which exceeds the
2:38:58
standard method for for for housing requirement. Um pasta ris being really
2:39:04
low in Southside in terms of housing. So there's a chronic need there which is significant. Um the schma, one of the
2:39:12
main justifications of the Schmar for not looking for an uplift in the housing need is that they identify that the
2:39:19
council has taken positive steps towards increasing the affordable housing offer in the Bites delivering affordable homes
2:39:24
through Southside Homes which seems to be the solution but I've not seen much evidence of the strategy for delivering
2:39:30
that how much that going to contribute to that need as well and there's no other method other than the the sites
2:39:36
that been allocated that going to make a a positive contribution to that
2:39:46
we had a look at the sites that have been allocated in the local plan. Um
2:39:54
looked at the ind integrated capacity of those in in the local plan and uh the affordable housing requirement where
2:39:59
it's 10% 25% and 30%. And we worked out and this in the
2:40:05
submitted statement that that would deliver a total of
2:40:12
678 dwellings over the plan period. That's on the assumption that the full
2:40:18
densities are met and the indicative capacities are met.
2:40:23
So that's the equivalent of the affordable housing need that would be generated over a 20-month period will be
2:40:30
met at best for the local plan.
2:40:35
So we feel that supports the position that the affordable housing need
2:40:42
justifies an increase in the housing need of the local plan period.
2:40:49
Presumably
2:40:57
also need to have bear in mind Mr. that obviously local plan allocations are a
2:41:02
proportion of meeting housing requirements obviously an existing pipeline
2:41:08
of consented supply presumably some of that will also be delivering
2:41:13
some affordable housing. There may be other windfall sites that come forward.
2:41:24
Perhaps I'm not certain of the how much that would be.
2:41:32
Okay. Thank you. Uh I think I said I'd next hear from Miss Harding and then I cross over to Mr. Martin, please.
2:41:41
Thank you. Yes. Um I I agree with the points just raised. Um even allowing for
2:41:47
the fact that some of those people in the affordable need will have been accounted in the in the population and
2:41:52
household projections. Um even accounting for the fact that some of the homes might be met through registered
2:41:57
landlords providing um entirely affordable homes. If we know that the
2:42:03
affordable housing need is 361 dwellings peranom and we're only delivering 309,
2:42:10
even with the best will in the world, we're never addressing that affordable housing need. Um, which is just
2:42:17
increasing those people on the waiting list, increasing the numbers of people who need a home. Um, even if we go a
2:42:23
small way towards increasing the housing figure and increasing those people, it is doing something to address it. Um,
2:42:31
not even building enough homes to meet that affordable need is clearly a significant issue. It's a significant
2:42:38
need that isn't being addressed by the council in their current approach. Um, and I can't see a way that they are
2:42:44
going to get around that. They are just allowing this to happen and allowing the issue to get worse. And as we've said,
2:42:50
even even if you assume every allocation meets it, you're looking at 20 months. Even if you allow for the fact that some
2:42:57
windfall sites might meet it or some of the current sites under construction or with extent permission meets it, you may
2:43:02
be looking at what three years at the most. I mean, it's it's getting nowhere
2:43:08
near where the council need to be. Um, and in this case, this isn't just homes.
2:43:14
this is people who need somewhere to live and who need those affordable homes
2:43:19
and are just sat on a waiting list at the moment. Um I really do think the council should be
2:43:25
doing more to address this issue. Thank you. And in terms of doing the
2:43:31
more and we'll look at kind of viability um probably as part of the stage two
2:43:36
kind of hearing sessions in more detail. I mean, looking at some of the figures
2:43:41
um and sort of percentages across parts of the the plan area and Marding, it
2:43:48
seems to me it's going to take significantly more housing to kind of have a
2:43:53
one would argue potentially a material difference to what's in terms of an alternative kind of strategy or
2:44:00
approach. It's going to require potentially a lot more housing.
2:44:07
I I wouldn't disagree with it needing a lot more housing, per se. I just think
2:44:12
doing something realistic to get to to meeting that figure is better than nothing. And at the moment, I think
2:44:18
we're doing less than nothing realistically in terms of 309 in terms of the housing requirement versus 361.
