Appeal on land 120m South West of 21 Lower Burgh Way, Proof of Evidence

LPA ref: 16/00804/FULMAJ Appeal ref: APP/D2320/W/20/3265785

EDUCATION ISSUES

Statement of Evidence of Mark Sarjent On behalf of County Council APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Statutory Responsibility

3 Education Contribution Methodology • Education Contribution Methodology and the tests of CIL

4 Forecast Evidence • School Planning Forecasts • School Planning Forecast Accuracy • Forecast Outcomes (future demand for places) • Forecast Methodology and differences between SCAP and Education Contribution Assessments

5 Response to Appellant Statement of Case

• 2 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

1. Introduction 1.1 My name is Mark Sarjent. I am School Planning Principal for Lancashire County Council. 1.2 I have worked for Lancashire County Council for a period of 15 years, predominantly within education. For the last six years I have worked within Lancashire County Council's School Planning Team, in the role of School Planning Officer and School Planning Principal, in both roles specialising in forecasting. I am responsible for the production of Lancashire County Council's forecasts and responsible for all aspects of data management for the School Planning Team. I am a member of the management team and area lead for East Lancashire delivering the statutory responsibility for school places in that area. 1.3 Part of my role is to review external challenge to forecasting methodology and I have worked on appeal cases involving education contribution assessments. I have responded to numerous requests for information and challenges from Mr Powell and his former company EPDS consultants, successfully defending an education contribution at the appeal for Land at Oldfield Farm, Carr Head Lane: (APP/U2370/W/15/3003166) 1.4 I hold an honours degree in Operational Research and a post graduate diploma in management studies.

• 3 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

2 Statutory responsibility 2.1 Lancashire County Council has a statutory responsibility to commission sufficient school places for Lancashire under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. 2.2 Places within Lancashire are commissioned in accordance with the adopted School Place Provision Strategy. Part of this strategy seeks to ensure that impact of housing development is mitigated by education contributions where appropriate and directly linked to development. The School Place Provision Strategy has been provided in the core documents.

3 Education Contribution Methodology 3.1 Where new housing development creates a demand for school places in excess of those available, Lancashire County Council will expect district councils to work with the Council in seeking a financial contribution from the developers that is proportionate to impact, in order to mitigate against the effect of any new development on education infrastructure. This is an approach endorsed by Department for Education. 3.2. All education contribution assessments are conducted in line with Lancashire County Council's methodology as published online: https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/planning/planning-obligations-for-developers/ 3.3 The education contribution methodology is regularly reviewed to reflect latest government guidance relating to the statutory provision of school places and the national planning policy framework. The latest update was in September 2020 to reflect the DfE guidance: 'Securing developer contributions for education'. 3.4 When a planning application is made, the council will carry out an education contribution assessment using a housing variant of the School Place Planning forecast. This methodology is available on our website and details are given in every education contribution assessment. 3.6 The first education contribution assessment for 16/00804/FULMAJ was provided on 11 th November 2016. 3.7 The education contribution required from this assessment was subsumed within CIL under the regulations then pertaining and therefore no separate S106 agreement was required at that time. 3.8 In Feb 2020, Lancashire County Council was informed by Chorley Borough Council via an Interim Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/20 that education contributions would now be dealt with via S106 agreement, not via CIL, due to changes to CIL regulations (2019). This did not lead to a change in approach by Lancashire County Council as we continue to assess all eligible housing developments via Education Contribution Assessments, regardless of whether the local planning authority uses CIL or S106 to secure contributions. 3.9 At appeal stage, in line with our education contribution methodology, the district council requested an updated education contribution assessment which we provided. That updated education contribution assessment dated 25 th February 2021 is included in Core Bundle and supersedes the assessment provided in 2016.

