Home Builders Federation Respondent No. 335115 Matter 1

GREATER (Broxtowe BC, BC and ) ALIGNED CORE STRATEGIES EXAMINATION

Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions in bold text.

Matter 1: The Duty to Co-operate and other Legal Requirements The main issues are (i) whether the duty to co-operate has been met, and (ii) whether the legal requirements have been complied with.

Duty to Co-operate Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by s110 of the Localism Act 2011, imposes the duty to co- operate in relation to the planning of sustainable development. Neighbouring local planning authorities, County Councils and bodies prescribed in the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012, must engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in the preparation of development plan documents. Section s20(7B) of the 2004 Act establishes that the duty to co-operate is incapable of modification at examination. Where the duty to co-operate has not been complied with, the Inspector has no choice but to recommend non adoption of a local plan. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) describes what is expected for plan-making in paragraphs 178- 181.

1. Have the Councils met the duty to co-operate in the preparation of the Aligned Core Strategies plan (ACS), having regard for the Statement of Compliance, CD/REG/04? In particular, has constructive, active and on- going engagement taken place with Ashfield and District Councils?

Section 33(A) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 provides for a duty on Local Planning Authorities (LPA) to co-operate with each other and other prescribed bodies. This co-operation includes constructive and active engagement as part of an on-going process to maximise effective working on the preparation of development plan documents (DPD) in relation to strategic matters including sustainable development that would have significant wider impacts. At examination of DPDs LPAs will have to provide evidence that they have fully complied with this duty if their plans are not to be rejected by an examiner.

The Duty to Co-operate is reinforced by Paragraphs 17, 157 and 178 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whereby neighbouring authorities should work jointly together and co-operate to address planning issues which cross administrative boundaries and on matters that are larger than local issues. Moreover in accordance with Paragraph 181 of the NPPF, LPAs are expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively co-operated to plan for issues with cross boundary impacts when their Local Plans are

Page 1 submitted for examination. This co-operation should be continuous from engagement on initial thinking through to implementation.

Whilst the Localism Act nor the NPPF do not define co-operation, the Planning Inspector, Andrew Mead, in finding that the Duty to Co-operate on the North London Waste Management Plan had not been satisfied by the respective London Borough Councils involved, referred to the dictionary definition meaning “ to work together, to concur in producing an effect”. The Inspector also noted that the NPPF refers to co-operation rather than consultation, therefore “ it is reasonable to assume that engagement as part of co-operation is more than a process of consultation” (Paragraphs 22-25 Appendix 1 North London Waste Plan Inspectors Report March 2013).

The HBF commends the three LPAs of Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe and Gedling District Council’s for working together to produce Aligned Core Strategies (ACS). However the ACS authorities adjoin five other neighbouring authorities namely Erewash Borough Council, Borough Council, Newark & Sherwood District Council, Council and District Council with whom the ACS authorities must also demonstrate on-going and collaborative working relationships with under the Duty to Co- operate.

The ACS authorities are also located at the junction of more than one Housing Market Area (HMA) as defined by the former East Regional Plan (EMRP). The three ACS authorities together with Erewash Borough Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council and part () of Ashfield District Council form the Greater Nottingham HMA. Amber Valley is part of the HMA whilst Ashfield District Council and Newark & Sherwood District Council are constituent parts of the outer HMA. Just as LPA administrative areas are not self-contained entities with border controls neither are HMAs. Since the Greater Nottingham, outer Nottingham and Derby HMAs are adjoined, there are close inter-relationships and cross boundary housing growth issues between the three HMAs. Any possible under-provision of housing in the Greater Nottingham area particularly if assessed against implied national trend-based population and household projections could have potential implications for housing provision in the other HMAs and vice versa. County Council and Ashfield Borough Council have raised such concerns.

The “ How Many Homes?/What Homes Where?” toolkit identifies strong migratory in and out flow patterns between the three ACS authorities themselves and neighbouring authorities of Rushcliffe, Ashfield and Newark & Sherwood.