2:44:26
Um, that's not even planning to even get close to the need in the first instance, even if every house was built by a
2:44:32
registered provider. Um so I think you know an increase is an improvement. A
2:44:39
significant increase would be a bigger improvement. Um and obviously as I say
2:44:44
registered providers will provide some of those sites. If there is more sites there's better opportunities for them
2:44:49
same as there is for anybody else building market housing.
2:44:56
Thank you. So just stick with the H uh the homebuilders federation but I'll
2:45:01
invite others in on on the point. I mean part of the the rationale and the methodology around the standard method
2:45:07
is the obviously the affordability ratio to kind of respond to kind of what market signals
2:45:13
uh are telling us. I take it's a wider point um but does that go some way
2:45:21
um to addressing the overall um affordability
2:45:27
picture within the burough? Um oh sorry I I would say not in this case because we are talking we are talking about
2:45:33
people who can't afford a home. So they are automatically people who are looking
2:45:38
at the affordable housing provision. They aren't looking to purchase a market home in terms of that affordability.
2:45:52
Thank you Mr. Martin. Next please. Thank you sir. Um really just to pick up
2:45:57
on on those points, it's it's clear when you look at the evidence the schmar that
2:46:03
there is significant requirement for affordable homes and that's a backlog and a newly arising driven need. If
2:46:11
nothing is done then all that will do is just drive up that backlog even further.
2:46:17
I can't see in in any credible way that
2:46:22
having no adjustment for affordable housing given the extent of affordable homes that are needed can be justified.
2:46:30
Um it's almost sort of burying your head in the sand in terms of those affordable homes and those people who are in
2:46:36
affordable need. Um to me it just it would make sense that
2:46:42
an an uplift could be provided to to assist in that. It's not going to
2:46:48
completely magically sort of cure that issue because as the council have said to do that is probably not feasible. But
2:46:57
to do nothing when the evidence is pointing that there is a you know a
2:47:02
substantial amount of people are in housing need in this area just is not justified in in in my opinion and it's
2:47:10
borne out as well by the delivery of affordable homes in the burough. So I mean if you look at the annual
2:47:16
monitoring report I think that showed last year for 4 48 affordable homes were
2:47:22
completed in the burough and that's a that's a coming back to a trend that
2:47:29
kind of that was postcoid sort of 2019 but it's it's barely touching sides in terms of what's required. What I think
2:47:36
we need to avoid is having a plan that's then adopted that does nothing and actually exacerbates the situation.
2:47:44
Thank you.
2:47:56
Thank you. I'm going to hear next from Mr. Eton and then I will come to Merson and Mr. Butler.
2:48:05
Thank you, SH. Just picking up on a question you raised to Miss Harding earlier about what more can the local plan do. I don't think it's just a case
2:48:11
of allocating more sites. That's one of the things but it's also the type of sites the sites that can deliver more affordable housing. So of those sites
2:48:18
that have been allocated I think 40% that will be delivered on are on just six allocations in the urban and village
2:48:26
growth area they can there's more confidence that they can deliver greater amounts affordable housing. So it's not
2:48:32
just about more sites it's the type of sites that can help meet that need too.
2:48:45
Thank you. Uh Mr. Hutcherson, next please. Thank you, sir. Um we would agree that
2:48:53
there's, you know, certainly a need for more affordable housing across the burough um generally. And an issue that
2:49:01
hasn't been mentioned so far is the fact that um when some new developments are
2:49:07
approved, some developers talk about problems with viability as an argument
2:49:13
against constructing affordable homes. So I think that's worth mentioning. Um
2:49:18
but the main point that we'd like to to raise is that um
2:49:24
in the regulation 19 plan certainly for the sites in East Balden the council
2:49:30
reduced the percentage of affordable housing from 30% to 25%.
