Proposed Main Modifications

Comments on MM410 - Acrimony in the Luton HMA

NPPF (2012 & 2018) Paragraph 158 - Using a Proportionate Evidence Base - Which Must be "Up-to-Date" and Relevant

NPPF 158 - Evidence Must Be Up-to-date and Relevant

Preparing a SHMA & Why ONS Latest Figures Are the Best Fit for NPPF 159 Requirements

Chronological Order renders the 2016-based Statistics as "Up-to-Date" and the 2014-based Statistics as "Out-of-Date"

Why the Standard Method of the 2014-based ONS Projections CANNOT be used in this Particular Local Plan

NPPF (2012 & 2018) 35 Not Met Because the Plan and ED159 has Failed to Provide a Clear Justified Method for Reaching its Objectively Assessed Needs Figure

Unjustified uplifts of Stevenage HMA Data in Attempt to Offset and Cancel Out the Unwanted OAN Reductions Caused by the 2016-based Figures

Need for Another Examination Hearing as this OAN Material was Newly Added in After Previous Hearing Sessions ended. Also Hearings Prior Reached no Clarity or Consensus on the Original Material Either

MM 410 224 Paragraph 14.39 We are actively working with the other authorities in the HMA - Luton, Central Bedfordshire and Aylesbury Vale - to understand the extent to which the market area as a whole will be able to accommodate development needsDELETED:159. INSERTED: The authorities in the Luton HMA jointly commissioned and subsequently agreed a Growth Options Study159. This demonstrates sufficient potential capacity within the Luton HMA to accommodate Luton's unmet housing needs. The outcomes of this study will be tested through the individual examinations of the partner authorities' plans. If there proves to be insufficient capacity within the Luton HMA, it will be necessary to look further afield for potential solutions. This would be likely to involve a number of authorities.
159 Luton Housing Market Area Growth Study (Land Use Consultants, DELETED: forthcoming INSERTED:2017) For INSERTED:effectiveness

Comments on MM410 - Acrimony in the Luton HMA
Regarding looking further afield for potential solutions beyond the Luton HMA, to accommodate Luton's unmet housing needs - it is worth drawing attention to the complete Failure to Cooperate between Central Bedfordshire Council and Luton Borough Council thus far.
East of Luton should not become the automatic "default" option due to those failings elsewhere.
"The authorities in the Luton HMA jointly commissioned and subsequently agreed a Growth Options Study159" doesn't acknowledge the presence of the LUTON AIPORT EXPANSION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE- so the authors of the Plan and the Inspector are all basing a judgment of "demonstrated sufficient capacity within the Luton HMA" for East of Luton at least, upon a poorly researched basis and an un-acknowledgement of there being any NSIP activity.
Even though there is a large site west of Luton/ in Central Bedfordshire which is superior to the one east of Luton, it is being stubbornly ignored because of the problems in communication between CBC and LBC. Yet this refusal by CBC to talk with LBC does not constitute the "special circumstances" necessary to claim that Green Belt must be released to the east of Luton. Especially since west of Luton does not have an Airport Terminal and Airport Expansion partially already underway, in the field next door to the proposed site. The west of Luton site already has great connection to the M1. The west Luton/Central Beds option is also not Green Belt and therefore must be the sixth Strategic Site, if there is to be one at all - not the east of Luton which has enough problems already.
Land has been realised over on the west of Luton in Central Beds for 3,500 houses, but Central Bedfordshire has refused to discuss and communicate with Luton about this. This was conveyed personally to Carolyn Cottier by Luton Council's Housing Portfolio Holder, Cllr Tom Shaw during the Executive Committee Meeting on Housing Strategy in October 2018.
Cllr Tom Shaw said he would not be reducing the number of required housing in the LBC Housing Strategy, at that time because Central Bedfordshire wasn't talking to them. However it may be something they would look at in the next review of the Luton Local Plan.
The relationship between CBC and LBC has been infamously acrimonious since LBC took CBC to Court over refusal to cooperate and CBC lost their case several years ago.

**********************

NPPF (2012 & 2018) Paragraph 158 - Using a Proportionate Evidence Base - Which Must be "Up-to-Date" and Relevant

The housing requirement statistics underpinning the NHDC Local Plan are derived from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2014-based UK household projections which was issued in 2016, (hereinafter called the 2014-based projections).

More recently in late 2018 the ONS issued what we will call the 2016-based projections, which were revised housing projection figures for the UK showing that less housing will be needed across the entire country.

Paragraph 158 in both versions of the NPPF states the standard expected of evidence provided in support of housing assessments.

Firstly evidence must be provided. In other words not giving any solid proof is not an option.

Then secondly the expected standard of such evidence, is that it must be adequate, up-to-date and relevant.

NPPF 2012 & 2018:

158. Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals.

NPPF 158 - Evidence Must Be Up-to-date and Relevant
This is very significant indeed, especially when you think in terms of there being such severe impact upon the Green Belt surrounding North Herts with the higher estimated figures. Is it therefore justifiable to ignore the NPPF and refuse to use the proportionate evidence which is up-to-date and relevant just because it leads to lower figures?

What can be more relevant than that which is already occurring most recently?

Paragraph 158 really stresses the rule that planners should be using a proportionate evidence base - which must be up-to-date and relevant.

So since we are told this, this is what we must do.

Preparing a SHMA & Why ONS Latest Figures Are the Best Fit for NPPF 159 Requirements

The ONS latest figures cater for all three requirements as stated by NPPF 159, for preparing a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA):

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Plan-making | should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:-
1. meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;
2. addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); and
3. caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand;
NPPF (2012) 159
Housing
159. Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. They should:
- prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:
-- meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;

The ONS projections for household formation IS the measure of the projected demand.

NHDC cannot use the 2014-based figures for AT LEAST 87 per cent of its claimed needs. IT HAS TO use the later 2016-based figures.
Doing so translates to 4,000 less houses for the NHDC need and completely removes Luton's unmet need.
This reduction of course is not agreeable to North Hertfordshire District Council since it translates to 6,000(houses less) x £20,000 (new homes bonus) = £120,000,000 (less money for them).
North Hertfordshire District Council would have to lose its one hundred and twenty million pounds New Homes Bonus bonanza. It is very attached to it.
Even if the price holds a dubious legacy of some unstable statistics and hundreds of thousands of hectares of conservational devastation; loss of space, loss of openness and the like.
The irreplaceable Green Belt is a treasure worth much more than £120,000,000. It is a priceless treasure.
More people derive immeasurable benefit from the Green Belt's protection than the few Council members who would benefit from grasping so much cash based on its removal. It is the only buffer against the urban infringement and encroachment from the Airport Expansion and the loss of hundreds of hectares of green park space.

TEXT REMOVED

*************************

Chronological Order renders the 2016-based Statistics as "Up-to-Date" and the 2014-based Statistics as "Out-of-Date"

Regardless of debate, the PPG is the 'starting point' for the official household projections.

The PPG also says authorities should base their calculations on the "most recent projections".
The more up-to-date 2016-based ONS figures must be used.
If you need further convincing, chronological order is logically thus:
2016 is 3 years ago.
2014 is 5 years ago.
Therefore 2016 is most recent.
2014 is least recent.
PPG says "most recent projections" should be basis for calculations.
Therefore 2016-based projections should be the basis for calculations.

Experts also agree: Neil Tiley, director at consultancy Pegasus Group, said: "The current PPG says the number should come from the most recent projections. Until the government's proposed change comes through, that will remain."

Likewise, Debbie Mayes, an associate in development economics at consultancy Barton Willmore, said: "Technically, authorities today should be submitting using the 2016 figures."

*************************

Why the Standard Method of the 2014-based ONS Projections CANNOT be used in this Particular Local Plan

The NPPF specifies the use of the standard method IN ALL BUT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, with the PPG saying authorities should then base the calculation on the "most recent projections", which are the 2016-based figures.

The message from Government on the standard method was clear - the official projections, combined with the local affordability ratio, should be the basis of planning for housing.

Local Affordability ratio and official projections have not been used in this Plan correctly.

In the case of UN-EXCEPTIONAL circumstances the standard method in national planning guidance must be used.

PPG Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 2a003-20190220 says that the expectation is that the standard method must be used in all but exceptional circumstances.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments

PPG [Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 2a-015-20190220] says that any method which relies on using the 2016-based household projections will not be considered to be following the standard method as set out in paragraph 60 of the NPPF.

Therefore the 2016-based household projections are considered by PPG as a method that is non-standard.

In cases of exceptional circumstances the non-standard method is to be used it says.

In other words the 2016-based ONS figures must be used because this is considered by PPG to be the non-standard route.

The Government has not defined what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" however we all know ad nauseam, that the North Herts District Council is claiming they have them!

The Council is claiming there are huge "exceptional circumstances" - enough for 87 per cent of its required development to justify removal of Green Belt. Page 7 of ED159:

It still claims it has such a case of "exceptional circumstances" and attempts to use this to justify taking away so much of the Green Belt - not now just for Luton, but for the wider housing market!

With exceptional circumstances the standard method is not to be used- and thus instead the non-standard method described by PPG as being the 2016-based ONS figures, must be used.

Therefore under the Council's claim of having "exceptional circumstances" the 2016-ONS figures must be used instead of the standard 2014-based ONS figures.
The new household projections dramatically reduce housing need.
Using the Government's new standard method for assessing housing need, the projections would translate to a housing need figure of just 214,000, according to Lichfields' own analysis.
When combined with the Government's proposed standard methodology for housing need, the new ONS methodology reduces the required housing numbers considerably.