This web based toolkit launched by Lord Taylor in the House of Lords has been developed as a resource to provide independent and publicly available data on the household and population projections for every LPA in . The aim of the resource is to assist LPAs in understanding the drivers of housing need. The use of this toolkit in determining objectively assessed housing need has been endorsed by Inspectors at examinations into the West ’s Joint Core Strategy and the Gravesham Local Plan Core

Page 2

Strategy. It is also recommended in the Local Government Association Planning Advisory Service document “ Ten Key Principles For Owning Your Housing Number – Finding Your Objectively Assessed Needs” document published in July 2013.

The NPPF expects LPAs to take account of migration (Paragraph 159). As explained in the Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research (CCHPR) document “ Choice of Assumptions in Forecasting Housing Requirements Methodological Notes ” published in March 2013 “t he NPPF makes it clear that account is to be taken of migration. This suggests that it is not open to an authority simply to make whatever assumptions it chooses on flows to and from the rest of the UK and assumptions that imply a departure from recent trends (on which the official projections are based) would need to be carefully justified. The Duty to Co-operate is relevant here as any decision not to plan for a continuation of the flows that have taken place in the past would have an impact on the areas from which people move to the planning authority in question. There could be impacts on the areas that receive people from the authority. Some local authorities may wish to argue that to accommodate the projected net flows would have adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of providing additional homes – a justification for not planning to meet the objectively assessed needs of an area that is specifically referred to in the NPPF. However, we suggest that in such cases, unless clear evidence can be provided that those not being planned for will be adequately accommodated elsewhere, then the adverse impact of providing housing should be weighed against the adverse impact on those who may as a result have to live in overcrowded or shared accommodation or be prevented from forming a household at all. There may also be broader impacts on other authorities, increasing the housing pressures they face .”

Paragraph 159 of the NPPF recognises that if migration projections were ignored the result is likely to be a significant under provision of housing which is contrary to the Government’s stated intention “ to significantly boost the supply of housing ” (NPPF Paragraph 47). An intention reinforced in the Ministerial Statement “ Housing and Growth ” by CLG Secretary Eric Pickles on 6th September 2012 and more recently by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning Nick Boles MP in his speech “Housing the Next Generation ” on 10 th January 2013. Therefore it follows that any LPA departing from the Government’s projected migration flows would need to justify its reasons for doing so including an explanation of where the households affected are going to live as agreed with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate. If a LPA cannot show where those migrants it does not plan to provide a home for will live, the likelihood is that at the end of the housing chain there will be people forced to share, who are living as concealed households and prevented from forming their own households.

The Housing Background Paper June 2012 Paragraph 4.13 states that for the “ACS period (2011 to 2028) the projected household increase for the HMA in the CLG projections is 65,700. As with all of the official projections, these are based upon a continuation of the migration trends seen in the recent past ”. However the ACS Councils are planning on a net balanced / zero migration assumption with households not accommodated within the ACS going to an

Page 3 unspecified somewhere else. Over the plan period 2011-2028 a housing requirement of 48,950 dwellings across the HMA is identified of which 30,550 are in the ACS area. These 30,550 dwellings are distributed between the three authorities as 6,150 dwellings in Broxtowe, 7,250 dwellings in Gedling and 17,150 dwellings in Nottingham. The remaining dwellings are split between Erewash (6,250 dwellings) and Rushcliffe (13,150 dwellings) as shown in Table 7 of the ACS Councils Housing Background Paper Addendum dated May 2013. Paragraph 3.2.6 of the ACS states that it “meets the needs of the existing population, whilst allowing for continued in-migration to the area, albeit at a lower level than that experienced in the past ”. However the result is a significant under provision of housing.

The CCHPR publication sets out that “the NPPF requires that local plans provide for objectively assessed demand unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. If a local authority cannot show where those internal migrants it does not plan to provide homes for will live, the likelihood is that at the end of the housing chain there will be those who would be forced to share, live as concealed households or be prevented from forming a household. The benefits of providing housing for such people ought to be taken into account when weighing the adverse impacts of providing the amount of housing the objective assessment has indicated ” and whilst “ the adverse impacts of providing additional housing for net migration in a particular authority may include extra pressure on services, traffic congestion, and the need to build on green field land or even in the Green Belt. The logic of the NPPF suggests that such dis-benefits should be balanced against enabling those who share homes, are concealed households or simply have not been able to form a household to have a home of their own” .

