REVEREND PAUL WILSON
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL COMPLIANCE MATTER
SPATIAL STRATEGY & STRATEGIC SITE ALLOCATION MATTERS
INFRASTRUCTURE (including TRAFFIC) & IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS
HOUSING NEEDS MATTER & INSPECTOR’S LETTER OF 18th DECEMBER 2014
ISSUE OF EXTRA DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO FORMAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION
REVEALING CONCLUDING SECTIONS IN THE NLP Canterbury District Housing Needs Review April 2015
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SOME EXTRA DOCUMENTS ADDED
CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION
JULY HEARINGS 2015
FURTHER WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
BY REVEREND PAUL WILSON EXTRA REPRESENTATION ON THE CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN – June 2015
INTRODUCTION Relying to a considerable extent on my previous representations on the LP, both of which the Inspector has confirmed he is considering.
All the additional comments below to be read together please as a piece, as they are intended to convey a general picture of an overall concern regarding the continued cavalier dismissal of the public disapproval of the Local Plan’s core development scenario & also regarding the infringement of natural justice, planning legislation, planning guidance.
The main thrust of the Local Plan has not been amended following the public consultations which began with the Core Strategy on 21st January 2010 & which ended with the LPPD on 18th July 2014. Repeated concerns regarding the need for an adequate Evidence Base before decision-making & for the protection of high quality agricultural land & the rejection of housing development in south Canterbury have simply been ignored throughout the whole process. Thus it remains a Plan with a predetermined development scenario imposed by a small group of chief officers & the former Council Leader on the community rather the community’s Plan reflecting its concerns, priorities & aspirations in keeping with the stress in NPPF & PAS Good Plan Making Guide. CCC has not appreciated that the genuine & clear concerns expressed via the Mori Ipsos Poll responses & via the various formal consultation responses must be taken on board if the Plan is to reflect & express the community’s hopes & aspirations. However, most of these responses have either been dismissed, under-reported, suppressed or at worst misrepresented.
LARGELY RELATING TO LEGAL COMPLIANCE MATTER The contravention of the Town & Country Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations 2012 & of the NPPF & NPPG & of aspects of the core principles of good LP preparation has become even more apparent as time has gone on. Post consultation assessment against background of PAS Good Plan Making Guide – produced September 2014 & endorsed by PINS – should have given CCC cause for concern & pause to think again when taken together with the many negative LP representations received. The lack of attention given to area profiling & viability testing of alternatives during plan production being, for example, 2 important areas of concern in the light of the PAS document .
Certain procedural irregularities or improprieties only came to full light following the last formal consultation. These shortcomings have ranged from the mishandling of the Advisory Inspector’s advice through to the failure to consult on key Evidence Base documents submitted subsequently & retrospectively to justify the development strategy in the LP.
Prior to & also just after the submission of the LP in November 2014, a number of concerned parties, sought in correspondence with CCC, PINS & DCLG to highlight legal & processing flaws regarding the CDLP.
From John Walker of Canterbury Society to Stephen Carnaby of PINS: in email of 20/11/14 I understand you are the person initially liaising with Canterbury City Council (CCC)in connection with their Local Plan which I understand is about to be submitted for Examination.
The Canterbury Society has made detailed representations at every stage of the Plan but these have been ignored or waived aside by CCC who have pressed on with their Plan regardless of some very serious flaws.
Please see email [excerpt immediately below here] I have today sent to Adrian Verrall at CCC which I hope is self-explanatory. It touches on only a few of the problems with the Plan but will give you an indication that there are serious issues that ought to be addressed before the plan can proceed to examination. Excerpt of John Walker’s email of 20/11/14 to AV: ‘[Reference to] Failure [reflecting] the Councils clear lack of proper and meaningful engagement with the local community on the Plan from the very start. The consultations have been meaningless in the sense that there has been "consultation" but no “participation". The Council have failed to recognise this important distinction and this has led to the Plan not representing the views of the local community. No "collective vision" as required by the NPPF has been attempted and the Council and its Local Plan Team has ignored local opinion and simply pressed ahead with their own proposals with almost total disregard for the views of the local community.