When published in 2017, the standard method gave a national total of 266,000. That was 34,000 less than 300,000.

In June 2018 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its methodology for how it will turn the 2016-based population projections into household projections.

The 2016 projections were released in May 2018. The ONS has taken on this task from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This is the Office of National Statistics' (ONS) first set of projections, having taken over responsibility in 2017.
Released in September 2018, the 2016-based household projections will provide the critical input to estimates of housing need that will inform the next generation of Local Plans.

The 2016-based household projections that were published on 20 September 2018 suggest a 25% fall in the growth rate of households over the next 25 years.
ONS project average household growth nationally of 159,000 per annum between 2016-41 (165,000 over the ten-year period 2018-28), compared to 210,000 per annum between 2014-39 (218,000 over the ten years 2018-28).
The higher projections form the current basis for estimating housing needs under the 'standard method', but further changes to the methodology are to be consulted on by MHCLG to provide one that is consistent with achieving 300,000 homes per annum.
ONS, Household projections in England: 2016-based, Indication of the future number of households in England and its regions and local authorities Lichfields, The 2016-based Household Projections for England
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/2016basedhouseholdprojectionsinengland/2016basedhouseholdprojectionsinengland]
The Council is trying to persuade the Inspector to pass 87 per cent of its development upon Green Belt, claiming it has exceptional circumstances which warrants not using the standard method.

If the Council cannot use the standard method, then they cannot use the higher 2014-based projections either.

They could use the lower 2016-based projections however. Yet they have not.

The PPG gives the option to use an alternative approach leading to a higher or a lower need.

The Council unsurprisingly has chosen to arrive at the highest possible need and then stubbornly adhere to it, even when presented with instructions that it needs to depart from that and make a reduction.

The lower figure would reduce their housing numbers by4,000-6,000 and thus their New Homes Bonus total by about 100-120 million.

The vast majority of Representors are arguing it should be the lower need of course.

So to settle it we must return to the PPG.

It says if the Plan uses an alternative approach that identifies a need higher than the standard method, it must also prove it adequately reflects the current and future demographic trends and market signals to be considered sound.

What are the current future and demographic trends? What are the current market signals?
The Plan has decided to use an alternative approach. It has selected the highest possible OAN figure but yet demographic trends are projected to fall, as are market signals. Thus where then is any justification for not arriving at a lower figure instead?

PPG says to use an alternative approach which results in a lower housing need figure than identified by the standard method, the authority needs to demonstrate robust evidence, that the figure is based upon realistic assumptions of demographic growth and that there are exceptional circumstances to justify deviating from the standard method.

The 2016-projections are based on the most recent demographic growth available.

The Inspector needs to be sure that he can explain what method the Council has used before, during and after the latest projections.

If approving a Plan proposing 87 per cent development upon Green Belt, this proof of understanding is a definite prerequisite and most critical.

As the Council has only just submitted its homework figures (supposedly with 2016 ONS projections included), but it has arrived at a higher figure yet still, and if "how" wasn't clear before - it is even less clear now.

This is too big a factor to leave unexplained. We need to have an emergency Examination Hearing to discuss all of this.

*************************

NPPF (2018) 35 Not Met Because the Plan and ED159 has Failed to Provide a Clear Justified Method for Reaching its Objectively Assessed Needs Figure

NPPF 2018 paragraph 35 says Plans relating to housing must use a clear justified method for reaching their OAN figure.

Para 35. Plans are "sound" if they are:
a) Positively Prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs [Footnote 19]; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

[Footnote 19]; Where this relates to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 60 of this Framework.

The Plan and ED159 fail to present any clear OAN calculation methods.
The Plan and ED 159 fail to justify the methods chosen.
The Plan and ED 159 fail to identify ANY method at all.

ED159 merely gives an indicative OAN figure in name only. Claiming it to be based upon the latest ONS data.

Yet in our examination we find nothing to support there is any correct usage of the 2016-based data or any clear methodology.

Beyond mere statement alone it gives absolutely no detail or explanation as to how their strange figures and random uplifts were arrived at.

It does appear that their default method has been to simply pluck the biggest greediest figure from the air.

When we go back and contrast their OAN figures with basic logical mathematics; we prove their calculations are point blank wrong.

This can be numerically proven beyond doubt or argument.

Because many inconsistencies so quickly emerge it can lead to only one conclusion - the Council have concocted a response to the Inspector's request to legitimately show how the latest 2016 ONS data shall affect the OAN.

*************************

Unjustified uplifts of Stevenage HMA Data in Attempt to Offset and Cancel out the Unwanted OAN Reductions Caused by the 2016-based Figures

Why and how does the Stevenage HMA etcetera modify the ONS data?
The indicative figure shows an uplift to the 2016 ONS data of 13.4%. WHY?

The 2014 ONS figure for North Herts was 711 annually i.e. 14,220 over 20 years.
As the NHDC Plan OAN is 13,800; this shows a diminution of 9.7% over the ONS figure.

So why does the new indicative figure of 11,000, presumably produced by the identical mechanism, show a difference of 9.7 plus 13.4%, an uplift of 23.1%?

A gargantuan leap which is laughable - since employing the same mechanism which arrived at an OAN of 13,800 should give an indicative figure of 8,759.

This Plan simply does not present the OAN clearly or justifiably.

None of the Council officers were able to successfully isolate or describe what method/s they used when asked previously.

The Hearing spilled over into a second painful session and was eventually snuffed out when the enlightenment failed to emerge.

A year and half later the light has dimmed yet further; still officers have been unable to successfully isolate and describe exactly what method/s have been used during their latest "OAN Homework".

One thing is clear however - NHDC refuse to employ the latest 2016-based ONS figures.
So the Plan is in direct contradiction to the NPPF para 158.
What does North Herts District Council have to say in relation to Luton's housing needs and is it credible?

In its ED159 response to the Inspector NHDC refers to the actual statistical numbers contained in the ONS 2018 statistics.

This shows, says NHDC that the new projections for Luton's housing needs are some 40% less than the previous ONS 2016 projections; with 9,500 less homes being required.

Despite all the evidence hitherto being that NHDC's desire to build 2,100 homes around Cockernhoe is to meet Luton's unmet housing need - that is from within the Luton town borough area - they go on to say to the Inspector that it is necessary to review these new figures across the wider Luton HMA. Clearly and cynically, they are beginning to change the ground rules.

Whilst, on the one hand, stating that the new ONS 2018 statistics show that 9,500 less homes will be required in Luton itself, in their tabulations close by in the paper they appear to contradict that statement.

They list, correctly, Luton's current Local Plan requirement for new homes as the 17,800 discussed above, but instead of showing the large reduction down to 9,500 for the new indicative figures based on the ONS 2018 statistics, they show the new Luton requirement as being 17,000 homes.

So, magically, the 40% reduction in homes suggested by the ONS 2018 statistics has become only a 4.7% reduction to 17,000 homes, according to NHDC.

Why does Table 1 (North Herts ED159) state that the Luton total needs will be 17,000 homes and Central Bedfordshire will be 10,100 when using new 2016-based figures WHEN REALLY...
Luton total needs will be 3,640 homes and Central Bedfordshire will be 7,420 when using new 2016-based figures...
...?
Area Original Need figure in NH Local Plan Wrong OAN Figures re-calculated by NHDC in ED159 True Correct OAN Figures When correctly calculated Unexplained number of extras NHDC has concocted & added The Lichfield 2016-based reductions
Central Bedfordshire 8,400 10,100 3,640
[8,400 - 4,760 = 3,640] 6,460 4,760 fewer homes
Luton 17,800 17,000 homes 7,420
[17,800 - 10,380 = 7,420] 9,580 10,380 homes fewer.
Fictitious ED159 and its ever-expanding mythological wardrobe of housing numbers pages 2 & 4:

Lichfield doesn't agree with North Herts either.
Luton needs 519 fewer p.a. which over 20 years is 10,380 fewer homes.
Central Bedfordshire has 238 less p.a. which over 20 years is 4,760 fewer homes.
Central Bedfordshire and Luton combined now need 757 per year fewer properties across the HMA. That is 15,140 fewer houses over 20 years than was originally required.

On page p.4-5 North Herts has decided to make the stupid and arbitrary claim that Stevenage HMA would be 11% higher than the figures underpinning the Plan.
Really?! And why might that be, can we ask? Most places are clearly lower.
There isn't a justification given at all.
They tell you that Luton HMA figure is now 7% higher....
There isn't a justification given for that either.
Even though they do admit that the new method would require -4,800 less homes than the standard method.
They still arrive at what they call a "7%" uplift/ except they haven't used a 7% - instead they've slipped in a 150% uplift!
Yet this is the clincher. Notice the use of the words "approximately".....they've rather over-stretched the use of "approximately" though haven't they; using it to extend to a range of 150% instead of the 7% they specify.
ED159:

22. Looking across broader market areas, the potential standard method figure for the Stevenage HMA would be 11% higher than the figures underpinning the Plan. The potential standard method figure for the Luton HMA would be approximately 7% higher. In terms of the Luton HMA, the figure for Luton itself is substantially lower under the potential standard method when compared to the evidence underpinning the Plan (-4,800 homes).
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals, accessed 5 October 2018

If you look at Stevenage and North Herts in the Lichfield paper below - there are 287 less per year which means 5,740 fewer houses in total across the HMA.

