Tandridge District Council Core Strategy Submission Draft Consultation under Regulation 32 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 Representations referring to alternative sites allocations 1
Index to sites Site No. 1 Page 15 2 Page 15 3 Page 28 4 Page 4 5a Page 41 5b Page 26 6 Page 28 7 Page 38 8 Page 30 9 Page 6 10 Page 13 11 Page 3 12 Page 32 Respondent Site Proposed Allocation Village Developments Land adjacent to graveyard & St Mary s Church, Residential Barrow Green Road, Oxted Village Developments Land adjacent to St Mary s School, Chichele Residential Road & Laverock School, Bluehouse Lane, Oxted Mr Keyte Essendene Park, off Whyteleafe Road, Residential Caterham Mr Samarasekara North west end Hillbury Road, Warlingham (267 Residential and land adjacent) Clifford W & R C Shrimplin Redhill Aerodrome, South Nutfield Suggests a new settlement at Redhill Aerodrome would be a preferable strategy. Jim Cobbe Redhill Aerodrome, South Nutfield Location for strategic housing and employment Metropolis Planning and Design Land north of Felbridge Hotel, Felbridge Extra Care Housing Mr D Post Land opposite Doves Barn Nursery and 103-109 Copthorne Road Felbridge Residential Cophall Farm Cophall Farm, Effingham Road, Copthorne Major Developed Site in the Green Belt (commercial use) Asprey Homes Occasionally Yours Nursery, Lingfield Common Residential Road, Lingfield. Stephen Smith The former Bays Nursery, Godstone Road, Suggests a green belt boundary review Lingfield would resolve the situation with regard to the site Mr Raison Land at Willow Cottage, Newchapel Road, Refers to site on edge of Lingfield as Lingfield boundary anomaly Arena Leisure Lingfield Park Racecourse and surrounding land Lingfield should be designated as Broad Location for development, reference to 125 acres of surplus land 2
Site No. 11 - Land at Willow Cottage, Newchapel Road Lingfield Policy CSP 1 077525 - Mr Raison 069 REF: WSP1/Raison1 My client s concern relates to two statements within Policy CSP1 of the Core Strategy which say: there will be no changes to the boundaries of larger rural settlements or Green Belt settlements and there will be no change to the green belt boundaries. It appears that the Council have not undertaken a review of their green belt boundaries during preparation of the Core Strategy and it is considered that this is a weakness in the Council s evidence base. The approach in Policy CSP1 appears to be based on previous trends relating to house building which show that house completions in previous years have exceeded the allocated targets in the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan). The Council contend that much of the housing has come forward on brown field windfall sites within existing urban areas. The Council state that releases of green belt land will be achieved through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). The Inspector is asked to have regard to the comments made by the Inspector in his report into the Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. Paragraphs 2.22 2.24 of the report are particularly relevant in that the Inspector states that because policy reviews take such a long time a proactive approach should be taken to the approach to the identification and delivery of land to provide greater certainty that strategic requirements will be met. He goes on to say that if this doesn t happen sites will come forward in a piecemeal way and at far less sustainable locations than might otherwise be the case, not least because of the need to satisfy PPS3 land supply requirements. The Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy s heavy reliance on previously developed land is a major failing and accordingly it failed to meet the soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). The Inspector also concluded that the Core Strategy failed test 9 (flexibility) because it was not flexible enough. It is contended that the Inspector s approach applied to Tandridge District Council s Core Strategy should be the same as that applied by the Inspector who conducted the examination into the Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. My client owns a property on the edge of Lingfield Village (a larger rural settlement defined by the Council). Part of his site lies within the village boundary and the rear of his property lies within the green belt which my client considers to be an anomaly. It is considered that 3
a review of the green belt boundaries would resolve situations such as my clients and would constitute a practical approach to planning and could be regarded as equitable to members of the community, which is an approach supported in the District Council s Community Strategy. This approach was also supported by the Inspector in Paragraph 11.9 of the report considering Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. The Inspector said when referring to a green belt boundary review : This review can address any obvious anomalies or inconsistencies in the existing Green belt boundaries and provide greater certainty that future development land requirements to 2026 will be met etc In conclusion it is contended the approach taken by the Council in Policy CSP1 not to review the green belt or larger rural settlements renders the Core Strategy unsound, failing to meet Soundness test 7 as the lack of review weakens the evidence base and Soundness test 9 as it is inflexible in approach. Site No. 4 - North West end of Hillbury Road, Warlingham (267 and land adjacent) Policy CSP 1 111175 - Mr Samarasekara 070 REF: WSP2/Samarasekara1 My client s concern relates to two statements within Policy CSP1 of the Core Strategy which say: that there will be no changes to the boundaries of larger rural settlements or Green Belt settlements and there will be no change to the green belt boundaries. It appears that the Council have not undertaken a review of their green belt boundaries during preparation of the Core Strategy and it is considered that this is a weakness in the Council s evidence base. The approach in Policy CSP1 appears to be based on previous trends relating to house building which show that house completions in previous years have exceeded the allocated targets in the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan). The Council contend that much of the housing has come forward on brown field windfall sites within existing urban areas. The Council state that releases of green belt land will be achieved through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). It is considered that the Inspector s report in respect of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy is particularly relevant. Like Tandridge, Windsor and 4