I myself pointed out the following in an email of 12/12/14 to Lee Armitage, Head of Plans at PINS: I would also wish to point out that the publication of all evidence base submission documents for public consultation is an integral & legally required element in the proper production & processing of a LP. The evidence base for the Canterbury District LP was incomplete at public consultation. It remains incomplete (e.g. the Economic Strategy is missing) & unapproved (e.g. the Transport Strategy & Open Space Strategy are still only in draft & unadopted form). This certainly contravenes regulations 17 (‘proposed submission documents’), 18, 19(1), 20(1), 22(1)(e) & 35(3b) of The Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and is in direct breach of the National Planning Practice Guidance:
‘The evidence needs to inform what is in the plan and shape its development, rather than being collected retrospectively’ (para.014).
‘The Plan must be published for representations by the LPA, together with other proposed submission documents, before it can be submitted to PINs for examination’ (para.020)’
Concern was also expressed by various parties about the rapid manner way PINS had handled the reception of the Plan & the failure of DCLG to intervene. However, clear assurances were given by both PINS & DCLG that the legal & processing issues raised would be rigorously addressed by the Inspector –
From Lee Armitage of PINS to Rev Paul Wilson: in email of 12/12/14 My administrative team has no legal role in making a judgment on the adequacy of the submitted plan. That is a matter solely for the appointed Inspector to determine under section 20. He will look at both the legal compliance and soundness of the plan. The matter of the adequacy of the pre submission plan preparation stages and compliance with the regulations relating to public engagement will be considered by the Inspector.
From Lee Armitage of PINS to Rev Paul Wilson: in email of 16/12/14 Without looking at the plan preparation process and evidence in some detail (and considering the views of others) it would be inappropriate to come to a pre- determination that there has been a failing in the process by a Council. That is exactly why the legislation requires an experienced professional to be appointed to carry out that objective assessment against the process requirements.
As I have explained , there is a clear process on submission to PINS which allows the Inspector to make the necessary assessment of legal compliance in plan preparation (including compliance with the quoted parts of the 2012 Regulations) that will determine whether the points you raise are valid or not.
I would make a plea that you please trust in the integrity of the Inspector to now, as required by the process, objectively look at all the evidence.
From Tom Bristow of DCLG to Herne & Broomfield Parish Council: in letter dated 03/11/15 Local Plans establish what development is appropriate and where …. In order to be found sound Local Plans must comply with relevant legal requirements, represent the most appropriate strategy compared against reasonable alternatives, and be consistent with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Framework is absolutely clear that it is the purpose of planning to enable sustainable development, not development at any cost
From Tom Bristow of DCLG to H&BPC: in letter dated 29/12/14 I note in particular your concerns about the pace at which Canterbury City Council are proceeding in their plan making and your view that their approach is not compliant with legal requirements, particularly Sustainability Appraisal, or consistent with national planning policy. Whilst I cannot comment on this view, it is the purpose of examination to test rigorously whether Local Plans have been prepared in compliance with legal duties and that they are consistent with national policy (including national policy requiring that planning acknowledge all the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land). The Representation Form issued for the LPPD consultation which conveyed the notion that 2nd stage reps had to be strictly on legal & soundness criteria dissuaded folk from making further representations as it all seemed so complicated! This combined with the public belief that earlier reps would in any case go to Inspector has spilled over into a frustration that was very evident at the Pre-Hearing Meeting. The Council’s failure in this area of consultation has resulted in the public disengagement & disenfranchisement which runs contrary to the spirit & principles of both the NPPF & the Good Plan Making Guide. Redress is necessary & only a pause in the process now can provide the time to allow CCC to reappraise the LP in the light of the overwhelming public disapproval of the housing target figure & of certain strategic housing sites & to allow the public to be properly consulted on the full evidence base (this has been the community’s very reasonable, yet unfulfilled, expectation since the Core Strategy consultation in 2010!). I’m truly shocked that over 50 documents have now been added to the Evidence Base that public were not aware of or party to at second stage consultation. The substance & findings of these reports need to be subject to formal consultation & where endorsed they need to inform the decision-making process that shapes Plan. They need to be embedded in the LP rather than added as retrospective evidence.