So Stevenage's HMA could not be 11% higher at all.
On p.5 it says:
Unmet housing needs arising from Luton

25. Luton's adopted Plan, and the evidence supporting this examination, quantify the level of unmet need as 9,300 homes14. This is based upon Luton's identified capacity and Plan target of 8,500 homes.

26. Under current agreements between the authorities, it is anticipated that Central Bedfordshire will make the largest contribution towards meeting unmet housing needs from Luton15, recognising that this approach will be subject to independent testing through Central Bedfordshire's own, ongoing Local Plan examination16.

27. Taking Luton's capacity as a fixed figure, the unmet need arising from within Luton Borough would decrease under the alternate scenarios discussed above. This is summarised in Table 3 below.

Page 6:

Page 7:

ED159 slaps down in front of us, some pseudo reasoning and planning jargon sandwiched like spam between some fake numbers -trying desperately hard to pull the wool over eyes - presuming utter stupidity from the reader.
It's a complete hash-up.
This is justified, they say, by taking the ONS 2018 statistics (they mean the 2016-based figures, released in 2018) and combining that with 'vacancy rates and market signals uplifts applied in line with the approach taken in respective Housing Market Assessments.'

There is no explanation as to how they are applied to the Luton housing figures and why that results in such a tiny housing reduction.

Market Signals Uplifts are used by local authorities to respond with extra housing to meet challenges such as perceived unaffordability through either high house prices or high rents, or overcrowding etc. The uplift should be proportional. A quick glance at some other local authorities in the wider area seems to show an uplift in housing numbers due to market signals averaging from 5% - 20%; (examples include South West Herts comprising Dacorum, Hertsmere, St Albans, Watford and Three Rivers - 5.1%; Welwyn and Hatfield - 20%; West London Boroughs Alliance - 18%; Tower Hamlets - 20%).

The proposed uplift suggested by North Herts for Luton's housing comes out at a stratospheric 79% (an increase from the figure of 9,500 to the suggested figure of 17,000). This sized uplift is abnormal. It is very difficult to assess how this seemingly huge increase due to market signals can in any way be justified. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what, if any, reaction there might be from both Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire to this.

However, there is a further tabulation from NHDC which provides another level for forecasting which is based upon Lichfields - a planning consultancy - which has offered a potential approach to the new proposed Government planned standard methodology for assessing housing needs. Using this approach, the housing figures for Luton are reduced from the 17,800 in the Luton Local Plan to 13,000 - a reduction of 4,800.

If those Lichfields figures are adopted it means that Luton's plans to build 8,500 homes in the 2011-2031 period will result in an unmet need of 4,500 homes (compared to 9,300 in the Luton Local Plan. Later on we will discuss why it is entirely likely that Luton will deliver more housing than this over the period, so this unmet housing need could well come down to more like 4,500 - 2,062 (over-delivery of housing using the higher build rate) = 2,438 unmet need; or, (at the lower build rate) it could be 4,500 - 1,451 = 3,049 unmet need.

In this scenario the question then arises should it be Central Bedfordshire which takes up the slack to build the homes to meet Luton's unmet needs. It has already stated it will build 7,350 homes as its contribution to meeting Luton's unmet needs so it seems it could do this and still have spare capacity, and it is acknowledged that it will be Central Bedfordshire that will make the largest contribution towards meeting unmet housing needs from Luton - rather than requiring NHDC to build 1,950 homes on Green Belt land.

And what does NHDC say about housing requirements in the part of Central Bedfordshire that is within the Luton HMA?

Well, there is a further twist in the tale. NHDC also says that the area of Central Bedfordshire that lies within the Luton HMA will experience an increase in homes required under the new ONS 2018 statistics from 13,400 to 16,000 (again no explanation as to why there is an increase but it appears to be a 10% market signal uplift). NHDC then applies the Lichfield consultancy methodology and comes up with an even higher increase in homes required for Central Bedfordshire within the Luton HMA from the 16,000 to 20,100 - again no explanation or justification for this increase. I can find no explanation for these figures in the ONS 2018 tabulation and detailed datasets.

This is despite the fact that according to the ONS 2018 statistics Central Bedfordshire will require on average 238 less homes per year. Over the 20-year period that equates to 4,760 fewer homes. Central Bedfordshire itself says that these new statistics applied to the standard methodology would lead to a housing reduction for many authorities, including Central Bedfordshire. So where NHDC gets these increased figures from is a mystery to us all.

However, if we take these increased NHDC figures for the moment, combining this increase in housing for Central Bedfordshire with the reduction in Luton's requirement together with a tiny (statistically insignificant) increase in Aylesbury Vale from 400 to 600 extra homes, and leaving 200 homes as the (equally statistically insignificant) requirement for North Herts in the Luton HMA, it leaves the wider Luton HMA requiring an increase from 31,800 homes to a new higher figure of 33,900 homes - approximately 7% higher NHDC says.

Central Bedfordshire in its MoU with NHDC in September/October 2018, has said in relation to its requirement to build 39,350 homes in Central Bedfordshire (32,000 for its own needs and 7,350 to meet unmet needs from Luton) that it is currently planning to meet its housing needs in full within the plan period and has confirmed 'that at the current time assistance is not required from any other local authority including NHDC to meet its OAN'. It should be noted here that the Central Bedfordshire Draft Local Plan period is from 2015-2035 so exact statistical comparisons are not so straightforward.

The increase from 32,000 identified by Central Bedfordshire as its housing requirement to the 33,900 suggested by NHDC does not seem to be hugely significant. However, there has, as yet, been no reaction by Central Bedfordshire to this apparent uplift.

If NHDC's own analysis of Luton's housing needs using the Lichfield methodology is followed then, at the very most, the Luton unmet need will be 4,500 homes (though with the strong likelihood that Luton will build more than this).

If those 4,500 homes are added to the extra 1,900 homes suggested by the NHDC study of Central Bedfordshire's own requirements within the Luton HMA, that brings a total of 6,400 homes. This can be met by Central Bedfordshire's commitment to providing 7,350 homes in addition to the 32,000 it needs for its own purposes and at the same time eliminating the need for NHDC to build 1,950 homes on Green Belt land around Cockernhoe. This, of course, will require some serious discussions between the local authorities.

But there appear to be more serious issues at play. It is very difficult to predict future housing need and it is important that the most robust and transparent methodology be used and that consistency be applied. Sadly, the arguments presented in ED159 have demonstrated statistical gymnastics and a cynical and duplicitous approach adopted by NHDC.

Such is their apparent desperation to build these homes, that they have now changed the goalposts by suggesting that the homes are not - as everyone has consistently believed for many years - to meet unmet needs arising from within Luton itself but, they now argue, to meet needs arising from within the wider Luton HMA.

This goes right against the explicit statements in the MoUs and Statements of Common Ground signed between NHDC, with Central Bedfordshire, Aylesbury Vale and Luton Borough Council which make direct reference to the housing need arising from within the Luton Borough Council authority area.

The figures to justify this simply do not add up. NHDC must be compelled to produce robust and clear justification as to why they have calculated that extra homes will be needed in the Central Bedfordshire area of the Luton HMA under the new ONS 2018 statistics, when Central Bedfordshire itself states that it sees these new statistics leading to an overall reduction in homes required. In any event, NHDC does not appear to have produced these figures with any sign of co-operation or verification from either Luton or Central Bedfordshire.

NHDC's conclusions to ED159 state that under the various alternative scenarios discussed, 'the unmet housing needs from Luton could decrease. Viewed in isolation, this could call into question the justification for the allocations proposed to the east of Luton in the current Plan. However, this issue needs to be considered in the context of the broader Luton HMA's ability to absorb the shortfall'.

It goes on to say: "Under the alternative scenarios, Central Bedfordshire could have to provide additional homes in order to meet its own requirements. As such, although the unmet needs from Luton are lower, Central Bedfordshire's potential ability to address them could be reduced to an equal or greater extent. Once the potential combined requirements for Luton and Central Bedfordshire are taken into account, the east of Luton sites would still be required to make a positive contribution towards housing needs from the wider housing market area under the alternate scenarios".

NHDC must also be compelled to explain why it is so keen to continue in its quest to build 2,100 homes in the Cockernhoe area, despite there being scant evidence of any unmet need arising from Luton, and also why they have no regard to Luton's over-delivery of housing numbers over a 27-year period.

Yet their own figures, using the Lichfield methodology, suggest there to be no more than a notional increase in housing from Luton and Central Bedfordshire and this paper demonstrates that these homes can be can be met from within the Luton HMA by the number of homes able to be built by both Luton and Central Bedfordshire.

In short NHDC's argument that 'exceptional circumstances' for the use of the Green Belt land to the east of Luton remains applicable is utterly wrong and should be dismissed totally.

This area of land around Cockernhoe should be kept in the Green Belt and, furthermore, the firm offer made by NHDC to its neighbouring authorities in the Luton HMA to build 2,100 homes in this area should be scrapped. Even further, the idea that the narrow strip of land to the east of Luton with its tiny and statistically insignificant population of 1,700 people (500 of which are in the Cockernhoe area) should be part of the Luton HMA (322,000 population) in the first place is a nonsense and a convenient contrivance that has allowed, either - the unintended consequence of this small area potentially having to bear an utterly disproportionate and destructive contribution to meeting neighbouring authorities' unmet housing needs, or....a deliberately and knowingly-created situation to enable NHDC to build homes for reasons other than to meet other authorities' unmet housing needs through the Duty to Co-operate.

