Agenda item

1.

Question from Helen Wells, Chairman ofSave the Countryside to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith (asked by Alistair Cameron in her absence)

As the public has not had access to your consultants’ work on Joint Core Strategy housing figures, can you tell us whether, as NPPF clause 50 says, the current and future demographic trends were factored in? In other words, were the emerging local 2011 Census results given due importance, particularly in relation to average household sizes, and will the committee be reviewing the consultants’ work when the remaining local Census results become available in February?

Response from the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith

The consultant’s report was published alongside the O&S agenda and was available to the public at the same time as members of O&S committee.

The consultants identify the need to ensure that the  emerging census data and future relevant datasets are be taken into consideration in the JCS.

2.

Question from Alice Ross, a member of Save the Countryside to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith (asked by Alistair Cameron in her absence)

Can you confirm that the JCS Scenario A figure of 16 200 homes is contained within whatever total JCS housing figure your consultants have recommended and would it be sensible and desirable for these homes to form the first phase of JCS development as this would encourage continuing urban regeneration - and building of affordable homes where they are most needed - and allow a future assessment of whether or when urban sprawl into the Green Belt would become necessary?

Response from the Chair of O&S

The consultants were not asked to recommend a total housing figure – that is outside the scope of their report.

The JCS will include proposals for a phased release of sites that meet the needs of the local communities.

3.

Question from Kit Braunholtz to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith

Does the JCS O&S group take the view that we take, that the sensible figure for the required number of new houses that should be planned for at this time should be towards the bottom end of the forecast range, in a plan, monitor & review process taking into account that there is even greater uncertainty than usual about the likely economic future of this country (and of this region) in the coming twenty years? This uncertainty arises from the wide discrepancies between different forecasts by different forecasters, but many authoritative forecasters - including the Governor of the Bank of England - forecast a long period of continued depression or even recession.  Indeed , even  the "man in the street" must be very dubious about  the  optimistic forecasts from bodies such as the Local Enterprise Partnership, in view of what has happened  - or rather NOT happened - in the Japanese eonomy in the last twenty five years, and more  especially in view of what HAS happened more recently in Europe, notably in Greece, and in Eire and Spain following housing booms, not to mention the  rapidly increasing competition from Asian countries - especially China - in our export markets.  

Response from the Chair of O&S

The working group did not make any conclusions as to required numbers. It did however accept the consultants comments that the changing pattern of household formation and additional census data should be used to inform the assessment of housing requirements.

In a supplementary question Mr Braunholtz asked;  In the light of the extremely uncertain future that I described in my written question, do you really consider it “prudent” for the JCS to set a goal for new dwellings in the period 2011-2031 at the upper end of the possible outcomes of housing need, thus implying that the JCS Councils consider the danger of possible under provision of dwellings is far greater than the danger of irreparable damage to their environment arising from setting too high a target?  Do you not consider it would be possible to deal with housing underprovision, if indeed this turns out to become a likely outcome, by modifying the strategy at an appropriate time, and thus avoiding both dangers?  Do you not think this would be a “sound” policy which could be justified by statistical evidence together with common sense to a Planning Inspector?

Councillor Smith said he was in a difficult situation as Chair of O&S as he was not in a position to answer this question and he referred it to Councillor Tim Harman as chair of the working group. Councillor Harman said the task group would wait to see the outcome of further work on the JCS. The task group had been thorough in their work and he hoped that would reassure members of the public.

4.

Question from Kit Braunholtz to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith

Does the JCS O&S group take into account the fact that the requirement for a "five year land bank" in each authority will depend on the total forecast for the twenty year period, and therefore a higher forecast will result in a larger requirement for the five-year land bank?  Such an increased requirement would of course make it harder for local planning authorities to resist planning applications for development on sites which they might have preferred to remain undeveloped   (such as the former "White Land" in Leckhampton).        

Response from the Chair of O&S

The working group did not resolve anything in relation to this matter.

In a supplementary question Mr Braunholtz asked;  Are you aware that, whereas the graph shown in para 10.7 of the Cambridge report is alleged to show that 75% of the growth in number of households (2011-2031) is due to increase in population, the result of assuming a continued Average Household Size of 2.3 in the JCS area and a population increase of 44,000 as generally agreed would by itself require only 44000 / 2.3 = 19000 extra dwellings, far less than 75% of 28,500?

In response Councillor Smith said he wasn’t aware of that and thanked the questioner for bringing it to his attention.

5.

Question from Margaret White to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith

Does the JCS O&S group recommend - in view of the considerations above - that a cautious figure should be adopted in the first place for the number of extra houses to be planned for, and that this should be reviewed periodically (perhaps every five years) in view of what has actually happened?  Phasing of proposed strategic developments would be difficult if the 5 year supply could not be demonstrated without strategic sites on open countryside forcing us into a planning by appeal in the first part of the plan period.

Response from the Chair of O&S

The working group did not recommend anything in relation to this matter.

In a supplementary question, Ms White asked; Can I ask the Lib/Dem Council, whether in agreeing to the greater than 20% increase in housing growth in the JCS area, over the next 20 years, they believe they are adhering to the main points of the Lib/Dem Manifesto, against which they were elected, which states as major item no 1: To resist urban sprawl while securing new development, economic growth and jobs – and sufficient units of social housing for local people – targeted on ‘brownland’ sites within the existing urban area while continuing to protect significant urban green spaces.

The present proposal immediately endanger the green belt and green spaces, creating an immediate free for all from developers.

In response, Councillor Duncan Smith said that as a Conservative member he could not speak on behalf of the Lib Dems and said he would refer the question to the Leader and ask him to provide a written response to the questioner. 

6.

Question from Dr. Elizabeth Pimley to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith

Does the JCS O&S group recognise that the "historic " trend in AHS in England in the census record - a decrease of about 0.2 per decade - which applied during the period 1961 to 1991 - had already dropped to a decrease of only 0.1 for the 1991 - 2001 decade BEFORE the recession that started in about 2008?  And that therefore the flat-lining observed during the decade 2001 to 2011 of the AHS at 2.4 was not purely attributable to the recession but was at least partly due to changing patterns of household formation?                        

Response from the Chair of O&S

The working group was happy to support the conclusions of the consultants in relation of changing patterns of household formation and average household size.

7.

Question from Margaret White to the Chair of O&S, Councillor Duncan Smith

Does the JCS O&S group take into account that there is now a strong demand for the Government to encourage and help older people living alone to live together in shared accommodation?  This policy would, if implemented, lead to a reduction in under-occupation and therefore increasing availability for family housing using the existing housing stock (as well as helping to reduce loneliness in old age and reducing pressure on social services).

Response from the Chair of O&S

This was not discussed by the working group as changes to government policy were not within its remit.