• 4 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

3.10 It is based on our standard methodology and reflects the fact that there will be inadequate places within 3 miles to accommodate the yield from the proposed development: SECONDARY School Forecast 2026 Net Cap 2026 Places Holy Cross Catholic High School 1087 975 -112 Southlands High School 1046 1168 122 Albany 810 756 -54 Parklands High School 1229 1116 -113 St Michael's Ce Academy 1249 1129 -120 Within 3 miles of development 5421 5144 -277

Education Contribution Methodology and the tests of CIL 3.11 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 imposes a limitation on the use of planning obligations and provides that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if the obligation is: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; 3.12 If there is not sufficient infrastructure to support the impact of the housing development, then the development is considered unsustainable. The education contribution assessment assesses the impact on school places and whether the existing education infrastructure in the area can support the impact of the development. If not, then the County Council will object to the development unless a contribution is made to allow additional education places to be provided. The contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable when it would otherwise not be. • directly related to the development; 3.13 The education contribution assessment considers only the education provision within 2 miles (primary) or 3 miles (secondary) of the centre of the development. This is line with the Department for Education's Home-to-school travel and transport statutory guidance and Lancashire County Council School Transport policy. It is the standard approach to adopt. 3.14 The education contribution assessment applies a pupil yield factor which is based on a detailed research project carried out during 2012 and which has proved accurate in all the years since. 3.15 The bedroom mix of dwellings on the site is requested from the developer and the pupil yield factor is applied to those dwellings resulting in a pupil yield for the development. This number of pupils is compared with the number of future places anticipated to be available at the schools within the radius, to understand whether they can be accommodated. • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development 3.16 The amount of education contribution requested is directly linked to the number and type of dwellings on the development as provided by developer. The contributions would be to provide additional school places to accommodate those pupils from the

• 5 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

development at a school local to the development when there are not adequate spare spaces. The contribution is based on the additional spaces needed to accommodate the children from the development. 3.17 It must be noted that at recent appeals where Lancashire County Council education contributions have been challenged, inspectors have concluded that the education contributions methodology and forecasts meet the tests of CIL: • APP/D2320/A/13/2196354, Land south-west of Appenzell: "I consider that the education contribution would meet the tests of paragraph 204 of the Framework and Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations" • APP/U2370/W/15/3003166, Land at Oldfield Farm, Carr Head Lane: "I am satisfied that the provision of funding for education contributions would be directly related to the development, necessary to its acceptability in planning terms, and fairly and reasonably related in scale" • APP/U2370/W/18/3211691 Land east of Carr End Lane, Stalmine: "The contribution is calculated via a standard formula and would be fairly and reasonably related to the development proposed. Consequently, I am satisfied that it would meet the statutory tests" • APP/U2370/W/17/3179744 Land east of Copp Lane, Great Eccleston: "The contribution is to provide additional secondary places needed as a result of the development and I am satisfied that the contribution is reasonable and necessary and complies with the tests set out in regulation 122"

4 Forecast Evidence School Planning Forecasts 4.1 Lancashire County Council's school planning forecasts have been established for over 20 years. Whilst there have been refinements over the years, the principle method of forecasting is unchanged. The Department for Education (DfE) do not publish a forecast methodology and request that local authorities develop their own robust methods to meet DfE criteria. 4.2 The forecast methodology by which the school planning forecasts are constructed is submitted annually to the Department for Education (DfE) for review as part of the statutory SCAP return. We have regular meetings with DfE colleagues, and our approach has never been challenged. The school planning forecast Planning Areas by which forecasts are split are agreed with DfE and may not be changed without permission from DfE. 4.3 The projected pupil demand from the school planning forecasts is submitted to DfE annually as part of the statutory SCAP return. The DfE conducts accuracy checks and validation of the projected pupil demand upon submission. Submission will only be accepted if the projected pupil demand passes the DfE validation checks and any queries are resolved. School Planning Forecast Accuracy 4.4 As future pupil numbers become available via the School Census, the DfE evaluates past forecasts against these pupil numbers and an accuracy percentage is applied for one-year forecasts and three-year forecasts. Accuracy measures are not

• 6 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

applied to five-year forecasts. Lancashire is benchmarked against all other local authorities on the Basic Need Scorecards and is one of the highest performers in terms of the accuracy of its forecasts. Its current performance is as follows: DfE DfE 2019 2018 2017 Target Tolerance One Year Primary 1% % +1.0% +1.1% +0.8% Forecast Secondary 1% 5% +1.6% +1.9% +1.4% Three Primary n/a n/a +2.0% +1.0% +1.3% Year Secondary n/a n/a +2.3% +0.7% +1.2% Forecast

4.5 Internal forecast accuracy evaluations are also carried to continually quality assure the forecast methodology. Internal forecast evaluations show similar outcomes to the DfE and are within the accuracy target given by DfE. 4.6 Lancashire County Council maintains a high level of confidence in accuracy of its forecasts and no issues have been raised by DfE in respect of accuracy. 4.7 The appellant contends that the forecasts are inaccurate or over-estimating the pupil numbers. There is no evidence supplied to suggest that the forecasts are inaccurate and there is no reason to disregard the DfE official accuracy measure for the school place planning forecasts. We have asked the appellant to explain where the inaccuracy is said to be, and no information has been provided.