*************************

Need for Another Examination Hearing as this OAN Material was Newly Added in After Previous Hearing Sessions ended. Also Hearings Prior Reached no Clarity or Consensus on the Original Material Either
The OAN is such a pivotal and critical factor affecting everything.

When using the non-standard method, PPG says that it must be scrutinised more closely at examination.

"At Examination" means both written statement and hearing sessions. Not only written statement.

We should have more hearing sessions to discuss the newly added material. The newly added material out-numbers the documents that were present during the hearing sessions.

PPG says that when "exceptional circumstances" are present, and the authority has chosen to use an alternative approach, then they must be scrutinised more closely at examination.

This is a case of that. We know they have used an "alternative approach" but no one has yet seen the logic of what it is.

END OF PART I

*************************

Subject: Comment on Inspector's Modification MM410 and Examination Document ED159 - The Local Plan's Objectively Assessed Need for Housing and 2016-Based ONS Projections - PART II

Contents:

Government's Standard Methodology Results in Around 230,000 Homes Per Annum Instead of 300,000

Luton's Unmet Needs - The New ONS Housing Projections and How This Removes Luton's Unmet Housing Need

Doing the Maths of the OAN for Luton

Luton Has Already Over-achieved in Terms of House-building Numbers

Central Bedfordshire's Contribution to Luton's Unmet Need

Alternative Sites Opening Up In Luton

False Assertions that We Have Been in a Recession When We have instead been in a Growth Period

Public Trust Is Currently an Issue for North Herts District Council

NPPF 14 - Sustainable Development and Specific Policies in This Framework When Development Should Be Restricted

Before making the SHMA and SHLAA the Council Should Have Produced a Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA)

The Wider National Picture and Why ONS Statistics Should be the Benchmark Used

Overall Conclusions

Government's Standard Methodology Results in Around 230,000 Homes Per Annum Instead of 300,000

The Government appears torn and undecided. It cannot decide whether to alter the way that the statistics are compiled, so as to still meet its policy of 300,000 houses per annum, or else use the independent statistics as the basis for revised more accurate planning.

The Government's intention to produce a standard methodology for determining housing need is of no consequence for this Local Plan though. Since it is still making up its mind, and the NPPF 2012 must therefore be applied argues North Herts.

Thus the RH column in Table 2 is irrelevant as a comparison.

However, in the Lichfield data in NHDC ED159 the potential standard method for calculating the OAN from the 2016-based ONS data is almost identical to the ONS data anyway.

ONS has yet to publish any detailed methodology or figures, but Figure 2 shows what a simple linear trend would be on national formation rates (for 25-34 year olds) based on 2001-11 change.
It is clearly projected to decrease.
Figure 2 - Projected formation rates for 25-34 year olds (England) based on 2001-11 trend

Fig 2 shows that formation rates for 25-34 year olds would fall more significantly in the short term than DCLG had previously suggested.
For 25-29 years, formation rates could even be as low as 36% by 2021 (compared to 45% in 1991).
For 30-34 year olds they could be just under 48% (compared to 52% in the 1990s).
Over the next 10 years (by 2026) this could yield 150,000 fewer households, or 15,000 less a year than indicated based on current projections.
When the Government's standard methodology is applied, this could bring the national total down to around 230,000 homes per annum, some 70,000 below the 300,000 aspiration.

Luton's Unmet Needs - The New ONS Housing Projections and How This Removes Luton's Unmet Housing Need

The Inspector has suggested that 2,095 homes be for Luton's need and 5 be for NHDC.

So the east of Luton site is all about trying to maintain argument that there are "exceptional circumstances".

However this has always rested on whether or not Luton's unmet need is indeed true.

The Inspector has decided that 2,095 shall be for Luton's unmet need yet the Inspector did not explicitly impose any conditions such as; "cancel site if there is no unmet need after all" along with "all other site options must be thoroughly examined and exhausted before even suggesting a Plan to destroy any Green Belt".

This should of course be added or its absence shall be vicariously exploited.

The Council's duty to co-operate with the neighbouring local authorities under the Localism Act of 2011, to ensure that housing numbers are built should be extending co-operation to also ensure numbers are fairly worked out, correct at the very least, and calculated only according to the most up-to-date accurate housing projections.

2,100 houses planned on Green Belt land between the east of Luton boundary and engulfing the villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green - is an EXTRAORDINARILY BIG DEAL.

In December 2018 the Inspector has asked NHDC to comment on whether there are any implications arising from these new numbers generally and, specifically, in relation to the Local Plan's proposal to meet unmet housing need from Luton on land currently designated as Green Belt around Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green and Wandon End.

North Herts are of course keen to point out that the new 2016-based projections need to be treated with some care, according to the UK Government. NHDC accompanied its comments on the new statistics (ED159) by including an article from www.planningresource.co.uk dated 1 October 2018 which reported Kit Malthouse, Housing Minister, warning at a fringe event around the Conservative Party Conference last October, that there could be anomalies in these statistics as they take as their base-line study period the trends from only two census years of 2001 and 2011 rather than the previous method of longer trend calculation. Mr Malthouse urged councils not 'to take their foot off the accelerator' in terms of building new homes as this is a cornerstone of Government policy.

Kit Malthouse was at a fringe Conservative event at the time and clearly trying to win points amongst his peers. Kit Malthouse isn't a god or an all-seeing eye. We have seen many politicians and ministers reduced to ridiculous caricatures in the recent months anyway, so why not instead apply ones' own straight-forward common sense as a starting point instead?

He is a short-term "Housing Minister" and could quite possibly be gone in a couple of months, as the Government is re-organised. Ministers often just say whatever the political party line tells them to. This is not genuine free-thinking or accurate advice upon which to decide the future of a real country or even a real countryside area.

And whilst everyone who agrees to contribute to this disaster will be dead in a few years, those green lands that they've devastated will be a deficiency blighting generations to come delivering diseased fruits long after their limited lifespans.

But in answer to NHDC it is also worth noting that Housing Minister Kit Malthouse has also said a development above 500 units is a neighbourhood. The East of Luton site is 1,000 times larger than the villages it will smother. So by definition of sheer size, compared to that which is around it, this is an entirely new neighbourhood complex being proposed here. It is not merely "a development".

The East Luton conurbation adjacent to the proposed site is called Wigmore. Wigmore is a ward in itself comprising of 4,700 houses according to electoral records.

So being proposed are four new neighbourhoods by the Malthouse standard, and plonking them on top of several tiny villages.

I'm not sure everything needs to look like Cambridge, but how many people in this room believe they have built the conservation areas of the future. Probably not that many.
[...] when we are building this number of houses, if we can get to 300,000, we are not really just building houses we are building neighbourhoods. Developments of a thousand or 500 units are bigger than most villages, and we need to think in those neighbourhood terms, we need to think about the place, the design and beauty, where it fits and what we are, frankly, leaving to posterity.
Housing Minister Kit Malthouse, in his speech to the RESI Conference 2018 on 14 September
RESI Conference 2018

We next go into detail regarding the housing numbers involved and how they have arisen. How have they been calculated and what happens when we critically examine the NHDC response (ED159)?

We provide conclusions across a variety of examined scenarios that there is in reality, no unmet housing need from Luton.

Doing the Maths of the OAN for Luton

Representor Mr Reg Norgan from Graveley, wrote to NHDC Planning Officer Nigel Smith, asking, "upon what basis doesNHDC accept an unmet need in Luton exists" - to which Nigel replied "Paragraphs 25 to 28 (and associated tables) and paragraphs 38 to 40 specifically in ED 159 discuss unmet needs from Luton".

From: Reg Norgan
To: Nigel Smith <Nigel.Smith@north-herts.gov.uk>
28 Feb 2019 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Luton Unmet Need (1)
Dear Mr Smith,
On exactly what basis does NHDC accept that an unmet housing need of Luton exists such that NHDC need to cater for it in the NHDC Plan?
I ask this question as the 2016 ONS household projections indicate 9500 less houses will be needed for Luton.
Regards,
Reg Norgan

Subject: Luton Unmet Need (2)
From: Nigel Smith <Nigel.Smith@north-herts.gov.uk>
To: Reg Norgan
1 Mar 2019 at 10:27 AM
Mr Norgan,

This is set out in the note we prepared on the new household projections (ED159):
https://www.north-herts.gov.uk/files/ed159-nh-implications-new-household-projections-nhdc-local-planpdf

Paragraphs 25 to 28 (and associated tables) and paragraphs 38 to 40 specifically discuss unmet needs from Luton

Regards
Nigel

Nigel Smith
Strategic Planning Manager

Direct Dial: 01462 474847
North Hertfordshire District Council
Council Offices, Gernon Road
Letchworth Garden City
Hertfordshire
SG6 3JF

We will now proceed to dismantle paragraphs 25 to 28 and 38 to 40 - proving them to be erroneous and misinformed.

Through clear logical mathematical calculation we shall remove mythical elements from Nigel the Planner's unmet "needs".

NHDC argues that the revised housing figures from Luton does not invalidate their belief that there will still be a need for the 2,100 houses in the Green Belt. This they argue, is because those houses will be needed to meet the unmet needs arising from the wider Luton HMA.

So now we have all been asked to step through the portal of "belief".
North Herts Housing Need has become a matter of "belief"!

It is dangerous to enter into the world of "blind faith" and depart from the facts. It's starting to resemble an evangelical mission/ not the planning department it should.