The CLG projection of household growth of 65,700 across the HMA was dismissed by the ACS Councils because it was not considered possible to build this number of houses over the plan period. There was also concern over a significant increase in green-field development necessitating further consultation and delaying the progress of the ACS. Unfortunately none of these arguments are legitimate considerations in an objective assessment of housing needs.

Although the housing requirement in the ACS reflects the former EMRP housing requirement figure, the EMRP was revoked on 12 th April 2013 and it is no longer a material consideration in plan-making. The evidence base under pinning housing provision targets in the EMRP were based on 2004- based SNHP and 2006-based SNPP evidence, which is now somewhat dated. Since then new sets of population and household projections have been published. The NPPF requires LPAs to assess future needs of HMAs on the basis of up to date national trend based population and household projections as a starting point for consideration. The proposed 30,550 dwellings is significantly less than the housing requirement implied by the 2008-based projections for the three authorities individually or in total. As stated in the preceding paragraph the overall approach is based on deliverability and infrastructure constraints.

Page 4

Moreover the former EMRP only remains valid if all LPAs within the region continue to abide by the revoked EMRP in terms of overall housing numbers and spatial strategy. Since the revocation of EMRP, there has been a significant drop in the collective level of housing provision envisaged by LPAs across the region. The overall proposed housing provision is estimated to have fallen by -6%. The revoked EMRP is beginning to unravel as evidenced by the overall decline in housing provision in adopted and emerging plans across the region combined with the number of examinations suspended and plans withdrawn including Melton District Council, Rushcliffe District Council and Joint Core Strategy. So it is not business as usual post revocation of EMRP.

The difference between the official long term trend projection of 65,700 dwellings and the net balanced / zero migration model of 48,950 dwellings is 16,750 dwellings across the Greater Nottingham HMA. An analysis of the ACS neighbouring authorities adopted and emerging plans shows that none of these Councils are planning to accommodate any unmet housing needs from outside their own areas.

The Newark & Sherwood Core Strategy was adopted in March 2011. Spatial Policy 2 proposes 14,800 dwellings between 2006-2026 in accordance with the former EMRP housing requirement figure.

At the moment, Ashfield District Council is consulting on its Pre Submission Local Plan (ending on 30 th September 2013). Policy HG1 proposes 7,640 new dwellings between 2010-2024, which is approximately aligned with its former EMRP housing requirement figure and more recent household projection calculations.

Policy SS1: Housing Land Requirements & Distribution of the Amber Valley Draft Core Strategy proposes a minimum of 9,400 dwellings primarily distributed around its four market towns. Appendix A – “ The Proposed Scale and Location of Housing Growth in the Derby Housing Market Area ” of the Draft CS provides an outline of the assumptions used whereby household formation (headship rates) and migration are adjusted, which is questionable. The resultant effect is to reduce the unadjusted figure from 47,900 dwellings to 35,354 dwellings over the period 2008-2028 for the Derby HMA. When the “What Homes Where?” toolkit household growth figures are convert into dwellings using the NHPAU demographic method, a housing requirement of 11,708 dwellings is generated without the addition of any constrained demand nor any unmet need from Derby, illustrating a housing requirement figure above the 9,400 dwellings proposed in the Draft Amber Valley CS.

The Erewash Core Strategy examination concluded in May 2013. The consultation on proposed modifications ended on 29 th July 2013. The modifications includes MM6 on housing numbers, which states “ the minimum housing provision between 2011 and 2028 for Erewash is 6,250 new homes and is the Borough’s objectively assessed need”. There is also an acknowledgement of a lack of a 5 year land supply under Modification MM5. This lack of a 5 year housing land supply could impact upon the neighbouring

Page 5

ACS authorities if Erewash Borough Council is unable to provide sufficient housing land to meet its own needs as set out in MM6.