Maidenhead is a green belt authority and their Core Strategy was found unsound on the basis that the Authority had not reviewed its green belt boundaries and had placed too much reliance on windfall sites within urban areas coming forward for housing development in future years. The Inspector considered that this was by no means certain. Paragraphs 2.22 2.24 of the report are particularly relevant. In those paragraphs the Inspector states that because policy reviews take such a long time, a proactive approach should be taken to the identification and delivery of land, to provide greater certainty that strategic requirements will be met. He goes on to say that if this doesn t happen sites will come forward in a piecemeal way and at far less sustainable locations than might otherwise be the case, not least because of the need to satisfy PPS3 land supply requirements. The Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy s heavy reliance on previously developed land is a major failing and accordingly it failed to meet the soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). The Inspector also concluded that the Core Strategy failed test 9 (flexibility) because it was not flexible enough. In my opinion the approach adopted by Tandridge District Council, by virtue of the heavy reliance on windfall sites in the future to provide housing, is very similar. The Inspector s approach, applied to Tandridge District Council s Core Strategy, should be the same as that applied by the Inspector who conducted the examination into the Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. My client s property comprises a detached two storey dwelling with a thatched roof and is located at the north west end of Hillbury Road. The area is residential in character comprising a mixture of dwelling types, including detached dwellings, bungalows and semidetached properties. The property has a long rear garden. The site has a long planning history going back to the 1960 s. Of relevance is an Established Use Certificate granted on appeal for the use of the detached garage serving 267 Hillbury Road and the land immediately to the east for general industrial purposes. The site was occupied by Soma Plant Hire Company up until the end of last year. In 2004 planning permission was refused for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 9 dwellings on the site. The subsequent appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the proposal would appear more bulky on the site than the existing structures. The Inspector concluded that the benefit for re-development of the industrial part of the site was not sufficient to outweigh the harm arising from the scale and form of the proposal and the harm to the openness of the green belt and particular at the western end of the site. In November 2006 planning permission was granted for residential development by Tandridge District Council, comprising one detached dwelling and 3 pairs of semi-detached 5
dwellings on the land to the east of 267 Hillbury Road, together with a replacement garage for existing dwelling. It is contended therefore that a precedent in terms of releasing the land from the green belt has been established, by the Council, notwithstanding the Core Strategy policy CSP1 which states that there is to be no release of green belt land. My client proposes to provide special needs accommodation for which there is an identified need which is set out in the Council s Extra Care Housing for East Surrey. The Council have categorised a hierarchy of settlements and Warlingham comes into category 2 which is the second highest in terms of access to services. The site is about half a mile from the local centre of Warlingham where there are a good variety of shops and access to public transport. Whytleafe South Station is just over half a mile from the site. In addition the site is within half a mile from a Doctor s surgery and about 2 miles from a dentist. The site therefore is considered to be a very sustainable location and has the potential to provide much needed accommodation in the District. The lack of flexibility in the Core Strategy regarding green belt boundaries is therefore a concern for my client. In conclusion it is contended the approach taken by the Council in Policy CSP1 not to review the green belt or larger rural settlements renders the Core Strategy unsound, failing to meet Soundness test 7 as the lack of review weakens the evidence base and Soundness test 9 as it is inflexible in approach. Site No 9 - Occasionally Yours Nursery, Lingfield Common Road, Lingfield 1.2 111183 Asprey Homes 072 There is no indication at the beginning of the Core Strategy as to the period of time period it is supposed to cover. Paragraph 2.14 of PPS12 requires: The Local Planning Authority should ensure that policies and proposals in the Core Strategy provide certainty for the future. The time horizon of the Core Strategy should be for a period of at least 10 years from the date of adoption. It is recognised that paragraph 5.2 does address the time period for the Core Strategy and this is subject of further comment at the appropriate point in these representations. 1.4 111183 Asprey Homes 073 The Council state that they undertook Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation during 2006, after which time additional evidence was commissioned. Notwithstanding the 6