All along the cited need for the houses on NHDC Green Belt has been to meet Luton (town's) unmet need; now all of a sudden they have reinvented the wheel and performed cartwheels to try and justify mere belief that building these homes has justification.

Woo-woo and not at all believable.

Central Beds apparently needs more homes under the new ONS statistics claims NHDC!

I am hoping that the inspector will see through all of this. Whether he does or does not however doesn't alter the black and white numerical facts in front of him.

.....Which we can now use to prove how many houses have already been built, and which ultimately dispel all mythical elements of this claimed unmet need.
If the key officers responsible at NHDC Planning Department wanted to have an accurate and up-to-date relevant OAN assessment, they certainly should have mentioned these 2016-based departures from their previous calculations and others as well. That certainly betrays their prejudice.
The Local Plan is for 20 years. Thus the diminution in the OAN is 20 x 519 = 10,380.
Anyway, this is the way that the NHDC employ the figures in their Plan.
They calculate an OAN for the whole period including what has gone.
The fact that 7 years of the Plan has passed does not come into the calculation.

The plan is for the total period 2011-2031.
A certain number of houses have been built during those 7 years.
Therefore planned housing need for that period also has to include those houses already built and deduct them from any OAN.

According to the Luton Housing Market Area (HMA) Growth Options Study of November 2016, the number of "objectively assessed need" new homes required in Luton itself was identified as 17,800 from 2011 to 2031. This number underpins the Luton Local Plan. Luton is the major component of the Luton HMA which consists of the town itself, plus a large section of Central Bedfordshire and much smaller parcels of land from Aylesbury Vale District Council and NHDC - being the land to the east of Luton.

The Luton Strategic Land Housing Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of 2016 identified that Luton itself would build at least 8,500 new homes within the Borough over the 2011-2031 period and this is committed to in the adopted Luton Local Plan.

This leaves a shortfall - the so-called unmet housing need for Luton - of 17,800 - 8,500 = 9,300 homes. To meet this unmet requirement of 9,300 homes, NHDC has offered to build 1,950 homes in the Cockernhoe area with the balance of 7,350 being provided by Central Bedfordshire District Council. The Inspector has since asked the figure be altered so that 2,095 of the homes be for Luton's need only.

But now we have the new ONS 2016 housing statistical projections to consider. Predicting fewer houses being required across the UK than previously estimated, these show a reduction of 519 homes per year to be required in Luton. Over the 20-year period of the Luton Local Plan that results in 10,380 less homes being required.

So, at an elementary level and, at the very least, the figure of 10,380 less homes required wipes out Luton's unmet housing needs of 9,300 homes, to the tune of 1,080 homes.

Or to put it another way, if the new ONS 2016-based projections suggest that Luton's housing needs are now not 17,800 but 17,800-10,380 = 7,420, then the planned building of Luton's 8,500 homes comfortably exceeds the number of homes required and, thus, no unmet housing need exists.

Luton Has Already Over-achieved in Terms of House-building Numbers

Irrespective of what the actual level of housing need in Luton might be, we should also be looking at what Luton Borough Council has already achieved in terms of building new homes over the past few decades, since this covers the first seven years of the current Local Plan (2011-2031). The 20-year period of the previous Local Plan (1991-2011) and the first seven years of the current Local Plan (2011-2031); that is the period from 2011 to the end of 2018.

During the period 1991-2011, Luton over-achieved, delivering 814 extra homes over the 20-year period (7,014 built compared to the target plan of 6,200).

In the current Local Plan period of 2011-2031, Luton is committed to build at least 425 homes a year in the Borough. But, as in the previous 20-year period, Luton has also over-achieved its building thus far. To the end of 2018 it had built 3,698 homes within the Borough against the planned target of 2,975 homes from 2011-2018 in the Luton Local Plan.

This leaves just a further 4,802 homes to be built (8,500 - 3,698) to meet its target over the remaining period 2019 - 2031.

With the targeted rate of delivery of 425 homes per year this would mean that over the next 13 years to the end of 2031 Luton would deliver 5,525 homes which, (together with the 3,698 already built), would mean that at least 9,223 homes could be built.

That is 1,053 extra homes in excess of what they said they need.

Luton's actual rate of over-delivery of new homes achieved in the previous Local Plan 1991-2011 was 40 homes extra year. Thus far in the current Local Plan (2011-2031) it has actually delivered an extra 723 homes, or over the seven - year period an extra 103 homes per year.

If this rate of building over-achievement was continued at the same rate as in the past seven years it would mean that an extra 1,339 homes could be built over the period (103 x 13 years = 1,339).

Add that total to the 3,698 homes already built, plus the targeted delivery of 425 homes a year over the remaining period = 5525 and we reach a grand possible total of 3,698 + 5,525 +1,339 = 10,562 homes.

This exceeds the number in the Local Plan by 2,062 homes (10,562 - 8,500).

Perhaps, more realistically, we should look at a lower rate of new homes over-delivery than the 103 currently achieved during the past 7 years.

Maybe, let us take an average of the 40 extra homes achieved on average each year during 1991-2011 and combine it with the 103 extra delivered from 2011-2018...

This brings an average of 56 extra homes a year over 27 years. This would lead to a total of new homes being built by Luton in the remaining 13 years of the Plan at 3,698 + 5525 + 728 = 9,951 new homes, exceeding the number in the Local Plan by 1,451 homes.

So on several levels, it looks as though Luton could deliver anywhere between 1,053, or 1,451 and up to 2,062) extra homes over the Local Plan period, depending on the rate of build it achieves.

If we now look back at the housing shortfall figure of 10,380 (as defined in the ONS 2016-based statistics) compared to the figure of 17,800 identified by Luton as new homes required during the 2011-2031 period - that leaves only 7,420 homes to be built.

Luton has already built 3,698 of these leaving 3,722 to be built during the next 13 years = an average rate of 286 a year. At the current rate of build (425 +103 = 528 per year), a further 6,864 homes would be built to reach 10,562 at the end of 2031. At the lower average rate of extra build considered above (an extra 56 per year) that would still result in 481 homes per year x 13 years = 6,253, which added to the 3,698 already built gives a total build of 9,951 new homes.

Both of these build rates would comfortably exceed the housing figures suggested by the new 2016-based analysis (7,420) by some 3,412 (the higher rate) or 2,531 homes (the lower rate). Thus, even if the ONS analysis was to be too pessimistic and more homes were likely to be needed, the chances are very good that Luton would be able to deliver those extra homes. And remember - this still means that there would be no unmet housing need from Luton.

But even if we assume that local authorities are forced to continue to use the, perhaps outdated, ONS 2014-based figures, and therefore, there would still remain an unmet housing need within Luton of 9,300 homes, the fact is that Luton's record of over-delivering on its house building over the past 27 years would indicate that it could deliver perhaps between 2,062 extra homes (at the higher build rate) and 1,451 homes (at the lower average build rate). At the higher rate of delivery this could mean that here would remain an unmet need of 7,238 homes. At the lower level of build rate, this would leave 7,850 homes as still needed.

Central Bedfordshire's Contribution to Luton's Unmet Need

Central Bedfordshire Council in its draft Local Plan has committed to delivering 7,350 homes to meet Luton's unmet housing needs, with North Herts planning to contribute 1,950 (or 2095) homes from the Cockernhoe Green Belt; a serious debate will be needed between these local authorities as to which one will build the houses first to meet this residual need from Luton. Central Bedfordshire is by far the biggest area outside Luton town to meet this need with its population in the Luton HMA contributing 35.6% to the population of the Luton HMA, as opposed to the area around North Herts contributing just 0.15%.

There is no doubt that Central Bedfordshire is better placed geographically and with better access to superior transport links, key services and infrastructure and closer to the Luton jobs market, to contribute their 7,350 homes first, which at Luton's higher rate of build would immediately meet the residual need of 7,238 homes (with Central Bedfordshire supplying 7,350 homes). At the lower rate of build in Luton an extra 500 homes would have to be built to make up the shortfall (7,850-7,350 = 500).

In this instance it is strongly arguable that Central Bedfordshire has more land identified for possible housing sites (some 266 sites in the Luton catchment area), quite a few which are not in the Green Belt.

Also Luton Borough Council has stated quite clearly that it prefers housing provided from outside its immediate boundaries to help meet its unmet needs to be closer to facilities, transport links etcetera and, in particular, has noted the potential of land to the west of Luton in the Central Bedfordshire area which it is urging to be brought forward for development much more quickly; this is the subject of some dispute between Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire.

The SHMA and the Inspector of Luton Local Plan - Luton's OAN Will Need Reviewing and Is "Not an Exact Science"

The prepared SHMA must assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries.

However the Luton Inspector reported that the Luton Plan's OAN should be reviewed within three years anyway.

It was clear at the time of inspection that the Plan that did not accurately reflect needs.

The Inspector only passed the Plan on the condition it would be subject to an early review of its OAN.

So that has got to happen later this year. Luton Borough Council is already preparing for a review.

The Inspector said there were uncertainties about Luton's OAN figure. He acknowledged that "future need for housing is not an exact science".

Inspector Stephen Youle: "Finally, it should be noted that the PPG advises that establishing the future need for housing is not an exact science and that no single approach will provide a definitive answer. That is the case here."