So in the case of the Greater Nottingham HMA, the authority at the end of the housing chain is Rushcliffe. Until summer 2011 Rushcliffe Borough Council was part of the ACS. However Rushcliffe Council disagreed with the other authorities over the quantum of housing development, the distribution of housing across the HMA and the calculation on rolling forward projected housing numbers between 2026-2028. Rushcliffe Council’s main dissent concerned the distribution of housing across the HMA objecting to the majority of Nottingham’s unmet needs going to Rushcliffe. So from summer 2011 Rushcliffe pursued a new unilateral approach reducing its housing requirement to 9,600 dwellings, which resulted in a significant shortfall in the supply of housing across the HMA measured against the net balanced / zero migration model and a failure of compliance under the Duty to Co-operate. Since suspension of its CS EIP Hearings Rushcliffe has agreed to consult on additional housing provision to increase its housing numbers up to 13,150 dwellings. Whilst Rushcliffe Council has recently carried out a public consultation exercise on the addition of 3,550 dwellings at strategic sites within the Borough, at this time there is no guarantee that these dwellings will be accommodated in Rushcliffe. Derbyshire County Council and Ashfield Borough Council have raised such concerns. Moreover even if Rushcliffe delivers 13,150 new homes, the overall housing requirement achieved for the HMA is only 48,950 dwellings based on the net balanced / zero migration model. There is no contingency for the unmet housing needs of 16,750 dwellings representing the difference between 65,700 dwellings and 48,950 dwellings if the actual objectively assessed housing need is as indicated by the CLG’s long term trend projections.

If Rushcliffe fails to deliver the necessary homes, there will be an unmet housing need resulting in more shared homes and concealed households. Derbyshire County Council has raised concerns on the overall provision of housing and the consequences for the Derby HMA if Rushcliffe doesn’t comply. Similarly Ashfield Borough Council has raised concerns over Rushcliffe’s actions and the potential impact upon Ashfield if Rushcliffe fails to provide adequate housing.

Ashfield Council has also raised concerns about the proposed allocation of strategic housing sites in Gedling Borough Council’s area adjacent to Hucknall claiming that discussion on the location of these sites has not happened and expressing worries over the impact of these proposals on infrastructure within Ashfield District. Likewise Newark & Sherwood Council has objected to the distribution of housing development across the Greater Nottingham HMA in particular the key settlement at .

There also remains a disagreement between the ACS authorities and Rushcliffe on the plan period end dates. The Rushcliffe CS end date is 2026 whilst the ACS end date is 2028. Rushcliffe Council objected to the methodology of rolling forward by two years the annualised housing requirement.

Page 6

The Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Co-operate (CD/REG/04) provides insufficient evidence to discharge the legal obligations imposed by the Duty to Co-operate.

In conclusion, the three ACS Councils have not fully discharged their responsibilities under the Duty to Co-operate. There remain many unresolved issues on overall housing numbers, unmet housing needs and cross boundary migration patterns between the ACS authorities and their neighbouring authorities as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Although it may be argued these are matters of soundness compliance with the Duty to Co- operate by working together in a collaborative manner on an on-going basis from initial thinking to implementation would have identified if not resolved these issues. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Duty to Co-operate in itself does not infer a requirement to agree it is hoped agreement may result from working together. If Rushcliffe Council fails to take the additional dwellings there will be an unmet need across the Greater Nottingham HMA measured against the 48,950 net balanced / zero migration housing requirement figure. The unmet need is even higher measured against the CLG’s long term trend household growth figure of 65,700. The ACS is too inflexible to respond to rapid changes in circumstances as required by Paragraph 14 of the NPPF if the assumptions used to establish the objectively assessed needs (re-scaling headship rates, net balanced / zero migration, economic rates of older people and housing delivery) are incorrect. These assumptions are discussed in greater detail under Matter 2. Therefore the Duty to Co-operate has not been satisfied in the preparation of the ACS and the ACS does not adequately take into account housing requirements across the HMA.

Susan E Green MRTPI Planning Manager – Local Plans

Word count excluding text in bold : 2,998

Page 7