Establishing ELMBRIDGE BORough's housing need and targets

---

The Alliance of Elmbridge Residents Groups has suggested that Elmbridge should use an alternative method of calculating our housing need, on the assumption that this will come up with a more favourable figure. 

National Policy and Planning Guidance points out that, when calculating housing need, the Standard Method (SM) is not mandatory. However the government also makes it very clear that an alternative approach can only be applied in exceptional circumstances.  This has been kept under constant review by the Council. Indeed many other authorities have sought to identify a case to use an alternative method but have failed either to do so – or, have failed at the EIP (Examination in Public). 

The only LPAs that have succeeded in proving exceptional circumstances are those in the National Parks, including New Forest National Park and Northumberland National Park Authorities. None of the National Parks is required to follow the SM figures as their boundaries cross several LPAs areas.   

It should be noted that both the SM and any alternative method used to calculate the assessed need are ‘unconstrained’ assessments of the number of homes needed in an area. To establish a housing requirement, Planning Guidance says: “Plan-making bodies should consider constraints when assessing the suitability, availability and achievability of sites and broad locations. For example, assessments should reflect the policies in footnote 6 of the NPPF, which sets out the areas where the Framework would provide strong reasons for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan areas (such as Green Belt and other protected areas”.  (paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 3-002-20190772). 

Only then can a required figure be achieved. Para 60 of the NPPF below sets out the government’s expectation that all authorities should use the SM: 

To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the Standard Method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.

The Alliance of Elmbridge Residents and Civic Groups (AERC) considers that Elmbridge can prove exceptional circumstances on several counts:

· 2014 based household growth statistics

· The affordability adjustment has no relationship to the Elmbridge housing market

· Statutory Duty to Cooperate with other boroughs has not been carried out robustly

· Development of settlements will be unsustainable

· Affordable housing need will not be met.

Taking each of these in turn:

2014 based household growth statistics

We agree that the 2014 ONS household growth statistics are out of date. The Council has clearly set out its objections in response to the Government’s consultations on the proposed changes to the methodology (August 2020) and in a number of communications with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and our local MP’s. These are available on the Council’s website and we know similar representations have been made by a number of other organisations, including Cobham Heritage. We have also made personal representations in meetings with our MPs, particularly Dominic Raab. These have fallen on deaf ears.

The Council has already looked into using an alternative method of calculating need.

As part of the Local Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) 2020, the Council specifically asked its appointed consultants to provide information so that the Council could consider whether an alternative approach could be justified. The consultants projected unconstrained need using both the 2014 and 2016 household projection figures even though the government clearly states (in planning guidance) that the 2014 based household figures have to be used in any calculation – ‘to provide stability for planning authorities and communities, and ensure that historic under delivery and declining affordability are reflected and to be consistent with the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes’. 

This resulted in 448 (2016 HH projections) and 558 (2014 HH projections). Both include a 20% uplift as a 20% uplift for market force was the recommendation of the Drake Park Appeal Inspector. It is very likely that this figure of 20% uplift would be challenged by developers as far too low given the levels of affordability and affordable housing need in the borough.

It should be noted that the Council is unaware of any authority that has deviated from the Standard Method that did not submit their plan under the ‘transitional arrangements’ (which ended on 24 January 2019) or is a National Park / Broad Authority or covered by the London Plan and had their plan found sound. 

The affordability adjustment has no relationship to the Elmbridge housing market

The AERC has highlighted several reasons as to why there is no relationship between Step 2 (the affordability uplift) in the Government’s Standard Method calculation and why this adds to the case for exceptional circumstances

Again, these are all concerns that the Council raised in its response to the proposals when first introduced (September 2017) and the more recent proposed amendments (August 2020). These correspondence are available to view on the EBC website.

The Government has not responded to our objections and has maintained its position in respect of this element in the calculation. Furthermore, Guidance states that the affordable housing adjustment is a requirement as household growth on its own is insufficient as an indicator of future housing need because household formation is constrained to the supply of available properties and people may want to live in an area in which they do not currently reside. 

Alternative method of calculation and market signals

The Government has made clear that alternative methods of calculating housing need must reflect current and future demographic trends and market signals. The application of an uplift to reflect market signals is intrinsically linked to affordability. As mentioned above, this was followed by the Drake Park (2016/2217) Appeal Inspector who considered that an addition of 20% was appropriate.  However the appellants’ advocate, was pushing for a 40% uplift. 

We are mindful that if the Council was to deviate from the Standard Method, we could end up with a figure that, unlike the Standard Method currently, might well not necessarily be capped as it is at the moment. (Step 3 of the Standard Method). 