Council s view that changes that have been made have not introduced any new issues, there has been no opportunity to comment on the additional evidence base. It is considered that the Council should have undertaken a further Preferred Options consultation under regulation 26 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Development Framework) Regulations 2004. Failure to do so render the document unsound having regard to soundness procedural test 2 set out in PPS12. Issue 1 111183 Asprey Homes 074 It is accepted that the retention of the Green Belt is important in terms of preventing the outward spread of London and that the role the Green Belt plays in terms of providing countryside and recreational access to the population of London. However Issue 1 is considered to be fundamentally onerous where it states that: To enable the Green Belt to be protected it is essential to make the best use of previously developed land (brown field) particularly surplus commercial sites The above statement is considered to be ambiguous, open to interpretation and lacks spatial focus. My client for example, has an interest in a brown field site that is located on the edge of a defined rural settlement (as defined by the Council) in the Green Belt, but is considered to be highly sustainably located. A Scoping Report to assess its (inter alia) sustainability credentials together with its suitability for removal from the Green Belt is attached as an Appendix to these representations. It is unclear from the above statement whether the Council would consider making the best use of all brown field land irrespective of whether it is located within the green belt or the built up areas in order to avoid developing green field sites. It is considered that greater clarity is required. Issue 3 111183 Asprey Homes 075 The provision of infrastructure is supported. However it is considered that the Council is placing too much reliance on its windfall sites in the Core Strategy and this approach will restrict the opportunities for infrastructure provision. A more positive approach to allocation of sites would secure better provision of infrastructure. Issue 4 111183 Asprey Homes 076 The provision of adequate housing has correctly been identified as a major issue facing the District. However what has not been identified as an issue is the major conflict between the amount of housing the District Council is required to deliver at strategic level through the SE Plan (125 units a Year, as amended by the Panel s recommendation in the SE Plan report) and the affordable housing need which according to the Council s latest figures, based on the HNS and the East Surrey HNS which identifies an annual shortfall of 550 units a year (LDF Technical Paper 7 refers). 7
4.1 111183 Asprey Homes 5.2 111183 Asprey Homes 5.3 111183 Asprey Homes 077 The vision states that there will be adequate housing, infrastructure etc to meet the needs of the community. However there is no indication in the vision as to how this would be achieved and therefore it lacks direction and has no policy focus to ensure delivery. 078 The proposed time period for the Core Strategy is up to 2018; however this is less than the 10 year time period from adoption required by PPS12. Reference is also made to a longer period stretching to 2026 (the period covered by the SE Plan). However the Council s evidence base, particularly with regard to housing need (referred to at the relevant point) only covers the period up to 2012. There is therefore an inconsistency in approach which is confusing and does not provide clarity and certainty required by PPS12. 079 This paragraph is considered to be contradictory and unclear for a number of reasons. It states that development will be focused into the urban areas, but it is not clear whether there is sufficient land to support this policy approach. This paragraph also states that development in villages may be permitted to meet local needs. This is considered to be too vague and conflicts with the next sentence which goes on to say that there will be no changes to the Green Belt boundaries which is very inflexible. The Council has not reviewed the green belt boundaries or undertaken a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The Council appear to be basing their strategy on a heavy reliance of windfall sites as has happened historically. There is contrary to paragraph 59 of PPS3. 5.4 111183 Asprey Homes 080 The Council s key diagram shows three broad locations for development around the main settlements of Oxted, Whyteleafe and Caterham. This appears to be based on the assumption that these settlements are the most sustainable. These main settlements are also located on the northern part of the District. It is contented that there is also a need to provide additional housing in the south of the District to address housing needs in the larger rural settlements such as Lingfield. It is contended that there are sites that are sustainable in the larger rural settlements in the south of the District such as my clients (please see Appendix) which are suitable for accommodating additional development. Policy CSP 1 111183 Asprey Homes 081 The wording of this policy lacks clarity and is confusing. It states for example that in order to make the best use of PDL development will take place in the built up areas. However there is no clear policy approach to PDL outside the built up areas, in sustainable locations where development might be acceptable as a very special circumstance as defined in 8
PPG2 and would fulfil the sustainability criteria in PPS3. The policy therefore fails soundness test 4b (inconsistency with national planning policy). Policy CSP1 states that there will be no changes to Green Belt boundaries, unless it is not possible to find sufficient previously developed land to deliver current and future housing needs. In the absence of a review of the Green Belt boundaries and the completion of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, it is considered that the policy is not based on a sufficiently robust evidence base and accordingly fails soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). 9.5 111183 Asprey Homes 12.1 111183 Asprey Homes 082 Policy CSP1 states that development will take place on PDL in built up areas. Paragraph (9.5) however states that some brown field land such as residential gardens may not be suitable for re-development and this is considered to conflict with Policy CS1. The Council is placing great emphasis on the fact that they do not need to allocate land for housing as there is a historical trend of over supply from windfall sites over previous years. This is set out in the Housing Background Paper (LDF Technical Paper 7). This is contrary to paragraph 59 of PPS3. It is contended that in the absence of a review of Green Belt boundaries and the lack of allocation of sites, it is inevitable that there will be pressure to develop garden land particularly where it is located within a built up areas since the Core Strategy policies support the principle of this type of development. It is considered that this constitutes a piecemeal approach to development and as such is similar to that contained in the Windsor and Maidenhead Core Strategy which was found by the Inspector to be unsound (paragraphs 2.22-2.24 refer). 