Forecast Outcomes (future demand for places) 4.8 The school planning forecast outcomes show the number of pupils expected to demand a place. This is in line with the statutory duty, where Lancashire County Council must provide a sufficient school place for those Lancashire pupils who require one. 4.9 The demand for a school place may be different to the number of pupils who will be present in future numbers on roll. Due to restricted numbers of places in some areas, the number of pupils demanding places may be higher than the number of pupils who can be accommodated; in some areas the number of pupils demanding places will be lower than those offered a place. Parental preference is a strong factor in pupil placements and parents will often seek places at popular and successful schools. Chorley is firmly in the former category. 4.10 By seeking education contributions to mitigate the impact of demand for places from those housing developments, we are able to meet the increased demand for places from those housing developments by increasing capacity at named schools.

Forecast Methodology and differences between SCAP and Education Contribution Assessments 4.11 The appellant appears to focus on a claim that the SCAP forecasts are inaccurate but has misunderstood that the School Planning Forecasts (on which SCAP is

• 7 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

assessed) are different from those used for assessing contributions from housing (“the Housing Forecasts”) 4.12 The forecasts submitted to Department for Education for SCAP and used for school planning with Lancashire County Council are the "standard forecasts". They are what the School Planning Team uses to plan school places. They cover all future demand for spaces whatever the source and no matter how the need is to be met. They therefore include the need for new spaces arising from housing development. 4.12 The Housing Forecasts on which the education contribution assessments are based, are separate from those for DfE SCAP and are, by definition slightly lower. The reason for this is technical but arises from fact that for the Housing Forecasts any pupil yield from any housing development phased to be delivered within five years where the impact is mitigated by a S106 agreement is removed and not counted. This ensures that the Housing Forecasts accurately reflect unmet need after other housing developments have mitigated their own education impact. Therefore, the Housing Forecasts are slightly lower than the standard forecasts submitted to DfE for SCAP. Our Education Contribution Assessment is based on these housing forecasts. 4.13 Lancashire County Council follows DfE guidance strictly for the SCAP forecasts, however our forecasts for education contribution assessments are separate from forecast used for DfE and SCAP. 4.14 The reasoning for the adjusted housing forecasts is to ensure a fair and accurate position for housing development applicants and compliance with CIL regulations. Lancashire County Council's method has been confirmed to be compliant with CIL in previous appeal – see above. 4.15 Our education contribution assessment is ubiquitously used by all district councils in Lancashire and has been subject to challenge and appeal by developers. Since 2013 there have been 11 appeals involving education contributions and we have successfully defended 10 of these. The 11 th was resolved prior to the appeal hearing. 4.16 Mr Powell and his former company EPDS Consultants have provided numerous challenges to our forecasts and methodology, and continue to argue that our forecasts are inaccurate, but has never succeeded in persuading us or inspectors of this and here has not provided any evidence to support his view. 4.17 Our most recent appeal involving education contribution being challenged by Mr Powell's former company EPDS Consultants, EPDS Consultants offered alternative forecasts to that used by Lancashire County Council to suggest a lower forecast position resulting in no education contribution being payable by the appellant, however the inspector noted in point 51 of the appeal decision the inspector concludes: " I find this to be a significant flaw in the robustness of the appellant’s calculations as it presents an inconsistent picture against the up-to-date projections provided by the County Council. I cannot therefore accept the appellant’s construction of the level of contribution in this respect and conclude that the County Council’s calculation would be the minimum required to address the impact. " APP/U2370/W/15/3003166, Land at Oldfield Farm, Carr Head Lane.

• 8 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

5 Response to Appellant Statement of Case 1 The shortfall of places within Chorley secondary schools is currently an issue for LCC which has been forecast to arise since 2016. Irrespective of this appeal it is something which LCC needs to addressed.

