Examination of Brighton & Hove City Plan: Part 1

EXAMINATION OF BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY PLAN: PART 1 – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS CONSULTATION

Matter 2 ‘Housing Target’

Statement prepared by Quod and Barton Willmore on behalf of Mayfield Market Towns Ltd (Respondent Number 23) Respondent: Mayfield Market Towns Ltd (Representor Number 23) Matter 2 Housing Target

Do the proposed modifications, notably PM072, which includes a revised housing target of 13,200 dwellings over the plan period reflect a strategy which accords with paragraph 14 of the Framework, in particular the local plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; and should meet objectively assessed needs unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

1.1 Proposed Modifications to the City Plan make provision for at least 13,200 homes within the Plan period (PM072), which equates to an average delivery of 660 dwellings per annum (dpa). Whilst this represents an increase to the housing provision previously identified in the Submission City Plan (11,300 dwellings, or 565 dpa), this falls well short of the objectively assessed need identified in the City Plan of between 900‐1,200 dpa (or 18,000 to 24,000 dwellings over the plan period).

1.2 Whilst the housing target in the City Plan represent a significant shortfall (which is acknowledged by the Council) as set out in our Matter 1 Statement (‘Objectively Assessed Need for Housing’) by applying the latest 2012‐based household projections, Brighton & Hove’s housing need increases to at least 1,302 dpa. As a result, the identified shortfall in the housing need of Brighton & Hove will be further exacerbated and will be at a level that cannot simply be ignored. A failure to provide sufficient housing will have significant adverse implications for the future growth of the sub‐region and the wider South East.

1.3 Despite this, the approach being undertaken by Brighton & Hove City Council through the Proposed Modifications is one that does not positively seek opportunities to meet housing needs and continues to fail to put a mechanism in place that seeks to address the well documented shortfall. As a result, there is a real risk that the Plan is unsound.

1.4 Plans currently being progressed by neighbouring authorities also fail to address the scale of unmet need of Brighton & Hove and other neighbouring authorities within the sub‐region. A summary of the approach currently being undertaken is set out below:

. Horsham ‐ Proposed Modifications to the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) (March 2015), published in light of the Inspector’s initial findings, seeks only to increase the housing provision within the HDPF from 650 dpa to 750 dpa. Notwithstanding the fact that we strongly believe that the objectively assessed housing need continues to be underestimated in Horsham, this increase in housing number is

1 identified by Horsham District Council to include an allowance for the unmet needs for the Coastal Housing Market Area (including Brighton & Hove) that equates to just 14 dpa. Clearly, such a level of housing will not address the scale of unmet need in Brighton & Hove, which is now identified to be at least 642 dpa. . Mid Sussex – the Pre‐Submission Draft of the Mid Sussex District Local Plan (March 2015) proposes the delivery of 650 dpa against an objectively assessed need identified by the Council of 627 dpa. Again, the housing need is considered to be underestimated, nevertheless this leaves just 23 dpa available to support the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities, such as Brighton & Hove. Mid Sussex is only proposing to accommodate a very small level (if any) of the unmet need within Brighton & Hove. . Lewes – Proposed Modifications to the Joint Core Strategy (January 2015) identifies a housing provision of 290 dpa over the Plan period (MOD31). This compares to the Council’s evidence base (as reflected in the Local Plan Submission) identifying a need to deliver 520 dpa. Consequently, Lewes District Council is unable to meet their own needs and therefore there is no prospect of meeting any of the unmet needs of Brighton & Hove. Furthermore, the significant shortfall in housing provision identified by Lewes District Council will also need to be addressed.

1.5 Given that neighbouring authorities are also failing to positively seek opportunities to meet housing needs, the plan‐by‐plan approach being adopted by each of the neighbouring authorities means that unmet need is simply being ignored. There will be a range of serious consequences if clear, large scale needs are not met. This includes the human and economic cost of failing to provide the scale of housing (including affordable housing) which is required.

1.6 The Council, under the requirements to positively consider all opportunities and through the Duty to Cooperate should be working collaboratively with neighbouring authorities in order to put a mechanism in place to demonstrate how the significant unmet needs will be addressed. The inability of Brighton & Hove to meet its own needs places even greater emphasis on satisfying the Duty to Cooperate requirements and cross border working. Despite this, there is no evidence of any joint working to consider how unmet needs can be met.

1.7 The failure of local authorities to put in place how homes and jobs will be delivered is being raised at a number of local plan examinations. As a recent example, the Inspector’s Report on

the Birmingham Development Plan was published as an Interim Report on 5 January 2015. Paragraph 74 of the Inspector’s Interim Report concluded as follows:

“…I do not regard it as practical for me to recommend that the BDP should include a policy listing other local authorities in the HMA and setting out what specific share of the Birmingham housing shortfall each is required to accommodate. On the other hand, I would not be justified in recommending the BDP for adoption without being satisfied that Birmingham’s full housing needs are capable of being met over the Plan period. The question is therefore whether or not adequate arrangements have been put in place, including through the duty to co‐operate, to enable this to happen.” (Our emphasis)

1.8 The conclusion of the Birmingham Inspector is equally applicable for Brighton & Hove and by applying this test it would mean that the City Plan is unsound. It is therefore imperative for Brighton & Hove City Council to fully consider how housing needs will be addressed.