083 This paragraph sets out the housing numbers allocated to Tandridge District Council through the SE Plan process. However it is considered that these figures should be considered to be the minimum, having regard to PPS3 which requires (amongst other things) LPA s to : have a flexible, responsive supply of land (para 10) take account of market information (para 11) address shortfalls in the supply of market housing (para 25) set targets for provision of affordable housing (para 29) This paragraph states that the SE Plan figures are based on urban potential work undertaken by Surrey County Council which did not rely on the release of any additional 9
land. It is considered that this methodology is flawed since it has no regard to the actual housing needs in the District both for market and affordable housing. The Council have not undertaken either a Strategic Housing Market Assessment or a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and this is considered to be a weakness in their evidence base particularly as they have evidence regarding the overwhelming need for affordable housing of 550 units a year (which far exceeds the SE Plan figure of 125 dpa following the Panel s report). Highlighted in the Housing Market and Needs Assessment and the East Surrey Housing Needs Assessment. 12.4 111183 Asprey Homes 12.5 111183 Asprey Homes 12.8 111183 Asprey Homes 084 This paragraph sets out the strategic role of the Green Belt and its purpose in preventing the outward sprawl of London and the protection of the countryside to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population etc. This paragraph then states that the relatively low allocation of housing to Tandridge reflects this. The strategic importance and the objectives of PPG2 in this regard are not disputed, however this does not have regard to local circumstances such as the affordable housing issues highlighted above. 085 The thrust of this paragraph which suggests that development in the Green Belt does not support the principles of sustainable development is disputed. There are clearly some brown field sites, currently within the green belt which are highly sustainable. The Inspector s attention is drawn to an example of my client s site attached as the appendix to these representations. 086 The Council state that there have more than adequate supply of deliverable sites to meet the first 5 year requirement contained in PPS3. These sites are either under construction or have planning permission. Based on the SE Plan figures the Council are required to build 545 dwellings and predict that 842 dwellings will be completed which equates to an oversupply of 297 dwellings over the first 5 year period. The Council s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) lists the sites that they expect to be completed in the first 5 years. Having reviewed the list of sites my clients would like to point out that there are some inaccuracies in the list of sites within the AMR. (Table 12 page 34 refers). Three examples are cited below: Land NW of 42 Lusted Road Tatsfield the AMR predicts that 13 units will be built at the during 08-09, however this development has been built and is already occupied. Planning permission has been granted for 118 units at Gadoline House, Godstone Road, Whyteleafe in 2006. The AMR predicts that this development will be completed in the years 08-09, however to date no work has started on site. It is considered that it is unrealistic to assume that this development, having regard to the number of units concerned will be 10
completed in 12months. Planning permission has been granted for 29 units on 283, 285, 295 and 297 Limpsfield Road, Warlingham. These are estimated for completion during 2008-2009. to date no work has commenced and the original dwellings are still standing. Paragraph 58 of PPS3 requires LPA s not to include sites for which they have granted planning permission unless they can demonstrate based upon robust evidence, that sites are developable and are likely to contribute to housing delivery at the point envisaged. Having regard to the examples from the AMR cited above it is disputed whether the Council can reliably identify a 5 year land supply and therefore the issue regarding over- supply (notwithstanding previous tends in completions) could be over stated. 12.9 111183 Asprey Homes 087 The Council is placing great reliance on windfall sites to provide a significant part of the 10-15 supply of housing land. This is considered to be unacceptable having regard to Paragraph 59 which says that windfalls should not be included in the first 10 years of land supply, unless there are genuine local circumstances that prevent specific sites from being identified. As previously referred to my client s site, the details of which are appended to these representations is a good example of a site which the Council could consider for allocation as part of the proposed Site Allocations DPD. However the policies within the Core Strategy need to be sufficiently flexible to allow these sites to be considered. A more positive approach to site allocations would reduce the Council s heavy reliance on windfall sites coming forward in the future. This approach was supported by the Inspector in the examination report in respect of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy and is particularly relevant. Like Tandridge, Windsor and Maidenhead is a green belt authority and their Core Strategy was found unsound on the basis that the Authority had not reviewed its green belt boundaries and had placed too much reliance on windfall sites within urban areas coming forward for housing development in future years. The Inspector considered that this was by no means certain. Paragraphs 2.22 2.24 of the report are particularly relevant. In those paragraphs the Inspector states that because policy reviews take such a long time, a proactive approach should be taken to the identification and delivery of land, to provide greater certainty that strategic requirements will be met. He goes on to say that if this doesn t happen sites will come forward in a piecemeal way and at far less sustainable locations than might otherwise be the case, not least because of the need to satisfy PPS3 land supply requirements. The Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy s heavy reliance on previously developed land is a major failing and accordingly it failed to meet the soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). The Inspector also concluded that the Core Strategy failed test 9 (flexibility) because it was not 11