5.1 It is correct that there is currently a shortage of spaces in Chorley secondary schools. That proves the Council’s case. This development will be adding to the shortfall. 5.2 Lancashire County Council have commissioned an additional 300 places in two Chorley secondary schools (Southlands and Holy Cross) since 2016. All those places are filled. These places are made available from year 7 intakes and therefore places available grow incrementally over 5 years as the intakes move through the schools. 5.3 Due a surplus of places in South Ribble secondary schools between 2018 and 2021, pupils requesting places in Chorley were displaced to schools in South Ribble leading to a significant rise in population there. Therefore the Council has not had to provide places yet in Chorley as surplus existed in South Ribble. However from 2022, there is expected to be an emerging shortfall in both Chorley and South Ribble, therefore the Council will seek to provide additional places from 2022.

2 Should LCC address this issue as required, then by the time the appeal development generates pupils, there will be sufficient places available without the need for further infrastructure. The contribution would therefore not be “necessary” in planning terms.

5.4 Even if Lancashire County Council was to address the existing shortfall in Chorley then that would not address the need for more spaces to meet the needs arising from this development. There is no policy or requirement under which the County overprovides places in order to provide spaces for future residential development – the correct approach is that those additional spaces are funded by the developer as here. 5.5 The development proposed would still yield additional pupils and their impact would need to be mitigated by additional places. Hence the claim for education contribution for additional places to make the development sustainable is valid. 5.6 Even if we considered places wider than the 3 miles radius of the development which is not appropriate, there are no forecast places available across Chorley and South Ribble to accommodate additional pupils in the future beyond 2022.

3 Should LCC choose not to address this issue, on the basis that the schools listed can accommodate the number of pupils forecast to arise, then there would still be no need for further infrastructure as a result of the appeal development. Again, the contribution would therefore not be necessary in planning terms.

5.7 There is no dispute on the yield from the development. The schools listed cannot accommodate the number of pupils forecast to arise – as is demonstrated by the Education Contribution Assessment. It demonstrates that there is a need for further infrastructure at those schools to accommodate these children. If the contribution was

• 9 •

APP/D2320/W/20/3265785 – Proof of Evidence – Education Issues – Mark Sarjent

not paid to deliver such necessary infrastructure within a certain period (consistent with the anticipated timeline for the pupil yield from the development) then it would be returned under provisions which could be included in the s.106. 5.8 Please refer to point 5.3. LCC will need to provide additional places in the wider Chorley and South Ribble area in the near future to accommodate demand, however this will only deal with existing shortfalls and not necessarily provide additional places generated by additional housing development such as this particular application.

4 Finally, LCC’s 5 year forecasts, in fact, overestimate pupil numbers significantly, and it is not possible to rely on the forecasts presented.

5.9 There is no evidence provided by the appellant to suggest that this is the case. 5.10 The Department for Education Basic Need Scorecards published online show that Lancashire County Council has maintained a high level of accuracy in its forecast over the numerous historical scorecards. 5.11 Due a surplus of places in South Ribble between 2018 and 2021, pupils requesting places in Chorley were displaced to schools in South Ribble leading to a significant rise in population there. 5.12 In order to demonstrate the increase in numbers, the appellant's agent was provided not just with historic Chorley number on roll information but also South Ribble historic number on roll information so that the situation could be understood. 5.13 It is suggested that forecast numbers for Chorley Secondary schools have not materialised. That is to misunderstand the figures. The demand has materialised but there is simply not the ability to meet the demand in Chorley schools. 5.14 The parental preference tables show that the demand for places has materialised but cannot currently be accommodated in Chorley . Thus whilst the demand exists the capacity does not and thus the number on roll has been constrained below actual and forecast demand because of lack of capacity. Academic Preferences for Cumulative 2015/16 Forecasts Year Chorley places Preferences projected demand for per year 2020/21 2016/2017 1232 2017/2018 1261 2018/2019 1282 2019/2020 1308 2020/2021 1264 6347 6297 5.15 The table above shows that if there was additional capacity available within Chorley secondary schools, then the number of pupils within the schools would be higher as the demand for places is present. Therefore if anything the forecasts did not over forecast but actually under forecast demand for places: 6297 forecast vs a cumulative 6347 first preferences for places over the five years.

• 10 •