As a result of the information given above, our strongly held view is that we are a long way from being able to prove the exceptional circumstances which would be necessary to convince an Inspector that the Council should be allowed in its Local Plan to deviate from the Standard Method.  If the Council were to pursue this approach, this would be at a significant risk to the soundness of the plan, would involve a huge diversion of resources and the delay in the timetable would put the whole Plan at risk of colliding with the implementation of the Planning White Paper proposals. 

Statutory Duty to Cooperate with other boroughs has not been carried out robustly

The AERC has commented on the development at Wisley, which is in Guildford Borough and which was included and allowed in GBC’s Local Plan. It should be pointed out that  Elmbridge Borough Council raised concerns from the outset about the proposed new village and the impact this would have on the Borough. 

Concerns included the use of the services and facilities at Cobham, the location of the development, the impact this would have on Elmbridge and the local infrastructure, the fact that it would be meeting the development needs of Elmbridge and not necessarily that of Guildford or their wider Housing Market Area (HMA). Unfortunately, these arguments were not accepted by either Guildford Borough or the Inspector and the site has been allocated with no ‘allowance’ for the development being attributed to meeting the housing needs of Elmbridge. 

In terms of the Duty to Cooperate, the Administration does not consider that the officers/the Council has failed in its Duty. The Council has worked tirelessly with other neighbouring authorities, exploring whether the housing needs of Elmbridge could be met by other LPAs. 

It continues to pursue the Duty as an option to meeting the housing needs of Elmbridge including, in January 2020, writing to all LPAs in the South East requesting a response as to whether they could assist in meeting our unmet need (the amount that could not be accommodated in the urban areas). No LPA responded stating that they could assist. On the contrary, the responses were fairly firm that if other LPAs were being required to look at their Green Belt boundaries to accommodate their own housing need, Elmbridge should do the same and why should other LPAs amend their boundaries further to assist us?

The Duty to co-operate is not a Duty to agree i.e. no LPA has to take our unmet need unless it is either agreed between authorities or there is a requirement of the Planning Inspector as part of the Examination process (which can work both ways of course).

Unfortunately, the Duty to Co-operate is not the solution to unmet need; something recognised by the Government and is now being considered as part of its planning reforms as set out in the White Paper: Planning for the Future (August 2020). 

Development of settlements will be unsustainable

As an Administration we agree that to build the number of homes required by the Standard Method would appear likely to potentially create huge problems and risks destroying the character of the borough, which would be contrary to the NPPF. However until we have seen the full evidence base and the formation of the development strategy for the borough we cannot prove that that is the case nor can we back up such an argument with evidence.

As already indicated, establishing the constraints to meeting the Standard Method figure/local housing needs of the borough, is the second step in terms of setting the housing target/requirement for the borough, regardless of whether the Council uses the Standard Methodology assessment or an alternative method of calculation of housing need as the base. The needs assessment is before constraints have been considered, so constraints, as such, can’t be considered in themselves as exceptional circumstances to justify using an alternative method.

The Administration therefore does not consider that the case put forward by the AERC has any chance of convincing an Inspector that the Council should be allowed in its Local Plan to deviate from the Standard Method. This would place the Council at significant risk of the plan being found unsound at the outset and before the Inspector has to consider the essential issues of Green Belt and urban intensification. 

Affordable housing need will not be met

It is recognised that there are considerable challenges to meeting the affordable housing needs of Elmbridge – this is nothing new. However we cannot agree with the argument that a higher housing target caused by adhering to the SM calculation is the cause, though we have long argued (and this is backed up with academic studies) and pushed at every opportunity the view that building more houses will not do anything to reduce demand or lower land prices. 

While we do not disagree that Elmbridge may need a bespoke solution to affordable housing, this borough, while of course unique in many ways, is not dissimilar in having this problem to our neighbouring boroughs around the M25, such as Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Spelthorne, Runnymede, Tandridge and others.  Further afield round the M25, the South Bucks and Chiltern joint Local Plan has been withdrawn on similar issues as those faced by Elmbridge and other Surrey LPAs.

The Joint RA-Lib Dem Administration appreciates the efforts being made to come up with a solution to the dilemma this Borough finds itself in, with a government wanting to focus development in this area apparently regardless of the consequences. However the Administration is convinced that pursuing an alternative method of calculating need, in the expectation, firstly, that it will come up with a suitably favourable figure and, secondly, that it will be found acceptable and in compliance with the present criteria and parameters set by the government, is unrealistic and it would put this Council and the Local Plan at far greater risk than having a local plan based on the Standard Methodology and being able to debate and argue the case with the Inspector at the Examination in Public.

Karen Randolph

Portfolio Holder, Planning Services

Elmbridge Borough Council

30 March 2021