There were definite uncertainties. He was concerned particularly about the assumptions regarding migration.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.22-23

106. For these reasons, although there are uncertainties about the OAN figure, particularly in relation to the assumptions regarding migration, I am not persuaded that it would be justified to significantly delay this plan by putting it into suspension to allow the figures to be re-assessed. Finally, it should be noted that the PPG advises that establishing the future need for housing is not an exact science and that no single approach will provide a definitive answer. That is the case here.
107. However, the uncertainties are significant enough to require a re-consideration in an early review of the Plan, when the effect of data concerns about the 2001 Census may be further diminished. This commitment should be set out in a policy which specifically refers to a re-assessment of migration trends and projections. (MM56) This aligns with the approach on plan reviews set out in the PPG and in Examining Local Plans Procedural Practice. The use of an early review would also allow the OAN to be reassessed having regard to any standardised approach to assessing housing needs which may be put in place following the consultation announced in the Government's white paper 'Fixing our broken housing market' in February 2017. On this basis, the OAN figures expressed in the Plan can be regarded as sound, subject to a clear commitment to an early review. There is one exception to this which I will discuss below.

Brexit plans have already lowered immigration. This will be a long term trend for decades to come. Immigration may well not be as high as what it has been for the last 20 years.

Brexit has already affected the economy and is slowing down the housing markets. Already there have been clear signs of a downturn.

This is specifically going to affect Luton because most of its population growth has always been due to immigration.

The Luton Inspector recommended that a new joint SHMA be produced. He also didn't recommend North Hertfordshire as the best fit candidate for the unmet need,

"Central Bedfordshire is clearly the most obvious candidate to accommodate a significant proportion of that unmet need" he said.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.22-23

105. Fourthly, if an updated SHMA were to lead to a different, and potentially higher, OAN, the effects would largely influence planning decisions about housing numbers outside Luton, particularly in neighbouring Central Bedfordshire. This is because, on any realistic assessment, the housing capacity of Luton is significantly lower than the OAN and because, both geographically and functionally, Central Bedfordshire is clearly the most obvious candidate to accommodate a significant proportion of that unmet need. In this context the SOCG with CBC confirms that a new joint SHMA will inform the new Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. This will cover the period 2015 to 2035. Consequently, the OAN for the HMA is likely to be revisited in the near future. The two Councils have agreed that any changes to the OAN for Luton itself would need to be considered in the next Luton Local Plan.

The Luton Inspector said the Plan should be split between four relevant authorities. However he said that it wasn't clear as to how the OAN was split between them. He asked that this be clarified in the future.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report 2017 - p.p.22-23

108. The Plan refers to an OAN of 31,200 for the Luton HMA. This covers most of the HMA but not the small areas that fall within North Hertfordshire and Aylesbury Vale or the need which relates to those areas. This should be corrected, taking the overall OAN for the HMA to 31,800. (MM12) It should also be clarified how this OAN is split between the four relevant authorities. (MM9)

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.22-23

109. Finally on this matter, given it is unclear what a reconsideration of the OAN through the plan review process might yield, it is not necessary for the Plan to refer to the OAN for Luton as being at least 17,800, a possibility that was discussed at the relevant hearing session.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.23

Overall capacity
110. Given Luton's administrative boundary fairly closely aligns with the urban area, there is only a limited supply of potential land for housing. The Plan states that 6,700 new homes will be provided for, reflecting the availability of land. However, the more recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of July 2016 refers to a capacity of 9,322 between 2011 and 2031. This includes completions in the first few years of the plan period.

Alternative Sites Opening Up In Luton

At the time of inspecting the Luton Plan, there were other sites potentially going to become available - such as Napier Park. Now the planning permission for development upon this site has since been granted. This is connected to the Newlands Football Stadium development. The old football stadium has therefore also newly become available - to build thousands of homes upon.

This wasn't the case at the time of Luton's Local Plan inspection. It has since occurred, although the Inspector mentioned it might be a future available alternative option.

It would be therefore more logical to put any unmet need in this west of Luton area where they are not competing with extremely limited local space - by being placed in the field directly next door to a new Gatwick-sized Airport Terminal two and current runway!

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.24

112. The Council considers that a capacity of 8,500 is more realistic than the SHLAA figure of 9,322.25 This is partly because of the uncertainties regarding the amount of housing that might be delivered at the Napier Park strategic allocation and in respect of a specific scheme for student accommodation. Looking more generally, the amount of housing delivered on the strategic allocations is almost inevitably likely to vary from that which is forecast, given the size of these allocations, and depending on the particular detailed mixed use schemes developers will bring forward. In more general terms it is reasonable to assume that a limited amount of the identified capacity might not be delivered.
113. Furthermore, any assessment of capacity is prone to at least some uncertainties about delivery. For example, the housing allocation at Kenilworth Road is dependent on the relocation of Luton Town Football Club, which will be considered in detail below. Similarly, the amount of existing housing that might be released through the development of any student accommodation is to some degree uncertain, as is the amount of new housing that might be provided through the exercise of permitted development rights. Set against this, the windfall assumption from small sites is probably quite conservative (at just 114 dwellings)26 and so might in practice be higher.

The most basic road access and traffic congestion has always been the obvious elephant in the room for Crown Estates and Bloor Homes - a problem for the East of Luton site which the suits were determined to try and ignore - after all they don't live there and they are just paid to sell off the land, dig it up, stick a few houses on it, cash in the profits (ka-chink) and move on - swift n' fast. You wouldn't see them for dust. However the poor residents would be left to deal with the clouds of particulate grime ingrained into their nostrils from building for decades to come. At the same time Luton would also be building the new Airport terminal next door, and changing the Park into two dual carriageways feeding into the new terminal plus attached industrial estate! All within the same kilometre square!

The most profitable business to enter into for the Luton teenage entrepreneur would be the gas-mask industry or air purification units with HEPA filters, and asthma spin-halers, or selling life insurance policies cashable upon death. Although if s/he were to live in east Luton their chances of reaching old age to reap any rewards would be considerably slimmer than they would have been prior to the North Herts Local Plan.

That's sad isn't it? That you sit with such a ludicrous plan before you and are having to pass and use words to justify an infringement upon the most basic human right - the right to life via the breathing of clean air.

Passing a Local Plan that hasn't even mentioned a new Terminal Two in the neighbouring field is insane beyond words!!

It is really rather laughable that whilst ignoring the new Airport terminal and the tripling of its capacity, North Herts has dared to call their East of Luton site "strategic"!

TEXT REMOVED

"Show us your money and we'll miss out Luton's Gatwick and hope no one'll notice"....

False Assertions that We Have Been in a Recession When We have instead been in a Growth Period

They have it around the wrong way. The North Herts response says we have been in a recession and that there will be big growth in the future. However as usual they have it back to front. We have been in a period of growth although the prospect of Brexit has slowed things somewhat, but the signals are that contraction is likely in the future.

The standard method requires local authorities to take its projected household growth from the latest official projections and make a fixed percentage uplift, depending on the local affordability ratio (the ratio of house prices to earnings).
The scope to adopt a number lower than the figure given by this calculation is very limited, although where authorities seek to adopt a higher number (e.g. based on employment growth or infrastructure) inspectors are advised to find this sound (unless there are compelling reasons not to).
Here are the compelling reasons why the Inspector should not accept the higher number based on employment growth or infrastructure:

Also included in the NHDC response are extracts from a paper by the planning consultancy Lichfields, which points out that the period between 2001-2011 coincided with low-levels of house building, a decline in housing affordability, and, increasing numbers of adults living at home for longer, as well as the recession.

The impression given is that much of the decade was in recession, when in fact it was just two years 2007/8 when there was a fall of growth by -0.5% and then - 4.2%. All other years in that decade showed growth of between 1.4% and 3.3% per annum.

The government has pointed out that these sorts of statistics are subject to periodic review and it has also announced that it will introduce a standard methodology for determining housing need for future plans, in place of OAN, which seems to be subject to many different variations in how it is calculated.

So it does look as though the future demand for housing needs in Luton (as indeed elsewhere) could well fall somewhere between the lower figures suggested by 2016-based projections and the number suggested by the current Luton OAN. It is also worth bearing in mind that the reasons cited by the Government for the lower housing projections identified by the 2016-based projections were still to a large extent in play in the period from 2011 and are largely still relevant today - namely there were, (and still are), low-levels of house building, clearly there was, (and still is), a decline in housing affordability, and, clearly, increasing numbers of adults are living at home for longer (that is still the case). Economic growth between 2011 and 2018 has been modest, ranging from 1.1% to 3.1% per annum. On these underlying bases, it is quite conceivable that the 2016-based projections could well be accurate.

At the very least there is some considerable uncertainty and disagreement about providing projections for future housing needs; it is a tricky statistical exercise and, if not done robustly and transparently, faith in the system will be undermined; some might even say that it is little more than guesswork.

In these circumstances, is it right that the destruction of the Green Belt around Cockernhoe and the engulfing of the three villages by NHDC to meet Luton's so-called unmet housing needs, should be allowed to go forward when there is such considerable doubt about what Luton's future housing needs will be?

Remember, the Green Belt rules state quite clearly that building can only take place in "exceptional circumstances". NHDC argues that the "exceptional circumstance" is their duty to co-operate to help meet Luton's unmet housing needs. There must now be considerable doubt that this unmet need exists at all.

There is also surely a strong argument that to persevere with the earlier housing statistics when newer housing statistics seem to show a different and lower housing need trend - especially in terms of destroying the Green Belt around Cockernhoe - is seriously damaging and counter to the strong protections afforded to the Green Belt and will further erode people's faith in both local and national governance.

