Technical Note Update – October 2014 1. Housing Targets for Sites Adjoining a Settlement within another Administrative (Parish and Local Planning Authority) Boundary. 2. Interpretation of CIL & S106 on Split sites 3. Interpretation of ‘Minimum’ Housing Targets

1. Policy CP10 of the adopted Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy sets out the overall spatial strategy for housing within East .

“Provision is made for a minimum increase of 10,060 dwellings in the period 2011 to 2028 by means of: …………….. 4. The allocation of sites at the most sustainable settlements to provide:  a minimum of 700 dwellings at Alton, Horndean and ;  a minimum of 200 dwellings at Clanfield;  a minimum of 175 dwellings at both and /South ;  a minimum of 150 dwellings at both Liss and Rowlands Castle;  a minimum of 150 dwellings at other villages outside the National Park;  a minimum of 100 dwellings at other villages in the National Park…….”.

2. Policy CP10 is clearly based on housing numbers aligning with settlements and their settlement policy boundaries. The Development Policy Panel workshops during 2013 from which the housing numbers were derived used the settlement hierarchy background document and all the discussions were around settlements rather than parishes. It is established planning policy practice to locate new sustainable development adjacent to existing settlement policy boundaries as these define the edge of the built up areas within which are the most sustainable locations.

3. Following the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) the District Council is now moving to site specific discussions and the issue of which sites would count towards which settlement’s housing target is increasingly important. There are a number of potential sites identified in the SHLAA that are within one parish but adjoin a settlement within a different parish. The parish administrative boundary was not a consideration in the settlement hierarchy or the evolution of the JCS and Policy CP10. Interpreting how the JCS was created the position would be that if a SHLAA site is adjacent to a CP10 settlement policy boundary then the housing numbers on that site apply to that settlement. The Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS) also relates a site’s appropriateness to its proximity to the settlement policy boundary.

5. The Settlement – Parish issue has continued to be questioned by developers and communities. Legal opinions have been sought to clarify whether housing development that comes forward adjoining one of the settlements identified in Policy CP10 but is either partly or wholly within a different Parish Administrative area to the CP10 settlement count towards the CP10 settlement target or to the parish.

6. The legal opinion is that ‘whether a particular site counts towards the housing requirement of area or another is a matter of judgement for EHDC and will depend upon all circumstances’. The opinion then goes on to confirm that ‘The extent to which a site will contribute towards meeting the housing requirement for a particular settlement to my mind is not a matter that could be dependent upon it falling within a particular Parish council boundary unless the Parish Council boundaries were used as the basis for deriving the housing requirement figures that are contained in the JCS…... settlements identified for further growth in the JCS were identified by reference to sustainability criteria and not by reference to parish council boundaries. In other words they were ascribed to particular settlements based upon a settlement hierarchy and other sustainability criteria…. the existence of the parish council boundary is not determinative of the matter because that was not the basis on which the housing requirement was identified or calculated’.

7. A site specific analysis that provides a consistent and robust technical judgement taking account of the site specific circumstances is set out in the tables in Appendices 1 -3.

8. Whilst the advice relative to parish boundaries is clear the issue relative to the National Park as a separate Local Planning Authority remains to be settled and further advice is being sought. A further technical note update will be produced once a joint position with the Park Authority is agreed.

Consequences for CIL and S106

9. In addition to the housing target split issue there is the consequential issue of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and S106 payments on parish split sites. There is national guidance on this issue at paragraph 77 of the National Planning Guidance on CIL which confirms that “Where development straddles the boundaries of Parish, Town or Community Councils’ administrative areas, each council receives a share of the levy which is proportionate to the gross internal area of the development within their administrative area’, therefore the parish boundary in terms of CIL is determinative. In terms of S106 contributions, these are only taken for infrastructure required to make a development acceptable. Therefore the funds provided via any S106 obligation would have to be spent on the infrastructure required to mitigate the impacts of a development in whichever parish that infrastructure is needed.

Interpretation of ‘Minimum’ housing targets

10. The reasoning around the use of the word ‘minimum’ in Policy CP10 is explored in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Inspectors Report into the JCS Examination. The legal view on the interpretation of this is that the Inspector identified the District’s need to be 10,370 new dwellings up to 2028. The target of 10,060 proposed in the JCS was ‘within a reasonable margin for error’ bearing in mind that ‘forecasting housing needs is not an exact science’. The Inspector therefore confirms that this was not a situation where he supports a minimum without end; rather he supported housing up to 10,370 units i.e. some 310 units above the 10,060 level in the plan. The legal view is that ‘any other interpretation of the JCS is highly likely to be rejected either on appeal or in the high court’.

Appendix 1 – Sites the are in two parishes

Site Parish Distance to which Commentary Settlement SPB target

Hazleton Horndean Whole site adjoins The part of the site Horndean Farm – and Horndean SPB. within RC parish large site Rowlands Part of site in would only be submitted Castle Rowlands Castle appropriate for as one site parish is minimum development as part by owner of 1200 metres of the larger site that HD020 from RC SPB adjoins the Horndean (see Map SPB. 2) South Medstead All adjoin or near to The two SPB areas Four Marks/ Medstead two SPB areas that that form South South Medstead sites – form the area of Medstead are distinct MED001, South Medstead from the village of 001-6 002- that adjoin the main Medstead and relate 2, 003-5, SPB of Four Marks spatially to the 004, 006, (separated by the facilities of Four 006, 007, Mid Hants rail line) Marks. Any sites 008, 017 The main adjoining the South (See Map Medstead village Medstead SPB would 1) SPB is 600 metres therefore relate to the from these sites target for Four Marks/South Medstead.

Appendix 2 - Where two settlements have coalesced and the parish boundaries cut through what is one single built up area. This is less clear cut and a technically consistent approach would be to recommend that it be based on the location of the nearest main facilities that residents are likely to use.

Site Parish Distance to which Commentary Settlement SPB target

White Dirt Horndean Adjoins the SPB The site adjoins a Clanfield Lane which is one large SPB which is one HD018 built up area that large continuous built (see Map3) includes the up area which is northern built up centred on the area of Horndean nearest facilities in the (North & South settlement of Road, Downwood Clanfield. The parish Way) and the boundary dissects the whole of Clanfield . SPB. This case is not wholly clear but it is suggested that the nearest settlement centre and facilities are at Clanfield and the nature of Horndean’s SPB being made up of at least 7 areas and that there is a perception that this northern area of the parish is Clanfield. Downhouse Horndean Adjoins large SPB Adjoins the SPB that Clanfield rd HD023 which is in both is in Horndean but is (see Map3) Horndean and physically related to Clanfield parishes the Clanfield area Drift rd Site Horndean Adjoins large SPB Adjoins the SPB part Clanfield CL007 and which is in both that is in Clanfield (see Map3) Clanfield Horndean and parish Clanfield parishes

Appendix 3 – Sites that Adjoin a Settlement Policy Boundary of an Adjacent Local Planning Authority

Table 3 Site Parish Distance to which Commentary Settlement SPB target

Prospect Rowlands Adjoins Rowlands This site adjoins the Rowlands lane RC Castle Castle outlier SPB BC boundary and Castle 001-4 (See and Havant SPB is 600 metres from the Map 2) main Rowlands Castle SPB. However there is a RC outlier SPB which the site adjoins. Housing numbers apply to the local planning authority in the first instance prior to any duty to cooperate agreements