1.9 Like other authorities in the sub‐region, Brighton & Hove City Council has assessed all potential opportunities to deliver more housing within its administrative boundary. This has included a re‐assessment of the urban fringe following the specific request of the Inspector, which has demonstrated that there are now no further opportunities to deliver more housing. Given that the housing needs of Brighton & Hove have increased further in light of the latest 2012‐based household projections the urgency to provide opportunities to deliver more housing is even more pressing.

1.10 Mayfield Market Towns Ltd (MMT) proposal for a 10,000 home (with 3,000 affordable homes) New Market Town straddling Horsham and Mid Sussex districts provides the only strategic opportunity that will address the significant needs within the market area. Importantly, the New Town is well placed to meet the housing needs being only 19 kilometres north of Brighton.

1.11 The opportunity and location of a New Market Town has long been recognised and is not a new concept. The New Market Town Centre Study (2010) jointly commissioned by the local authorities of Horsham, Mid Sussex and Crawley concluded that the development of a new market town in the Sayers Common area (as being proposed by MMT) is deliverable and that there are no overriding constraints identified that would prevent a new market town coming forward. Recent work undertaken by the consultant team employed by MMT further demonstrates that there are no constraints that could be considered out of the ordinary in

dealing with any development of the size of the New Market Town proposals. Likewise, the initial findings of the Horsham Inspector did not identify any adverse effects associated with the deliverability of a New Market Town.

1.12 Brighton & Hove City Council has also recognised the potential for a New Market Town and is on record as stating that it would be appropriate to consider with adjoining authorities long‐ term development options in their submission to the Horsham District Planning Framework at examination stage (October 2014). Furthermore, the initial findings of the Horsham Examination Inspector (December 2014) acknowledged the possibility of a new settlement might have to be considered, for instance to meet unmet needs from Brighton & Hove.

1.13 Despite this, there remains no detailed assessment by the local authorities of the potential for housing and development needs to be met through the New Market Town option.

1.14 The housing shortfall in the sub‐region is now even greater than in 2009, when the New Market Town Study was commissioned and Brighton & Hove has exhausted all avenues to find land for housing. Therefore, the option of a new settlement has to be fully considered. The continued failure of the City Plan to consider the New Market Town option and to address the significant issue of the unmet housing requirements in Brighton & Hove and the wider sub‐region means that the Council has not positively considered all opportunities or put any mechanism or commitment in place to meet its own unmet needs.

1.15 Positive planning and leaving ‘no stone unturned’ (the test been set by the Inspector) must involve meaningful working with neighbouring authorities as part of the Duty to Cooperate. In addition, one of the core land‐use planning principles set out in the NPPF (paragraph 17) is the requirement for positive planning with ‘every effort’ to meet growth requirements now. There is an opportunity and obligation to plan now to meet and deliver housing and employment potential. Despite this, Brighton & Hove City Council has failed to fully consider the potential for a new town as a strategic option to meet housing needs. This is surprisingly given their expressed interest in a New Market Town and the acknowledged (increasing) unmet need.

1.16 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is clear that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and for plan making this means that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed need, unless any adverse impacts of doing so can be demonstrated to significantly outweigh the benefits. In the absence of fully assessing the potential of a new market town to meet the objectively assessed need we find it difficult to understand how the Paragraph 14 test in the

NPPF has been met. No evidence has been presented by Brighton & Hove or any other authority in the sub‐region that demonstrates that any adverse impacts associated with meeting needs within a New Market Town would ‘significantly’ and ‘demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits.

1.17 Concern in the lack of strategy to address unmet need was recently recognised by the Inspector during the Examination of the Crawley Local Plan, which took place in March 2015. Crawley Borough Council also acknowledges that they cannot meet their own needs (the Proposed Modifications to the Submission Local Plan (March 2015) identifies that land supply allows for approximately 50% of its objectively assessed housing needs). Given the scale of this unmet need, during the Examination the Inspector suggested that a policy should be drafted committing a joint study to be undertaken with neighbouring authorities to assess the genuine potential for unmet needs to be addressed and delivered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. The position in Crawley is reflected in Brighton & Hove and elsewhere in the Sussex Coast authorities (such as Lewes).

1.18 In light of this, further consideration of a New Market Town is essential if the Council is to satisfy the requirements of national policy and the Duty to Cooperate. For example, a policy should be included that addresses the need for the Council to enter into joint planning initiatives with neighbouring authorities to assess and potentially deliver a New Market Town as a strategic development to meet, in part, the housing needs of the City. Without such policy it cannot be demonstrated that the Council have positively considered all opportunities. The scale of unmet need and the lack of mechanism in place by Brighton & Hove or any neighbouring authority in the sub‐region that sets out how this issue will be addressed means that the strategy set out be the Proposed Modifications to City Plan fails is unsound and fails address these significant issues.