2:49:37
Now I don't know off the top of my head what the figures were for other sites within the burough but rather than
2:49:44
increase the overall number of housing required um simply increasing the
2:49:49
percentage back to 30% across all of the development sites within the burough would go somewhere to um addressing that
2:49:57
figure of 361 the government support for affordable
2:50:02
housing. Yeah. And just to add to that, um,
2:50:08
you'll be aware that the government's recently announced additional funding for the provision of affordable housing
2:50:14
which may facilitate the the creation of more affordable housing across the country and in South Tide.
2:50:24
Thank you. Uh, Mr. Butler, please. Thank you, sir. I'm pleased to see the conversion of the home builders to
2:50:31
provision of affordable homes. Certainly our experience uh with the major site
2:50:37
that we have is that um they do everything to avoid the provision of affordable homes within their schemes.
2:50:44
They're able to look at uh issues such as discounting uh the requirements is
2:50:50
then difficult to get section 106 agreements to provide uh the homes
2:50:55
coming forward. Um so our approach is one that within the overall housing
2:51:02
requirement uh and looking at policy 18 which you're going to consider in the second half uh we want to see that
2:51:10
positively applied policy uh to provide affordable homes within the plan on the
2:51:15
appropriate sites um that uh that would need them. Um in terms of uh the council
2:51:23
not doing very much in terms of affordable homes uh Mr. Hutchkins just said we're moving to a period now where
2:51:30
a government is going to give resources to local authorities and to register providers. We will have a different era.
2:51:36
We also have the northeast combined authority and a mayor who has powers to provide finances towards providing
2:51:44
affordable homes uh as well. So we will see uh the ability of public
2:51:50
organizations in partnership with private house builders where necessary
2:51:56
have a greater ability moving forward. And we think that can be done within the context of the current housing
2:52:03
requirement notwithstanding our arguments given to you this morning about whether that uh that figure is
2:52:11
still too high. So that would be the approach we'd like you to look at.
2:52:18
Thank you for that. So I'm clear on the kind of uh respective positions. If I can come back to the council miss
2:52:26
Oh, Mr. Hudson, is that a legacy? Yeah. Okay. Miss Cooper, please.
2:52:32
Uh yeah, just to come back to the sort of current um affordable housing delivery. Um obviously we're looking at
2:52:39
the council delivering affordable housing at the minute in the context of an outofdate plan and the council being
2:52:44
under the presumption um of sustainable development. Obviously the council
2:52:51
confident that we've got robust affordable housing policies in the plan um and if we can bring those forward
2:52:57
then that would obviously increase affordable housing delivery above and beyond what we're delivering currently.
2:53:04
Um and just to go back to the point about um the affordability uplift in the
2:53:09
standard method um and I take Miss Harden's point that obviously the affordable housing need is different
2:53:14
from the affordability of market housing but if we improve affordability
2:53:20
generally that may bring down the the affordable housing need overall.
2:53:28
And just to kind of provide another potential kind of um part of the picture
2:53:36
um it's been put to me that there isn't um uh particularly kind of active kind
2:53:43
of other ways of delivering affordable housing. I don't know if the council has a view on that whether the council
2:53:48
itself I know some authorities are now increasingly looking at delivering
2:53:54
housing themselves or whether uh some of the sites that are coming
2:54:00
forward are being delivered exclusively by registered providers uh within within
2:54:06
the burough. Yeah. Um some of the sites that we've allocated through the plan have been kind of in conjunction with our
2:54:11
strategic housing um team and the we would envisage that they would be mostly
2:54:18
or wholly affordable housing. Um, and yeah, like I say, we've worked closely with the strategic housing team on
2:54:26
developing the policies in the plan and allocating council on sites in the plan.
2:54:41
Is there anywhere I can sort of draw on to what those sites where those sites are, how I could kind
2:54:47
of identify those sites from I appreciate the point you're making, Miss Cooper, that you probably shouldn't assume that they're going to be wholly
2:54:54
affordable, but in terms of the kind of council own sites, are they identifiable? So, I have a feel for
2:55:01
the type and number of sites. I'm not sure they are in the plan, but it is something we can quite easily pull
2:55:07
together. Is that something I can request as an action point for the council to kind of just put that list
2:55:13
together for me of council own sites where
2:55:18
might be more scope for provision?
