APPENDIX 1 TO ECC CABINET MEMBER ACTION DATED 24 JUNE 2016, FP/511/05/16 ECC RESPONSE TO THE CASTLE POINT NEW LOCAL PLAN (PRE-SUBMISSION), MAY 2016 (the New Plan) 1. INTRODUCTION Essex County Council (ECC) supports the preparation of a new Local Plan for Castle Point Borough Council (CPBC) and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the New Plan (public consultation from 16 May 2016 – 30 June 2016). In preparing the New Plan, a high level Issues Consultation took place in 2012 followed by a detailed Draft New Plan Consultation (Draft Plan) in 2014. Since the 2014 Draft Plan, substantial changes have been made by CPBC. These changes raise significant concern and necessitate an ECC objection to the New Plan. In March 2014 ECC submitted a response to CPBC raising the following objections and concerns: a. Proposed level of housing growth - concerns and implications on how the potential shortfall could be accommodated elsewhere. b. Two site objections, on highway grounds at: i. Land at North West Thundersley (Policy H18) safeguarded for 1,200 homes. Transportation objections to the inappropriate access opportunities to the strategic (A127/A130); in addition to other viability issues. ii. Land East of Rayleigh Road (H10) for 450 homes. Transportation objections to the omission of a site requirement for a ‘spine road’. c. Five site concerns, on evidence and infrastructure requirements at: i. Land at Thorney Bay Caravan Park, Canvey Island (600 homes) (H5). ii. Land West of Benfleet (800 homes) (H14). iii. Land off Kiln Road, Thundersley (450 homes) (H4). iv. Land South of Eastwood Old Road, Eastwood (50 homes) (H12). v. Land East of Canvey Road (275 homes) (H16). The objection to land at North West Thundersley on highway grounds was further endorsed by ECC in a letter dated 30 October 2015 (see attached). In summary, the 2016 New Plan now proposes: a. A reduction in the housing target to 2,000 new homes (equating to a quarter of the OAN of 8,000); to be met from six housing site allocations with the capacity to provide 2,140 new homes; and a reduction in site allocations identified from 4,925 to 2,140, due to the removal of specific Green Belt allocations. b. Retention of safeguarded land at North West Thundersley proposal (former site H18) despite ECC objection in 2014 and 2015. c. The removal of seven housing allocations and their specific site requirements, such as access arrangements (including the ‘spine road’ associated with the Land East of Rayleigh Road – despite ECC objection in 2014). There are direct implications for ECC Services as a result of the proposal set out in the New Plan, most notably for Transportation and Education, concerning the provision of current and future services and improvements. The shortfall in housing growth in the borough may need to be met in other areas of south Essex leading to further costs and changes to infrastructure provision and could prejudice the adoption of the Local Plans in those areas. ECC would also lose its share of council tax and other funding based on numbers of new dwellings for the Castle Point Borough. The New Plan does not adequately provide for the stream of developer contributions from new development that is needed to fund new infrastructure. The ongoing absence of an adoptable Local Plan in Castle Point is likely to mean opportunistic planning applications in relation to land in that area, which ECC will need to negotiate contributions without the backing of a coherent Local Plan strategy. This could result in appeals being brought, which would have the effect of absorbing additional ECC (as well as CPBC) resource and expenditure. ECC, as a service provider and deliverer of enabling infrastructure would struggle to promote funding bids because of the lack of return on investment in what is a competitive funding environment. In addition, ECC may not be able to maintain, or grow, services to meet demand at such a low level of growth. ECC therefore seek the revision of the New Plan which would put Castle Point on a more sustainable path for the future. CPBC will need to satisfy itself that the New Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, is legally compliant and meets the tests of soundness. ECC would argue that CPBC has failed to meet these requirements. 2. DUTY TO CO-OPERATE The duty to cooperate (the Duty) was introduced by the Localism Act in November 2011. The Act inserted a new Section 33A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This placed a legal duty on all local authorities and public bodies (defined in regulations) to ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’ to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation relating to strategic cross boundary matters, and in particular with County Councils on strategic matters. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides detail on how strategic planning matters should be addressed in local plans (paragraphs 178-181). Local planning authorities are expected to work ‘collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local authority boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual local plans’ (paragraph 179). ‘Strategic priorities’ to which local planning authorities should have particular regard are set out in paragraph 156 of the NPPF. Specific guidance on how the Duty should be applied is included in the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). This makes it clear that the Duty requires a proactive, ongoing and focussed approach to strategic matters. Constructive cooperation must be an integral part of plan preparation and result in clear policy outcomes which can be demonstrated through the examination process. The PPG makes it clear that the Duty requires cooperation in two tier local planning authority areas and states ‘Close cooperation between district local planning authorities and county councils in two tier local planning authority areas will be critical to ensure that both tiers are effective when planning for strategic matters such as minerals, waste, transport and education.’ ECC object to the New Plan as proposed, for reasons of non-compliance with the Duty, for the following reasons: a. There has been no engagement with ECC, since CPBC’s decision on 23 March 2016, to reduce the housing provision by half. There is no supporting evidence to substantiate the change or to consider the wider implications on the New Plan in its entirety, which as proposed seeks to retain the previously identified infrastructure requirements. 2 b. There has been no consideration or engagement with ECC to review the implications of the proposed changes in housing provision on the New Plan in its entirety, including viability and deliverability and further costs and changes to the provision of infrastructure and services. The housing chapter has been significantly changed so that allocations over the New Plan period have been “halved” from 4,000 homes to circa 2,000 homes. No engagement has been undertaken with ECC since the decision to half the housing provision in March 2016. ECC has not been engaged with the process to review the implications of the changes in housing provision whilst retaining the previously identified infrastructure requirements. The wider implications of the shortfall in housing growth should it be met in other areas of south Essex will lead to further costs and changes to infrastructure provisions. c. The New Plan is not justified by new evidence to support the reduction in housing provision and consistency with the remainder of the Plan’s requirements and proposals. d. There is no supporting evidence that the Duty has been undertaken to consider where and how the 6,000 new homes comprising the “unmet need for housing” within CPBC will be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities within the South Essex Strategic Market Housing Area, or as part of the wider South Essex duty to co-operate framework. e. There is little to no evidence of a structured (and transparent) approach for the de-selection of sites previously identified and consulted on. f. ECC maintains its objection to the retention of the allocation of the land at North West Thundersley (site H11) as Highway Authority and wider concerns regarding deliverability. ECC’s objections have not been addressed and the site as proposed is contrary to CPBC’s own evidence (SA/SEA) and viability assessments. It is not evident how these significant issues have been addressed or how the sites could be delivered and brought forward for both the 400 homes and the long term Area of Search for 800 homes. The proposal has little regard for viability or deliverability and how the proposal fits with the Local Plan’s overall strategy. g. ECC acknowledge the reference to the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 (MLP) (para 3.35) however, ECC objects to the non-compliance with Policy S8 (re Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas). There has been no engagement on the requirements of the MLP to incorporate the requirements of Policy S8 within the site selection process. h. ECC object to the omission of up to date technical evidence including a fundamental review of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, as now proposed, to demonstrate it is sound in respect of strategy, deliverability, viability and supporting evidence. The CPBC has therefore failed in its Duty requirements with ECC under Section 110 of the Localism Act. 3. LEGAL COMPLIANCE The New Plan is not legally compliant as it is; a. not supported by an adequate Sustainability Appraisal (SA) justifying the change in housing allocation; b. it is not consistent with national policy; and 3 c. issues which have a significant impact across administrative boundaries and across the county of Essex have not been adequately addressed in line with the Duty.