TEXT REMOVED

NPPF 14 - Sustainable Development and Specific Policies in This Framework When Development Should Be Restricted

Development is specifically restricted by specific policies in this Framework in cases of --
Sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives
Land Designated as Green Belt
Local Green Space
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Designated heritage assets

In these cases development needs should be restricted when any adverse impacts of developing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

NPPF 14
9 For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
For plan-making this means that:
●● local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area;
●● Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:
-- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
-- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted.9
9 For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

GREED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

This east of Luton site is part of a live AONB application awaiting determination.

It is next to the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

It is all Green Belt.

It is an Area of Archaeological Interest.

There are protected barn owls in the sites at Cockernhoe along with other species.

Before making the SHMA and SHLAA the Council Should Have Produced a Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA)

In this Local Plan development DESIRES have been confused and conflated with development NEEDS.

PPG says housing need must be undertaken separately from assessing land availability.
Housing and economic land availability assessment is given as the source of guidance on how constraints should be considered once a housing need figure has been identified.
Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 2a-001-20190220. Revision date: 20 02 2019
What is housing need?
Housing need is an unconstrained assessment of the number of homes needed in an area. Assessing housing need is the first step in the process of deciding how many homes need to be planned for. It should be undertaken separately from assessing land availability, establishing a housing requirement figure and preparing policies to address this such as site allocations. For further details on how constraints should be considered once a housing need figure has been identified, please see Housing and economic land availability assessment guidance. [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment]

Mr Wilfred Aspinall and Ms Carolyn Cottier each requested a HELAA at numerous points throughout the Hearing.

Mr Aspinall indeed requested it in many of his written statements and during his participatory sessions. Carolyn Cottier also requested it twice during in her attendance and in a follow up complaint to the Inspector afterwards.

So a HELAA must be presented. It is a register showing all land in the district regardless of whether or not it can be developed.

In this Local Plan, we are in no doubt that development desires masquerade as an imposter to development needs. The adverse impacts of developing at whim obviously significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which is why the Plan is so universally hated across the entire district by all who have set eyes on it- except those who stand to make the biggest amount of money from it.

When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole it is a crushing and damning fact that 87 per cent the Plan's entire development is upon Green Belt which is by definition meant to be restricted.

The Framework makes it clear that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.

NHDC claims there are "no alternatives" - which is an entirely un-based claim in the absence of a HELAA; that registry listing all sites in the area.

NHDC has produced no HELAA to date - which is proof enough that they do not know what other sites are available.

Paragraph: 045 Reference ID: 3-045-20141006
Do local planning authorities have to meet in full housing needs identified in needs assessments?
Local authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs.
However, assessing need is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan. Once need has been assessed, the local planning authority should prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as Green Belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need.

A HELAA has always been absent and has been allowed to remain absent.

No register of land sites exists and no complete and thorough categorisation of all sites has ever occurred.

So there are no neutral grounds or thorough foundation upon which to base any assumptions about how much land exists or where and what it is.

TEXT REMOVED

TEXT REMOVED

In fact it's the last chip in more ways than one; it's the last document in the library. They even decided to leave ED159 off of the list of consultation documents in their letter, sent out to the Public on 28 February 2019 inviting everyone to comment.

Their letter says: "Examination Documents produced or submitted to the Examination by North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) ...As at 26 February 2019"

The list starts with "ED2 Sep 2017.......ED158 Nov 2018".

They listed everything for people to comment on, except for the all-important ED1 and ED159 documents.

Their list missed those off entirely and I suggest purposely...

I comment on ED159 now, only because I have seen the Council pull this type of stunt many times before.

However all the other people who are less wise to their games, will now need to be given another chance to comment since they could not see the missing documents ED2 and ED159 on the original list. Hence they have been under the engineered wrong impression that they could not comment on them at all!

The Wider National Picture and Why ONS Statistics Should be the Benchmark Used

The Office of National Statistics is the largest independent producer of national statistics in the UK and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It has a high reputation for the quality and independence of its statistical output which is done without any political reference. The ONS reports via the UK Statistics Authority who are responsible for promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official statistics which serve the public good.

It is worth saying at this point that Central Bedfordshire District Council has stated forcefully that the ONS 2016-based housing statistics when applied to the standard methodology would lead to a reduction for many local authorities, including Central Bedfordshire. Quite how that statement stands against the North Herts projections for an increase in housing in the part of Central Bedfordshire that lies within the Luton HMA is difficult to assess.

If one looks they will find no comment from Luton Borough Council on their website relating to the new ONS 2016-based statistics.

This writer can confirm that this is because the Housing Portfolio Holder Cllr Tom Shaw is reluctant and has not yet reviewed the Housing numbers in the Luton Housing Strategy. Cllr Tom Shaw said personally to this writer back in October 2018 that he was reluctant to alter the Luton housing need numbers because Central Bedfordshire Council was refusing to "even speak" with Luton, so he did not yet know the future outcome of talks that are currently being refused.

In response to the statistical changes between the ONS 2014-based and 2016-based figures, the Government has published a Technical Consultation on Updates to National Planning Policy and Guidance which considers the method of calculating housing numbers.

This consultation sets out proposals to update planning practice guidance on housing need assessment to be consistent with increasing housing supply. It makes the case for continuing to use the ONS 2014-based projections for calculating housing need rather than the more recent ONS 2016-based published projections. Central Bedfordshire in its response to this consultation states that: "it fundamentally disagrees with the proposed amendment to planning practice guidance to require use of the ONS 2016-based household projections. It considers that the arguments for this proposed change are weak and unclear and that the calculation of housing need should be transparent, robust and based on clear evidence."

It further adds that there is: "no acceptable justification for this change, and adjusting the method to ensure that a national aspirational figure of 300,000 homes per annum is achieved is unfounded and lacks transparency, particularly when the government has not evidenced the use of this national target, or clearly set out how this figure was derived. Surely, using the most up to date evidence base provides firstly, the most robust justification for the use of the model and, secondly, the most confidence in the system by all stakeholders".

The Central Beds position is as clear as mud.

Central Beds is saying it wishes to use nothing but the most up-to-date statistics. Which is of course the 2016-based figures. Yet it wants to still continue using the 2014-based figures too!

These are the conflicted representations that are confusing everything. It will be interesting to see how other local authorities respond. To date, nothing has been found on either the North Herts or the Luton Borough Council websites in response to the Government's consultation. This does show that they are not participating constructively in the overall process as they should be.

Reverting back to the North Herts ED159 document responding to the Inspector, it makes the point that the potential revised housing figures arising from the ONS 2016-based statistics would lead nationally to 214,000 homes a year being built, rather than the 300,000 in current Government policy.

It quotes the government as saying: - "it should be noted that the intention is to consider adjusting the method to ensure that the starting point in the plan-making process is consistent in aggregate with the proposals in Planning for the right homes in the right places consultation and continues to be consistent with ensuring that 300,000 homes are built per years by the mid-2020s".

In other words, the government seems to be proposing to alter the way the statistics are compiled so to meet the requirements of its policy, rather than use the independent statistics as the basis for revised and perhaps more accurate planning. That is an untrustworthy policy step to make.

NPPF 158. "Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals."

The words of the Housing Minister and confused councils are of NO consequence to the Local Plan; since they don't even agree between themselves and it could take them years post-Brexit saga to figure it out - if ever. Their motivations are in a quagmire of political bias and uncertainty.
So the clear wording of the NPPF 2012 is all that counts; particularly paragraphs 158 and 159 in this instance.
Twisting of the figures to fit the rigid predetermined result which they've decided they want to do- that is the opposite of what is stated should be done; the using of clearly known figures to produce an accurate result in real-time which is flexible and relevant.
In February 2017, the Government's Housing White Paper agreed with the principle of simplifying the approach to OAN.

Guidance was given on how to address employment growth - removed from OAN but retained as a 'policy-on' approach.

In September 2017 it set out its proposed standard method as part of its 'Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places' consultation, which has fed into the draft revised NPPF and draft revised PPG.

It will save time in the long run to have the Council repeat their OAN.

They must present OAN figures for the standard method of calculation to show what the difference could be.

I also suggest that they re-do their non-standardized calculations using all possible methods of calculation.

And clearly present each and every process.

***************************

Overall Conclusions
In ED159 if you scroll down one last time to the Lichfield figures (actually the ONS data) (East Anglia, Central and North) for Luton. It quotes the difference as 519 per year in the 3rd column from the left.
In the Lichfield interpretation at the end of ED159 they give the potential standard method OAN figure for Luton of 651 houses per year when based on the new ONS data. That is 519 less than with the 2014 ONS data. Over 20 years that is 10,400 houses less. On the old 2,014 data there was an unmet need of 9,300. So now there is a surplus of 10,400 - 9,300 = 1,100 houses.
There is now no unmet need.
EL1, 2 and 3 are not needed.
I think that it is important we go back to the drawing board now and sort the Plan's OAN so that it can be clear for the future generation.
In almost all of the scenarios examined as a result of studying in depth the NHDC paper (ED159) to the Inspector, the ONS 2018 housing projection statistics and its accompanying detailed datasets, as well as referral back to the NHDC Local Plan, the Luton Local Plan and the draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan there is the overwhelming conclusion that there is likely in almost all scenarios to be no unmet housing need arising from within Luton.

There is a possibility that in one scenario, a small number of extra homes might need to be built to meet a residual unmet need arising from within Luton - at the most this looks to be around 500 homes. In this case the question arises where will these houses come from?