SPATIAL STRATEGY & STRATEGIC SITE ALLOCATION MATTERS In terms of site selection, & despite objections submitted during both consultation phases, CCC has continued to demonstrate a predisposition & inflexible predilection for a fixed development scenario & has continued to rely upon a reductionist & inadequate SA. There is even an appearance of that having been manipulated to justify the chosen development strategy with a consequent unfairness to the public & to other developers whose sites are still being rejected. There has been a continued resistance towards changing tack on the spatial strategy despite the coherent representations submitted. Alternatives to the use of higher quality greenfield sites have not been seriously explored nor the scope for urban intensification. There is no evidence of a comprehensive search for previously developed or derelict land or sites. A number of the omission sites constitute pdl & the advantages of developing these have not been properly or positively considered.
My suggestion of lower grade agricultural land at Yorkletts & Hersden has not been recorded in summary statements nor taken in any way seriously.
The undemocratic nature of the SELEP funding & facilitating of large greenfield developments & associated infrastructure has skewed the planning strategy & has unfairly overridden public concern – undermining requirement for the LP to the community’s Plan.
INFRASTRUCTURE (including TRAFFIC) & IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS Blatant failure to produce the Infrastructure Development Plan & other essential viability data until late in the day plus the credibility of some of the key developers being relied upon has been not been adequately established giving rise to serious uncertainty.
Questions are already been raised by developers regarding the viability of the approach to affordable housing.
The traffic modelling & the proposals to tackle congestion & air quality remain grossly inadequate.
HOUSING NEEDS MATTER & INSPECTOR’S LETTER OF 18th DECEMBER 2014 The stress on CCC failing to meet objectively assessed housing needs explains the starting point in the Inspector’s 18th December letter to CCC. However, it need not be the finishing point as there are constraints & limits to the housing development can be reasonably & wisely accommodated given the distinctive features of the District & the severe traffic congestion in Canterbury. This clearly comes across strongly in public reaction & representations.
A reasonable compromise would be accepting the reality of a substantial local need, especially for affordable housing, & advocating meeting it to the 650pa extent at max. but deleting South Canterbury & Strode Farm sites & channelling house building to other more suitable & less environmentally- damaging locations. Seeking pdl & intensification & then lower grade agricultural land. The Call for Sites has thrown up some less environmental damaging sites that should be investigated further rather than simply dismissed. A number of them represent a wiser use of land.
In face of the supposed government-imposed housing target premise we can cite other NPPF principles that allow the disbenefits of accommodating a non-sustainable level of housing to be taken into account. Respecting the public vision, preserving the heritage & setting of Canterbury & the landscape of the District, not exacerbating the already acute traffic problems & accepting infrastructural constraints are all legitimate points I would wish to underscore.
In Kent on Sunday last summer (17/8/14 edition), government minister Stephen Williams made it quite clear that the number of houses to be built in Canterbury is a matter for local people.
From correspondence from Brandon Lewis to Sir Roger Gale: in letter dated 13th January 2015 Local Councils are responsible for planning in their areas and our policy has set out that Local Plans should, as far as possible, represent a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of an area.’
To date CCC has not sought to forge this collective vision & agreed set of priorities reflecting the community’s wishes.