flexible enough. 12.10 111183 Asprey Homes 12.13 111183 Asprey Homes 088 My clients agree with the statement expressed in this paragraph that the supply of large sites in the District will continue to drop, however the comments in respect of reliance on windfall sites expressed in response to paragraph 12.9 above are also relevant to this paragraph. 089 The comments made in response to paragraph 5.4 above regarding broad locations for development are relevant. Policy CSP 12 111183 Asprey Homes 090 Policy CSP12 is considered to be unsound for the following reasons: 1. This policy repeats national policy in paragraphs 52-57 of PPS3 and does not provide a clear approach toward housing provision in the District. The policy does not give a clear locational framework and therefore is not considered to be spatial. This does not comply with soundness test 4a (Spatial Plan having regard to other relevant plans, policies and strategies). 2. The policy does not follow the guidance regarding housing land supply set out in PPS3. The policy states for example that if insufficient developable sites cannot be found for the first 5 years and for years 6-10 then a windfall allowance will be taken into account. This does not comply with paragraph 59 of PPS3 which says that windfall sites should not be taken into account in the first 10 years of land supply unless LPA s can provide robust evidence of genuine local circumstances that prevent sites from being allocated. To date the Council have not produced any evidence to suggest that there are any genuine local circumstances, they have not reviewed their green belt boundaries ( and state in Policy CS1 that there will not be any alterations to the green belt) and they have not undertaken a Strategic Housing Land Availability Study as required by PPS3. It is considered therefore that the policy does not meet soundness tests 4B (Inconsistency with national planning policy) and test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). 3. The policy only talks about housing provision through land supply. Paragraph 31 of PPS3 Making Use of Existing Stock requires LPA s to adopt positive policies towards conversions, changes of use etc as a source of housing. Policy CSP12 should therefore have a broader focus towards housing provision in order to meet soundness test 4B referred to above. 12
Policy CSP 111183 Asprey Homes 091 Policy CSP13 seeks to control the over supply of housing in the District. However the 13 accuracy of the list of sites in the Council s AMR which the Council are relying on for the first 5 years land supply is questioned (see comments in respect of paragraph 12.4 above). Policy CSP13 is similar to the former Policy HO4 in the Tandridge District Local Plan 2001, which was deleted by the Secretary of State and is no longer part of the Council s current Development Plan. Paragraph 72 of PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity. This policy is considered to be unsound on the grounds that it does not comply with PPS3 and therefore fails soundness 4B (inconsistency with national planning policy). 13.3 111183 Asprey Homes 13.4 111183 Asprey Homes 13.9 111183 Asprey Homes 092 Reference is made to the Council s Housing Needs Study and the East Surrey Strategic Market Assessment and that both studies show that there is a high level of unmet housing need in the District, however it is not specific. It is considered that the actual level of need should be quoted. The two studies also show that the level of need has increased and this should be acknowledged. 093 See comments re paragraph 1.2 above. This paragraph states that the time period for the Core Strategy is up to 2018, however this is not compliant with PPS12 which states that a Core Strategy should extend for a 10 year period from adoption. 094 This paragraph refers to Annexe 5 which is a table setting out the list of parishes where rural threshold will apply. However Annexe 5 does not give any details of the threshold levels. Policy CSP 14 111183 Asprey Homes 095 This policy is considered to be unsound as it fails to adequately address the demand for affordable housing and the backlog of unmet need. It is unclear how the target of 50 affordable dwellings a year has been reached. The policy has not had proper regard to the Council s evidence base and is therefore considered to be unsound having regard to soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). Site No. 10 - The former Bays Nursery, Godstone Road, Lingfield Policy CSP 1 111376 - mr stephen smith 097 (this is an amended response as my initial comments contained some typographical errors) My concern relates to two statements within Policy CSP1 of the Core Strategy which say: there will be no changes to the boundaries of larger rural settlements or Green Belt settlements and 13