2:55:30
Thank you for a move on. I think people are sort of leaving very much the ball in my court to kind of think about uh
2:55:36
whether there should be an uplift um uh for affordable housing and um probably
2:55:42
were minded to go that way then it would be something for the council to kind of uh pick up that ball. But before I get
2:55:50
too carried away with those kind of thoughts, Dr. Bulock, you think you want to come in on? Yeah, I think I think just a final point
2:55:57
of course should have been a first point. Um it's important to understand that when we run affordable housing
2:56:03
needs analysis, we assume certain parameters. So for South High, we
2:56:08
assumed that people shouldn't pay more than 25% their income on rent or three and a half times if they were buying. It
2:56:15
also assumes certain levels of um for for newly forming households similar
2:56:21
kind of parameters. If those parameters were shifted, that number would change. you know, if you're going to say a 20%
2:56:27
income, the figures would go up. If it was to say 30%, it would come down. So, I think the point is that what we're
2:56:34
doing in the schmar is establishing what the measure of affordable housing need
2:56:39
is under a range of parameters as specified in planning practice guidance. One of the biggest issues with that
2:56:46
approach is it doesn't sufficiently take into account the role of the private rented sector. And within Southside,
2:56:54
there's about 30% of households that are in the private rented sector that
2:57:00
um are dependent on housing benefit. So in other words, if you are in if you
2:57:05
are in affordable need, there are other options other than just affordable housing. There is there are other
2:57:11
options in the private rented sector. So I just wanted to to try and give that a little bit more context to not be overly
2:57:18
fixed on that particular number 361 but understand a little bit more around the context of it. The bottom line for me
2:57:24
whenever I'm doing this kind of work is to understand what's the magnitude what's the measure of affordable housing
2:57:30
recognizing that only a proportion of that is likely to be delivered um and the actual figure itself can be uh and
2:57:39
you know can be affected by the assumptions made in the model. It just so happened that I used the consistent
2:57:46
model that we did in the previous study which showed a need for 222. The main or 220 sorry the main reason
2:57:52
for need needs changing with the uplift in prices they've been experienced since
2:57:58
then
2:58:17
okay thank you I'm going to move on from uh affordability please and then oh
2:58:23
sorry councel these people must be have demand for
2:58:29
affordable housing must be living somewhere is largely probably probably in the private rented sector so if they
2:58:36
have access to affordable housing they'll move out the private renters sector now demand for private rental
2:58:41
will go down the rent that they can charge will go down these people able to sell the houses so the housing will
2:58:48
stock will available to people. So that may be something to factor in as well, isn't
2:58:53
it? Thank you. Uh I think obviously
2:59:00
I'm going to look at uh to Dr. But look in terms of where affordable housing is
2:59:05
coming from and presumably needs are um arising from people within existing
2:59:12
housing whether that's an independent household or a concealed household are you still living at home or in
2:59:19
circumstances where you don't ideally want to be and you're looking for something alternative. It's not just a case of
2:59:25
kind of potential sort of flux or or churn within within the housing market.
2:59:32
Yeah, that's correct. I mean, in I mean, not to labor it too much, but it is it is a it is a complex. There's a lot of
2:59:38
reasons why people are in need of affordable housing. And I think the point is that people can go into housing
2:59:45
is affordable to them in a number of ways in ter if they can afford the market fine. If they can go into the
2:59:52
private rented sector, then housing benefit and universal credit can help support them in that particular place.
2:59:58
or there is the actual affordable housing option that's provided by um by
3:00:03
a range of providers. But there are complexities with all of those.
3:00:10
Thank you. I'm going to move on please to uh point 11 on my agenda uh
3:00:17
and whether there should be kind of any uh further adjustments for any unmet
3:00:22
housing needs that South Tinside should agree to accommodate. kind of touched upon this through the duty to cooperate
3:00:28
session yesterday. Uh I'm not aware that any authority is yet formally asking
3:00:37
South Tinside to assist in meeting uh their housing needs.
