ID: 406391 Written response by Swale Borough Council

Legal Compliance

Has the Council complied with the Duty to Co-operate?:

c)Is the Council justified in not meeting a request from Swale Borough Council to accommodate some of its housing needs that are not being met in its emerging local plan?

  1. Swale Borough Council (SBC) submitted its Local Plan for examination on 20 April 2015. A pre-examination meeting is to be held on 22 June 2015 and the examination scheduled for the first three weeks of September 2015.
  2. The submission Swale Borough Local Plan (SBLP) does not provide housing sufficient to meet its objectively assessed need (OAN). It has set a target of 540 dpa (10,800 dwellings 2010/11-2031). SBC consider that viability issues affecting the significant urban areas of the Borough at Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey areas prevent it from securing levels of housing completions (and associated levels of infrastructure) at anything close to the OAN range of 604-890 dpa[1] (recommended target 740 dpa – 14,800 dwellings). These conclusions are confirmed by long term past trends in completions over a range of economic cycles. They show a 740 dpa completion level only being reached six times in 34 years and only 11 in respect of a target of 604 dpa. As at 2013/14, the 5 year average of completions in Swale was 451 dpa, whilst the 10 year average was 558[2]. Since the start of the SBLP plan period (2010/11) to 2013/14, against the plan target there is now a shortfall of 707 dwellings. Had a 740 dpa target been adopted, this would have meant a shortfall of 1,109 in the 5 year supply and a revised annualised rate required of 1,010 dpa (5%) or 1,154 dpa (20%) for the 5 year period or, alternatively, 805 dpa for the remaining 17 years (excluding any 5 or 20% buffer).
  3. To address these issues, the Council explored alternative development scenarios via its sustainability appraisal that would steer development to more viable parts of the Borough (Faversham and rural areas). However, given the above analysis of housing performance since the start of the Local Plan period, a housing target within the OAN range is destined to fail with the attendant consequences bought about by paras. 47 and 49 of the NPPF. Such an alternative development strategy would:
  4. deflect from the strategy of regeneration of the Thames Gatewayand fail to capitalise on the substantial public investment in infrastructure which has been made in this area and confirmed by future programmes, e.g. the delivery of major improvement to M2/J5 by autumn 2024);
  5. lead to significant losses of BMV agricultural land in the A2 corridor; and
  6. tensions with the landscape and heritage setting of the market town of Faversham. Highways England has also indicated to SBC concerns as to the capacity of the J7 of the M2 with the A2/A299 should further growth be pursued at Faversham.
  7. As a result of the above, were the OAN to be included in the SBLP in the short term, SBC believes that it would not be achievable and deliverable and, ultimately fail to achieve sustainable development as required by the NPPF.
  8. Following SBC’s initial decision not to meet its OAN in February 2013, in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate, it wrote to adjacent Districts on the 20 August 2013 with a request that they consider whether Swale’s unmet need could be met by them. In terms of the relationship with the Canterbury area, from a housing market area perspective, the Swale housing market is relatively self-contained, although the 2009 EKSHMA showed some overlap in housing market areas between Canterbury area and the eastern end of Swale (comprising Faversham and rural area).
  9. Ashford and Medway were unable to assist Swale due to their early stages of preparation, but CCC provided a detailed response in its letter to SBC dated 30 September 2013. Whilst acknowledging the reasons given by CCC and not questioning the overall soundness of legal compliance of its plan, SBCmade a formal response to CCCs publication Local Plan on 17 July 2014 under the heading of Duty to Co-operate. Given the socio-economic links, the housing market area overlap and the constraints to development operating around Faversham itself, SBC requested that CCC could consider some joint working to further explore the housing market issues in theoverlap area so that both parties could continue to demonstrate their on-going constructive dialogue.
  10. Representations were made by CCC on 30 Jan 2015 to the December 2014 SBC publication Local Plan in December 2014. CCC questioned the sustainability of approach toward the under provision of housing in Swale and repeated its earlier position in respect of the request by SBC. However, CCC sought clarification from SBC as to whether it was still intending to pursue its request to CCC. To achieve this end and to outline the steps being taken by both parties, SBC proposed that a joint statement with CCC could be agreed, but this was not pursued.
  11. To reaffirm, SBC has not resolved to question the soundness or legal compliance of the Canterbury Local Plan. Critically, an important change since the original request to CCC is that the SBLP commits the Council to an early review with the intention of bringing its jobs and housing targets into longer term alignment. Furthermore and in response to CCC’s letter dated 30 January 2015, the SBLP confirms that its unmet need is from a relatively self-contained housing market and, given the short term nature of the unmet need and the review mechanism introduced, SBC no longer considers it critical to address any unmet need elsewhere as it will be addressed in due course within Swale’s own boundaries. The Borough Council has resolved that there is no longer, at this time, a need to co-operate with the City Council on this matter.

[1]Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update and Development Needs Assessment. Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners 2013 for SBC. ONS 2012-based SNPP for Swale indicates a revised OAN of 612-828 dpa.

[2]Kent County Council Housing Information Audit 2013/14.