THE ISSUE OF EXTRA DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO FORMAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION It is likely that a large number of the respondents, especially to the first stage consultation on the POLP, would simply not be alert to or interested in the emergence of the additional documents, added post-June 2014, & possibly not aware of the significance of adding evidence retrospectively. In essence their dealing with the extra material has not been a realistic possibility. Moreover, those of us who are aware of this new material have simply not had enough time to deal with it adequately either. Very few would have had the time since the Pre-Hearing to study all the material. It’s really challenging trying to get one’s mind around much of it & especially as we prepare for the main aspects of the EIP. Hence the release of this documentation at a late stage in the plan process is prejudicial to the interests of the District community, especially in the absence of its proper integration into the plan preparation & development strategy decision making process & also in the absence of proper public consultation.
I would strongly contend that the planners, councillors & the public needed to see most of this further data during earlier stages of plan preparation. Relating the individual additional documents to earlier versions & previous reports & to the overall LP itself is quite a struggle at times even for well-informed observers.
In the lead-up to the Pre-Hearing it had been stressed that no additional material could be introduced by the public to the whole process. This would certainly have curtailed any desire to react to the appearance of additional materials & in any case the Council certainly has not given the public a further formal consultation period in which to react to additional material prior to the Plans consideration by an inspector in the context of an EIP.
The new material largely comes across as part of an exercise of retrospective justification of a predetermined development strategy pursued in the LP. Though some of the material reinforces fundamental weaknesses in the LP (e.g. in the area of implementation & viability where the purely aspirational nature of certain proposals still remains evident & where tangible evidence is still very thin). If known by the public & acknowledged by councillors during plan preparation at least some of the post-consultation reports added to the Evidence Base might have caused/ compelled the planners to see the need for a different approach(?).
If we are to comment on all the extra documents we need time & a further formal consultation period.
REVEALING CONCLUDING SECTIONS IN THE NLP Canterbury District Housing Needs Review April 2015 6.14 Whilst the above evidence on housing needs provides a first step, there will be other factors relevant when arriving at the housing requirement for which the Council seeks to plan. In this regard the NPPF, and the requirements particularly set out within paragraph 14, represent a two-step approach: to first identify full objectively assessed need; and then second consider any constraints or other policy factors which mean a higher or lower housing requirement would be justified. This report seeks to inform the first step only and therefore when arriving at a conclusion on the appropriate level of housing requirement, the Council will also need to consider:
1 The practical deliverability of any scale of growth and the extent to which the market will be able to achieve increased housing delivery — this is important as any Local Plan needs to be effective’ in order to be found sound;
2 The ‘carrying capacity’ of the District to accommodate development without significant adverse impacts, whether that relates to infrastructure capacity (e.g. transport, utilities, services etc.) or environmental capacity;
3 The spatial strategy and vision for the District and how this would be met at different scales of housing growth; and
4 Any assessment of reasonable alternative scales of housing delivery as undertaken through the Sustainability Appraisal.
6.15 Taken together, this will provide the evidential basis for CCC’S housing requirement as set out within the Local Plan.
This highlights the fact the evidential base is incomplete! Council has not adequately addressed those other aspects of soundness set out above. Plus I believe the Council has not referred to these provisos in presenting & harnessing this latest NLP study.
No apparent reference in this NLP report to the views of local residents which must be sufficiently factored in now, given that CCC & the Inspector have not only the Core Strategy consultation & Ipsos MORI Poll to go o, but very significantly the public representations on the LP. All these are overwhelmingly disapproving of high housing target figures & use of high quality agricultural land!
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SOME EXTRA DOCUMENTS ADDED: Time constraints have prevented a full study & analysis of the 50 or so documents added to the official Evidence Base [EB] since June 2014.