there will be no change to the green belt boundaries. It appears that the Council have not undertaken a review of their green belt boundaries during preparation of the Core Strategy and it is considered that this is a weakness in the Council s evidence base. The approach in Policy CSP1 appears to be based on previous trends relating to house building which show that house completions in previous years have exceeded the allocated targets in the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan). The Council contend that much of the housing has come forward on brown field windfall sites within existing urban areas. The Council state that releases of green belt land will be achieved through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). The Inspector is asked to have regard to the comments made by the Inspector in his report into the Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. Paragraphs 2.22 2.24 of the report are particularly relevant in that the Inspector states that because policy reviews take such a long time a proactive approach should be taken to the approach to the identification and delivery of land to provide greater certainty that strategic requirements will be met. He goes on to say that if this doesn t happen sites will come forward in a piecemeal way and at far less sustainable locations than might otherwise be the case, not least because of the need to satisfy PPS3 land supply requirements. The Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy s heavy reliance on previously developed land is a major failing and accordingly it failed to meet the soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). The Inspector also concluded that the Core Strategy failed test 9 (flexibility) because it was not flexible enough. It is contended that the Inspector s approach applied to Tandridge District Council s Core Strategy should be the same as that applied by the Inspector who conducted the examination into the Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. I have an interest in and am part owner of a property on the edge of Lingfield Village (a larger rural settlement defined by the Council). The site is on Godstone Road Lingfield. It could, I suppose, be described as land part of The former Bays Nursery Godstone Road Lingfield and is adjacent to a public footpath and if developed would provide a "defensable boundary" without encroaching on land of value or of interest. The land lies within the green belt. It is considered that a review of the green belt boundaries would resolve situations such as mine and would constitute a practical approach to planning and could be regarded as equitable to members of the community, which is an approach supported in the District Council s Community Strategy. This approach was also supported by the Inspector in Paragraph 11.9 of the report considering Windsor and Maidenhead s Core Strategy. The Inspector said when referring to a green belt boundary review : The land in question is also surrounded on three sides by properties and the final boundary 14
is the footpath. This review can address any obvious anomalies or inconsistencies in the existing Green belt boundaries and provide greater certainty that future development land requirements to 2026 will be met etc In conclusion it is contended the approach taken by the Council in Policy CSP1 not to review the green belt or larger rural settlements renders the Core Strategy unsound, failing to meet Soundness test 7 as the lack of review weakens the evidence base and Soundness test 9 as it is inflexible in approach. Sites No. 1 and 2 - Land adjacent to graveyard & St Mary s Church, Barrow Green Road, Oxted and Land adjacent to St Mary s School, Chichele Road & Laverock School, Bluehouse Lane, Oxted 1.2 112355 - Village 152 There is no indication at the beginning of the Core Strategy as to the period of time period it is supposed to cover. Paragraph 2.14 of PPS12 requires: The Local Planning Authority should ensure that policies and proposals in the Core Strategy provide certainty for the future. The time horizon of the Core Strategy should be for a period of at least 10 years from the date of adoption. It is recognised that paragraph 5.2 does address the time period for the Core Strategy and this is subject of further comment at the appropriate point in these representations. 1.4 112355 - Village 4.1 112355 - Village 5.2 112355 - Village 153 The Council state that they undertook Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation during 2006, after which time additional evidence was commissioned. Notwithstanding the Council s view that changes that have been made have not introduced any new issues, there has been no opportunity to comment on the additional evidence base. It is considered that the Council should have undertaken a further Preferred Options consultation under regulation 26 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Development Framework) Regulations 2004. Failure to do so render the document unsound having regard to soundness procedural test 2 set out in PPS12. 159 The vision states that there will be adequate housing, infrastructure etc to meet the needs of the community. However there is no indication in the vision as to how this would be achieved and therefore it lacks direction and has no policy focus to ensure delivery. 162 The proposed time period for the Core Strategy is up to 2018; however this is less than the 10 time period from adoption required by PPS12. Reference is also made to a longer period 15
stretching to 2026 (the period covered by the SE Plan). However the Council s evidence base, particularly with regard to housing need (referred to at the relevant point) only covers the period up to 2012. There is therefore an inconsistency in approach which is confusing and does not provide clarity and certainty required by PPS12. 5.3 112355 - Village 163 This paragraph is considered to be contradictory and unclear for a number of reasons. It states that development will be focused into the urban areas, but it is not clear whether there is sufficient land to support this policy approach. This paragraph also states that development in villages may be permitted to meet local needs. This is considered to be too vague and conflicts with the next sentence which goes on to say that there will be no changes to the Green Belt boundaries which is very inflexible. The Council has not reviewed the green belt boundaries or undertaken a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The Council appear to be basing their strategy on a heavy reliance of windfall sites as has happened historically. There is contrary to paragraph 59 of PPS3. 