Question
In your answer to my question on the 29th of June Executive you stated that we are compelled to use that as the most up to date information we have and a public consultation was not required.
Can you confirm therefore that the G L Hearn report dated February 2016 is legally binding on this Council and the other councils covered by the report?
Minutes:
Question
In your answer to my question on the 29th of June Executive you stated that we are compelled to use that as the most up to date information we have and a public consultation was not required.
Can you confirm therefore that the G L Hearn report dated February 2016 is legally binding on this Council and the other councils covered by the report?
Answer
We are compelled by the National Planning Policy Framework, or the NPPF as it is also known, to ensure that the local plan is based upon up-to-date and relevant evidence. GL Hearn were commissioned by the Berkshire local authorities to assess future housing needs across the county in line with this framework. As you are aware the original figure that was used was from the old South East Plan and it had not been objectively assessed; that was what GL Hearn did. The output of this commission is the Berkshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, published in February 2016. The assessment currently represents the most up-to-date information on housing needs for each of the Berkshire local authorities and is used by each of them to inform their work. GL Hearn are however currently undertaking an update of this assessment; the results of which are due out later this year. This work has been commissioned in response to challenges to the current housing need calculation through appeals, where Planning Inspectors have preferred a higher figure of 894 additional homes per annum. So they have moved us from the original figure of 856 to 894 and one Inspector simply relies on the previous Inspector and they have been building on that.
In the meantime the Government is consulting upon a new methodology for calculating housing need which if adopted would raise our figure from 856, which is the GL Hearn figure, to 876 which is below that being used by appeals Inspectors of 894. The new methodology takes the national household projections and progressively increases this for areas where the ratio of house prices to incomes is more than four times. In our case it is up 11 times the average income. The ratio in Wokingham Borough increases the national projection by around 45%; an increase from 603 additional households (that is the household increase) per annum to 876. Is that helpful?
In other words Gary, as you are aware, we are being crucified by developers, I would describe them as carpetbaggers, who are coming in here and not submitting their sites under the normal ‘call for sites’. We are not being allowed to assess them and Government are allowing Appeals Inspectors to ride roughshod over us despite us doing everything that has ever been asked and you, I am sure, are well aware of how we have handled that in the past.
Supplementary Question
Nothing has really changed has it? The only comment I would make is that both yourself and the Leader were told whether the legal number, and you quote numbers both at Council and in the press, and I am only suggesting that the legal numbers are what the Core Strategy agreed; which is the number that was agreed through a proper consultation and a public inquiry. In fact two public inquiries because of the MDD as well.
Now I do agree with everything else you have said but what I am saying is that the legal number expressed should be 626 and that any changes to this number are because of pressure brought on by Government but to actually quote the Government figures which have not been assessed or evaluated by us or through any consultation process I think is flawed and it gives the wrong message.
Picking up on your last point there the Housing White Paper includes a number of proposed planning reforms to support housing development including the introduction of a housing delivery test; a standard approach to assessing housing requirements and reforms the current system of developer contributions which I think is crucial. At the same time they publish revisions to the NPPF and in a way would it not be better if we hold back as this is going to happen in the next month or two? Hold back and see what these changes are rather than jumping into the fire now on random numbers that have not been proven by any proper consultation process.
Supplementary Answer
I would totally agree with you however the one thing I would say is that the 894 is not something that we unfortunately have the right to reject, as you will know that from these decisions being made by Appeal Inspectors. What I would ask is that every Member of this Council, every member of a parish council, every resident and everybody else writes to the Secretary of State because it is he who is allowing this to happen. Do as Barkham Parish Council has done - they have written. It is no good criticising each other and actually demanding that we do not have any in our wards and in our towns. We are being forced to do this by Appeal Inspectors and if we all work together we may achieve the Government realising the errors of their ways and hopefully the White Paper will bring out some sensible resolution to developers getting a 20% add-on to our housing numbers because they are slow at delivering. They are challenging us on affordability yet a 2-bed terraced house three years ago was £250k; it is now £390k. I do not think this Council has caused that to happen but we and our residents are being crucified by Planning Inspectors so I would urge everybody to do what Barkham Parish Council has done and write to the Honourable Sajid Javid and tell him the error of his ways.
The Leader of Council stated:
Building on that point consultation is open at the moment from Central Government on the housing numbers and I would like Members and the public to write in questioning the methodology and the new housing numbers that have been proposed for this area which are higher than the existing numbers that we have at the moment.