3:00:43
Uh yeah, that's correct. So all of South Tinid's neighboring authorities have got adopted core strategies or local plans
3:00:50
which were found to be sound through their examination processes. Um, I know some of the authorities will now be
3:00:56
looking at updated plans or plan reviews, but at this point in time, none of them have approached us with
3:01:04
a request for assistance. And those raft of kind of various
3:01:10
adopted plans were meeting the then identified housing need in full. So there wasn't that kind of a
3:01:16
Yeah. So yeah, we've never at any point been approached for assistance meeting housing need
3:02:14
Okay. Yes. Sorry, Council. Yeah. Just make a point that all the
3:02:20
neighboring authorities are building way above their ONS projected housing needs.
3:02:25
Uh Sunland by 10,000, K by 6,000, uh North Tide by 2,000. So, it's highly
3:02:33
surprising they don't have to ask South Tide for any accommodation or housing need.
3:02:39
Thank you. I think that goes back to I think one of the points you had earlier um this morning in terms of how uh the
3:02:45
various housing needs have been calculated and I appreciate you know the Green Party and others have a a view on
3:02:52
this is an alternative to um the standard method uh approach. Um I've got
3:02:59
nothing further unless anybody else wish to say anything further on potential unmet needs from neighboring authorities
3:03:07
in which case the final sort of question uh for this this uh this session on housing need is whether the the uh
3:03:16
plan making in South Tide is been sort of soundly based from the starting point that the housing requirement should be
3:03:22
the same as the standard method local housing need figure of 309 homes. rooms
3:03:28
um a year. I appreciate the council's answer this in response to MIQ 2.9. I
3:03:34
don't think there's anything further, Miss Coopy, you wish to add to what's already in the statement. Um no, I don't think there is anything
3:03:40
further to add. Okay. Above and beyond our hearing statement. Okay. I just ask from the council's
3:03:46
perspective and we kind of touched upon this briefly yesterday in relation to housing need from a sustainability
3:03:53
appraisal point of view um and looking at kind of reasonable alternatives
3:03:59
u whether there were kind of alternative um
3:04:04
approaches or figures to that or the the content that's put in policy SP3 in
3:04:10
terms of meeting that minimum uh housing requirement of just over 5,000 and
3:04:15
houses. Um yes, early on in the plan making
3:04:22
process there was an appraisal of a a high, medium or low growth option, but
3:04:27
in more recent years in the later stages of plan making council's position as we've heard has been that the um
3:04:33
standard method is the reasonable option. And so that's what's been reflected in the sustainability
3:04:38
appraisal.
3:04:51
Thank you. Are there any further submissions people wish to make in relation just kind of pulling this all
3:04:56
together uh and setting the housing requirements within the plan at uh
3:05:02
reflective of 309 homes over 17 years? Mr. Hutcherson, please.
3:05:09
Thank you. Um yeah to start with I would just reiterate the point that we made earlier about uh policy SP 2 not being
3:05:17
sound as there's a clear case for uh using a much lower housing requirement
3:05:23
figure based on the 2001 2021 census local circumstances and green belt
3:05:29
constraint. Um we would also argue that policy SP16.2 two is not sound as it
3:05:37
simply uses the number of new homes um that is the indicative figure for site
3:05:43
JA2 which is the land at North Farm in East Balden. The policy doesn't
3:05:49
acknowledge um the additional 202 houses proposed for the site at Cleon Lane. Now
3:05:56
this was included as an allocation in the regulation 18 plan and although it
3:06:02
was rejected by the council's planning committee in March. An appeal has just
3:06:07
been lodged by the developer and if this is successful the forum feels that the contribution of the site should be added
3:06:14
to those 202 houses should be added to the plan's housing numbers.
3:06:27
Thank you. Uh Mr. Westwick, next please. So just to just to clarify and comment
3:06:32
on that point, I act on behalf of Van Holmes in an appeal by Van Holmes. Um it is a brownfield site sustainable
3:06:38
location but was rejected by the council and refused. So we are at appeal at the moment. So there's no certainty over
3:06:44
that site at the moment in time.