5.4 112355 - Village 164 The Council s key diagram shows three broad locations for development around the main settlements of Oxted, Whyteleafe and Caterham. This appears to be based on the assumption that these settlements are the most sustainable. These main settlements are also located on the northern part of the District. It is contented that there is also a need to provide additional housing in the south of the District to address housing needs in the larger rural settlements such as Lingfield. Policy CSP 1 112355 - Village 165 The wording of this policy lacks clarity and is confusing. It states for example that in order to make the best use of PDL development will take place in the built up areas. However there is no clear policy approach to PDL outside the built up areas, in sustainable locations where development might be acceptable as a very special circumstance as defined in PPG2 and would fulfil the sustainability criteria in PPS3. The policy therefore fails soundness test 4b (Inconsistency with national planning policy). Policy CSP1 states that there will be no changes to Green Belt boundaries, unless it is not possible to find sufficient previously developed land to deliver current and future housing needs. In the absence of a review of the Green Belt boundaries and the completion of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, it is considered that the policy is not based on a sufficiently robust evidence base and accordingly fails soundness test 7 (Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base). 16
9.5 112355 - Village 166 Policy CSP1 states that development will take place on PDL in built up areas. Paragraph (9.5) however states that some brown field land such as residential gardens may not be suitable for re-development and this is considered to conflict with Policy CS1. The Council is placing great emphasis on the fact that they do not need to allocate land for housing as there is a historical trend of over supply from windfall sites over previous years. This is set out in the Housing Background Paper (LDF Technical Paper 7). This is contrary to paragraph 59 of PPS3. It is contended that in the absence of a review of Green Belt boundaries and the lack of allocation of sites, it is inevitable that there will be pressure to develop garden land particularly where it is located within a built up areas since the Core Strategy policies support the principle of this type of development. It is considered that this constitutes a piecemeal approach to development and as such is similar to that contained in the Windsor and Maidenhead Core Strategy was found by the Inspector to be unsound (paragraphs 2.22-2.24 refer). Policy CSP 7 112355 - Village 167 The concern with this policy is that it is not based on a credible evidence base and therefore is unsound having regard to soundness test 7 Appropriateness of Core Strategy policies and acceptability of evidence base. The Council have not undertaken any character assessments of their town and village settlements and therefore there is no indication as to what would constitute the local distinctiveness of local areas as quoted in the policy. The policy states that The Council will have regard to Surrey Design and Village Design Statements in determining planning applications The Council has adopted the Lingfield Village Design Statement as SPG and the Woldingham Village Design Statement as SPD. However both these documents are considered to be too prescriptive and do not comply with PPS3. The Woldingham Village Design Statement for example has set of New Build Guidelines which are based on minimum plot sizes of 0.5 acre and building lines stipulated in covenants. National Planning policy contained in PPS1 and PPS3 both stress the importance of good design and promoting designs and layouts which make the efficient and effective use of land (paragraph 14 of PPS3). The design guidance seeks to restrict the limit of extensions whether a property lies within the green belt or the built up area. This is clearly contrary to paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 the relevant national planning policy guidance applicable to extensions and alterations to dwellings in the green belt. My client is also concerned that the policy is too inflexible (soundness test 9), when it states that the Council will protect wooded hillsides in built up areas and development on the edge of the green belt. It is considered that this is unreasonable as this could preclude 17
development which would otherwise be acceptable having regard to national planning policy where there is a presumption in favour of development in built up areas. Policy CSP 8 Policy CSP 10 Issue 1 112355 - Village 112355 - Village 112355 - Village It is concluded therefore that since the Village Design Statements do not have regard to national planning policy, the reliance placed on them in Policy CSP7 cannot be sound having regard to soundness test 4B (Inconsistency with national planning policy) 168 The comments relating to Village Design Statements made in respect of Policy CSP7 are relevant to Policy CSP8. The proposed density levels of between 30-55 dwellings per hectare in built up areas is considered to be too low as it would precluded developing sites for flats which can make the best use of land in compliance with paragraph 14 of PPS3 and can make a overall contribution to the stock of smaller dwellings in the District which are in short supply as identified in the Council s Housing Needs Survey 2005. There is concern regarding policy CSP8 where it states that development in medium and lower density areas should be within 0.5km of public transport and town or village or other centre containing convenience shopping. This is considered to be contrary to the advice in paragraph 75 (Walking) of PPG13 which states that walking offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips particularly under 2km and therefore fails to satisfy soundness test 4B (inconsistency with national planning policy ). 170 It is noted in paragraph 11.3 that the Council are intending to retain the county designated Surrey Area of Great Landscape Value until such time as Natural England have undertaken a review of the Surrey Hills AONB. However there is no timescale as to when this is likely to happen and in any event is out of the Council s control. PPS7 indicates that local designations should only be maintained where criteria based policies cannot provide necessary protection. Policy CSP10 states that the same principles will be applied in the associated Area of Great Landscape Value which will be retained for its own sake. The approach to development in the AGLV is considered to be unduly onerous and inflexible, having regard to national policy in PPS7. The policy is considered to be unsound when assessed against soundness tests 4b (inconsistency with national planning policy) and test 9 (flexibility). 198 It is accepted that the retention of the Green Belt is important in terms of preventing the outward spread of London and that the role the Green Belt plays in terms of providing countryside and recreational access to the population of London. However Issue 1 is considered to be fundamentally onerous where it states that: To enable the Green Belt to be protected it is essential to make the best use of previously developed land (brown field) particularly surplus commercial sites The above statement is considered to be ambiguous, open to interpretation and lacks 18