CDLP 1.14 Topic Paper Plan Vision & Strategy (November 2014) Para. 1.2 does not admit EB incomplete when LPPD went out to public consultation. Response to second bullet point: obviously the EB was not extensive enough! Para. 1.4 I believe it would be more truthful to say that Council desired to pursue a certain development scenario & sought evidence to back it up. No mention of the community’s vision as required by NPPF – just the Council & local stakeholders mentioned in 2.3. This was something respondents to the Core Strategy consultation expressed very real concern about in 2010 & yet this is still be perpetuated. 2.4 refers to a vision set out below but where is the community’s vision the NPPF requires? Ref. only to the Council’s vision in 4.4. & 4.7 & throughout the topic paper & no ref. to MORI Ipsos Poll! In 5.2 clear that the priority given rather to ‘the vision developed from the [Experian et al 2006] Futures Study’ which was reviewed & reinforced in 2011 & ‘built upon in the 2012 Dev, Requirements study by NLP’ 8.5 Not true to say better transport links exist in south of Canterbury – cut off from high speed rail! Nothing regarding previously developed land & lower quality agricultural land! 8.10 The claim of consistency with public opinion research can be severely questioned. 9.3 to 9.5 No mention of the overwhelming public disapproval of the POLP borne out by CDLP 3.8! By way of sharp contrast, the Corporate Plan for 2012-16 did indeed have community backing & ‘a considerable commonality of direction’ lost by the POLP & LPPD!
1.5 PAS Checklists (November 2014) Given fact that CCS were conveying via Representation Form that second stage representations needed to be on tightly defined grounds of legal compliance & soundness it would have been extremely helpful to the public to have seen these checklists! 3.5 CCC LP Submission Draft Consultation Statement (November 2014) Inadequate assessment of consultation responses: did not explain why legal compliance & soundness had been challenged in the representations!
3.6 Duty to Cooperate topic paper (November 2014) Public needed much more DTC information at the second consultation stage & notes of DTC meetings have still not been put into the public domain. Topic paper thin on actual details, e.g. re- negotiations with many consultees inc. Parish Councils. Back in December 2012 Advisory Inspector stressed DTC!
3.7 Catherine Hughes Summary of LPPD public reps (November 2014) Inadequate: something more akin to the detailed 3.8 report on the POLP consultation was needed! Such a detailed assessment was required for fully appraising councillors of public response prior to submission of LP to PINS! No mention of my point about pdl & lower grade land or alternatives I put forward at Yorkletts & Hersden. Lack of legal compliance not mentioned.
3.8 Catherine Hughes Analysis of POLP public reps (February 2014, BUT public not aware of its existence until on list of documents submitted by CCC to the Inspectorate with LP in late November 2014 & probably councillors unaware of this document too until then. Also, I believe it may not have been released earlier to the Local Plan Steering Group. A devastating critique of LP – highlighting public disapproval & such strong evidence NOT the community’s Plan! This critique & disapproval not taken seriously by CCC – just carried on regardless with very few changes. Yet chief officers & Council Leader giving no hint of this document’s findings & saying LP exemplary!
If Advisory Inspector’s advice (not released until 30/6/14) & 3.8 also available to public in run up to 2nd stage consultation things could’ve turned out differently! Greater public pressure would’ve been applied for one thing, the local Press might have highlighted the issues, councillors might have insisted on changes to the LP?
CDLP 8.6 Canterbury District Transport Strategy Revised Draft (November 2014) Still not taking traffic generation from proposed housing land allocations seriously & not addressing acute traffic congestion issues!
11.5 Further Economic Viability & Whole Plan Assessment 2014 Adams Integra We needed to see this much earlier & indeed it was cited in LPPD but NOT available when I asked AV for it. Nothing on the financial credibility of the developer partners. Nothing re-public disapproval & congestion problems – grids- lock undermines viability! CHECK! Viability of other options not examined.
11.6 Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (November 2014) We needed to see this much earlier! Question marks remain over financing & deliverability. Viability of other options & need for less infrastructure in connection with those not examined. Big issue of whether trumpeted relief roads will actually reduce congestion.
I would have wanted to comment further on findings of 11.5 Further Economic Viability & Whole Plan Assessment 2014 & 11.6 Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan too in this paper but insufficient time to do so.
If the public are to comment on all the extra documents a further formal consultation period is necessary. The EIP should be halted to permit this to happen in the interests of natural justice.