3:06:50
Thank you. I think as when we get to kind of stage two of the the hearings process, we're going to look in a bit
3:06:55
more a lot more detail at kind of housing land supply overall and what's
3:07:00
where things are being factored. I wasn't entirely clear from reading some of the evidence whether this site had already kind of been partially accounted
3:07:06
for as kind of within the consentive pipeline whether it would generally be
3:07:12
an additionality but I think we need to come on to this in more detail. Just just for your clarity, sir, there has
3:07:18
been the site was approved by the council once, minded the grant and then the section 106 took some time to um be
3:07:24
determined. It went back to Kimy and then was refused. Um so there is a is a maybe slight anomaly shall we say.
3:07:32
Thank you. I think today I want to be obviously focused on the figure that's in policy um
3:07:38
uh SP two. Thank you. Um and the soundness of
3:07:43
that figure. We will come on to how is the plan going to deliver and meet that requirement and the component um
3:07:50
component uh parts the housing trajectory in more detail as part of stage two. Uh
3:07:59
sorry I've forgotten your name again from banks. Sorry Mr. is it Mr. Thompson? That's right. Yeah Mr. Thompson. Um yeah
3:08:05
just just looking at the question and concluding really um I think if you look at all the points that we've discussed
3:08:11
in isolation there's a there's a strong argument to be made that um increasing
3:08:17
the housing numbers above the standard method would be a sensible approach but obviously when you combine them all
3:08:23
together it really does just u magnify the issue that 309 should should be uh
3:08:30
uplifted in some
3:08:38
Mr. Hutchinson, sorry, Mr. Butler.
3:08:43
Thank you, sir. Just to summarize our position, um we did make the proposed modification to uh policy SP2 uh that uh
3:08:52
the council should not use the standard method based on the 2014 household projections uh and should produce a much
3:08:59
lower housing requirement figure based on the local circumstances evidenced by
3:09:04
the 2021 census and the green belt constraints uh that uh we find ourselves
3:09:11
in in this burough. And in addition, um we've heard a lot about the population
3:09:17
projections and and uh it's not clear to us that that there are uh clear evidence
3:09:24
uh that uh these increases would be generated in in in uh the way that is
3:09:30
being suggested. If you look at the current ONS uh projections, they talk about uh the growth coming from internal
3:09:37
migration rather than uh any other factors. Thank you.
3:09:45
Thank you, councelor Herbert. I just support what Mr. Butler and what
3:09:51
Mr. Hutchinson have just said. It's it's strange that the 2014 ONS projections
3:09:56
are absolutely right and the 2018 ONS projections seem to be totally wrong. So
3:10:02
we should be using the more upto-date figures to surely more more accurate and they would suggest that we need to build
3:10:08
less houses in the 309 certainly more in the region of 150 120 in that region.
3:10:16
The census figures support that. It'll be interest to see what the 2022 housing
3:10:22
household protections come up with.
3:10:32
Thank you. Before I draw the session to a close, I just want just clarify something in my mind with the council
3:10:38
pres. I'm looking at the regulation 19 plan and what's in this plan. There's
3:10:43
obviously references in various representations to a 15% kind of buffer that was looked at as part of previous
3:10:50
kind of plan making. Can I just clarify, was that a buffer on land supply or kind of an uplift to housing requirements?
3:10:58
Um, yes, that was a buffer on land supply. So, we'd factored that in at reggg 18 just to account for a change in
3:11:04
circumstances between reggg 18 and 19. There was some uncertainties at the time with a plane pitch strategy. So, it was
3:11:11
just to kind of build in that buffer so that we kind of were accounting for sightes falling away between reggg 18
3:11:17
and reggg 19. Thank you. That's helpful. I thought I thought thought that was the case. I was just trying to be clear in my mind. It
3:11:22
wasn't a buffer on an uplift on the housing requirement. Thank you. Okay. There's anything further from the
3:11:28
council on this point. There's a couple of action points which I'll wrap up with the program officer to feed through. Um
3:11:35
thank you everybody for your contributions um this morning. I'll now draw the session on the housing need to
3:11:41
uh its conclusion. Uh we'll be back in this room at 2:00 for matter three when
3:11:48
we start looking at the spatial strategy and policy SP3.