spatial focus. My client for example, has an interest in two green field sites that are located on the edge of a built up area (as defined by the Council) in the Green Belt. Both are considered to be highly sustainably located. A Scoping Report to assess their (inter alia) sustainability credentials together with its suitability for removal from the Green Belt are attached as Appendices to these representations. It is unclear from the above statement whether the Council would consider making the best use of all brown field land irrespective of whether it is located within the green belt or the built up areas in order to avoid developing green field sites. It is considered that greater clarity is required. Tandridge allocated sites to be released from the Green Belt in their previous Local Plan but not in the Core Strategy. This is not in accordance with Government Policy because 3030 units of affordable housing are needed by the year 2011 (information provided by Paul Newdick in requests for clarity on the strategy for affordable housing). The only solution to meet these needs is that land in sustainable locations on the edge of settlements or towns must be released. Indeed, Tandridge themselves have indicated preferred starred locations in Oxted and Caterham for development. Issue 3 Issue 4 112355 - Village 112355 - Village 199 The provision of infrastructure is supported. However it is considered that the Council is placing far too much reliance on its windfall sites in the Core Strategy and this approach will severely limit the opportunities for infrastructure provision because according to their figures they do not need any further housing. A more positive approach to allocation of sites would secure better provision of infrastructure. For example if 2600 houses were found in Green Belt areas based on the infrastructure charges in the Horley Masterplan it is reasonable to conclude 15000 per unit would provide 39,000,000 towards improving the infrastructure. 200 The provision of adequate housing has correctly been identified as a major issue facing the District. However what has not been identified as an issue is the major conflict between the amount of housing the District Council is required to deliver at strategic level through the SE Plan (125 units a Year, as amended by the Panel s recommendation in the SE Plan report) and the affordable housing need which according to the Council s latest figures, based on the HNS and the East Surrey HNS which identifies an annual shortfall of 550 units a year (LDF Technical Paper 7 refers). 12.1 112355 - Village 202 This paragraph sets out the housing numbers allocated to Tandridge District Council through the SE Plan process. However it is considered that these figures should be considered to be the minimum, having regard to PPS3 which requires (amongst other things) LPA s to : have a flexible, responsive supply of land (para 10) 19
take account of market information (para 11) address shortfalls in the supply of market housing (para 25) set targets for provision of affordable housing (para 29) This paragraph states that the SE Plan figures are based on urban potential work undertaken by Surrey County Council which did not rely on the release of any additional land. It is considered that this methodology is flawed since it has no regard to the actual housing needs in the District both for market and affordable housing. The Council have not undertaken either a Strategic Housing Market Assessment or a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and this is considered to be a weakness in their evidence base particularly as they have evidence regarding the overwhelming need for affordable housing of 550 units a year (which far exceeds the SE Plan figure of 125 dpa following the Panel s report). highlighted in the Housing Market and Needs Assessment and the East Surrey Housing Needs Assessment. 12.4 112355 - Village 12.8 112355 - Village 203 This paragraph sets out the strategic role of the Green Belt and its purpose in preventing the outward sprawl of London and the protection of the countryside to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population etc. This paragraph then states that the relatively low allocation of housing to Tandridge reflects this. The strategic importance and the objectives of PPG2 in this regard are not disputed, however this does not regard to local circumstances such as the affordable housing issues highlighted above. Limited releases can be made containing development to the edges of towns such as Oxted or Lingfield which would not coalesce with other villages or towns. Ninety percent of Tandridge is Green Belt. It is perverse to argue that this should be protected at the expense of meeting the acute need of affordable housing. 205 The Council state that there have more than adequate supply of deliverable sites to meet the first 5 year requirement contained in PPS3. These sites are either under construction or have planning permission. The only reason Tandridge have met their previous plan allocation is entirely because of PPG3/PPS3 making the most efficient use of land subsequent to the Local Plan being adopted. There has been no pro-active policy to provide more houses. Indeed they have by their own admission (Gordon Keymer speech to the Planning Committee 21st February referred to the Surrey Mirror 28-2-08) had a high rate of appeals being allowed and have been very critical of the Planning Inspectorate for their decisions. Based on the SE Plan figures the Council are required to build 545 dwellings and predict that 842 dwellings will be completed which equates to an oversupply of 297 dwellings over the first 5 year period. 20