Should it be from Central Bedfordshire - which is the second biggest component of the Luton HMA and with more identified building sites available, some not in the Green Belt, and with closer and easier transport links, services links and closer to the Luton jobs market - or- should it come from North Hertfordshire through building on the Green Belt around Cockernhoe and in the process engulfing the three villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green - an area which has now recently been re-defined as making an overall significant contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt and next door to a Gatwick sized Airport and all traffic associated.

Clearly, there is no 'exceptional circumstance' demonstrated here to justify building on the Cockernhoe Green Belt.

CALCULATIONS - X PLAN FAILS
CLEAR AND JUSTIFIED METHOD - X PLAN FAILS
USING MOST RECENT PROJECTIONS - X PLAN FAILS
RELEVANT - X PLAN FAILS
MOST UP-TO-DATE DATA - X PLAN FAILS
TRANSPARENT - X PLAN FAILS
ACCURACY - X PLAN FAILS

Comments on MM410 - Acrimony in the Luton HMA

NPPF (2012 & 2018) Paragraph 158 - Using a Proportionate Evidence Base - Which Must be "Up-to-Date" and Relevant

NPPF 158 - Evidence Must Be Up-to-date and Relevant

Preparing a SHMA & Why ONS Latest Figures Are the Best Fit for NPPF 159 Requirements

Chronological Order renders the 2016-based Statistics as "Up-to-Date" and the 2014-based Statistics as "Out-of-Date"

Why the Standard Method of the 2014-based ONS Projections CANNOT be used in this Particular Local Plan

NPPF (2012 & 2018) 35 Not Met Because the Plan and ED159 has Failed to Provide a Clear Justified Method for Reaching its Objectively Assessed Needs Figure

Unjustified uplifts of Stevenage HMA Data in Attempt to Offset and Cancel Out the Unwanted OAN Reductions Caused by the 2016-based Figures

Need for Another Examination Hearing as this OAN Material was Newly Added in After Previous Hearing Sessions ended. Also Hearings Prior Reached no Clarity or Consensus on the Original Material Either

MM 410 224 Paragraph 14.39 We are actively working with the other authorities in the HMA - Luton, Central Bedfordshire and Aylesbury Vale - to understand the extent to which the market area as a whole will be able to accommodate development needsDELETED:159. INSERTED: The authorities in the Luton HMA jointly commissioned and subsequently agreed a Growth Options Study159. This demonstrates sufficient potential capacity within the Luton HMA to accommodate Luton's unmet housing needs. The outcomes of this study will be tested through the individual examinations of the partner authorities' plans. If there proves to be insufficient capacity within the Luton HMA, it will be necessary to look further afield for potential solutions. This would be likely to involve a number of authorities.
159 Luton Housing Market Area Growth Study (Land Use Consultants, DELETED: forthcoming INSERTED:2017) For INSERTED:effectiveness

Comments on MM410 - Acrimony in the Luton HMA
Regarding looking further afield for potential solutions beyond the Luton HMA, to accommodate Luton's unmet housing needs - it is worth drawing attention to the complete Failure to Cooperate between Central Bedfordshire Council and Luton Borough Council thus far.
East of Luton should not become the automatic "default" option due to those failings elsewhere.
"The authorities in the Luton HMA jointly commissioned and subsequently agreed a Growth Options Study159" doesn't acknowledge the presence of the LUTON AIPORT EXPANSION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE- so the authors of the Plan and the Inspector are all basing a judgment of "demonstrated sufficient capacity within the Luton HMA" for East of Luton at least, upon a poorly researched basis and an un-acknowledgement of there being any NSIP activity.
Even though there is a large site west of Luton/ in Central Bedfordshire which is superior to the one east of Luton, it is being stubbornly ignored because of the problems in communication between CBC and LBC. Yet this refusal by CBC to talk with LBC does not constitute the "special circumstances" necessary to claim that Green Belt must be released to the east of Luton. Especially since west of Luton does not have an Airport Terminal and Airport Expansion partially already underway, in the field next door to the proposed site. The west of Luton site already has great connection to the M1. The west Luton/Central Beds option is also not Green Belt and therefore must be the sixth Strategic Site, if there is to be one at all - not the east of Luton which has enough problems already.
Land has been realised over on the west of Luton in Central Beds for 3,500 houses, but Central Bedfordshire has refused to discuss and communicate with Luton about this. This was conveyed personally to Carolyn Cottier by Luton Council's Housing Portfolio Holder, Cllr Tom Shaw during the Executive Committee Meeting on Housing Strategy in October 2018.
Cllr Tom Shaw said he would not be reducing the number of required housing in the LBC Housing Strategy, at that time because Central Bedfordshire wasn't talking to them. However it may be something they would look at in the next review of the Luton Local Plan.
The relationship between CBC and LBC has been infamously acrimonious since LBC took CBC to Court over refusal to cooperate and CBC lost their case several years ago.

**********************

NPPF (2012 & 2018) Paragraph 158 - Using a Proportionate Evidence Base - Which Must be "Up-to-Date" and Relevant

The housing requirement statistics underpinning the NHDC Local Plan are derived from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2014-based UK household projections which was issued in 2016, (hereinafter called the 2014-based projections).

More recently in late 2018 the ONS issued what we will call the 2016-based projections, which were revised housing projection figures for the UK showing that less housing will be needed across the entire country.

Paragraph 158 in both versions of the NPPF states the standard expected of evidence provided in support of housing assessments.

Firstly evidence must be provided. In other words not giving any solid proof is not an option.

Then secondly the expected standard of such evidence, is that it must be adequate, up-to-date and relevant.

NPPF 2012 & 2018:

158. Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals.

NPPF 158 - Evidence Must Be Up-to-date and Relevant
This is very significant indeed, especially when you think in terms of there being such severe impact upon the Green Belt surrounding North Herts with the higher estimated figures. Is it therefore justifiable to ignore the NPPF and refuse to use the proportionate evidence which is up-to-date and relevant just because it leads to lower figures?

What can be more relevant than that which is already occurring most recently?

Paragraph 158 really stresses the rule that planners should be using a proportionate evidence base - which must be up-to-date and relevant.

So since we are told this, this is what we must do.

Preparing a SHMA & Why ONS Latest Figures Are the Best Fit for NPPF 159 Requirements

The ONS latest figures cater for all three requirements as stated by NPPF 159, for preparing a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA):

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment Plan-making | should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:-
1. meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;
2. addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); and
3. caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand;
NPPF (2012) 159
Housing
159. Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. They should:
- prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:
-- meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change;

The ONS projections for household formation IS the measure of the projected demand.

NHDC cannot use the 2014-based figures for AT LEAST 87 per cent of its claimed needs. IT HAS TO use the later 2016-based figures.
Doing so translates to 4,000 less houses for the NHDC need and completely removes Luton's unmet need.
This reduction of course is not agreeable to North Hertfordshire District Council since it translates to 6,000(houses less) x £20,000 (new homes bonus) = £120,000,000 (less money for them).
North Hertfordshire District Council would have to lose its one hundred and twenty million pounds New Homes Bonus bonanza. It is very attached to it.
Even if the price holds a dubious legacy of some unstable statistics and hundreds of thousands of hectares of conservational devastation; loss of space, loss of openness and the like.
The irreplaceable Green Belt is a treasure worth much more than £120,000,000. It is a priceless treasure.
More people derive immeasurable benefit from the Green Belt's protection than the few Council members who would benefit from grasping so much cash based on its removal. It is the only buffer against the urban infringement and encroachment from the Airport Expansion and the loss of hundreds of hectares of green park space.

TEXT REMOVED

*************************

Chronological Order renders the 2016-based Statistics as "Up-to-Date" and the 2014-based Statistics as "Out-of-Date"

Regardless of debate, the PPG is the 'starting point' for the official household projections.

The PPG also says authorities should base their calculations on the "most recent projections".
The more up-to-date 2016-based ONS figures must be used.
If you need further convincing, chronological order is logically thus:
2016 is 3 years ago.
2014 is 5 years ago.
Therefore 2016 is most recent.
2014 is least recent.
PPG says "most recent projections" should be basis for calculations.
Therefore 2016-based projections should be the basis for calculations.

Experts also agree: Neil Tiley, director at consultancy Pegasus Group, said: "The current PPG says the number should come from the most recent projections. Until the government's proposed change comes through, that will remain."

Likewise, Debbie Mayes, an associate in development economics at consultancy Barton Willmore, said: "Technically, authorities today should be submitting using the 2016 figures."

*************************

Why the Standard Method of the 2014-based ONS Projections CANNOT be used in this Particular Local Plan

The NPPF specifies the use of the standard method IN ALL BUT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, with the PPG saying authorities should then base the calculation on the "most recent projections", which are the 2016-based figures.

The message from Government on the standard method was clear - the official projections, combined with the local affordability ratio, should be the basis of planning for housing.

Local Affordability ratio and official projections have not been used in this Plan correctly.

In the case of UN-EXCEPTIONAL circumstances the standard method in national planning guidance must be used.

PPG Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 2a003-20190220 says that the expectation is that the standard method must be used in all but exceptional circumstances.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessments

PPG [Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 2a-015-20190220] says that any method which relies on using the 2016-based household projections will not be considered to be following the standard method as set out in paragraph 60 of the NPPF.

Therefore the 2016-based household projections are considered by PPG as a method that is non-standard.

In cases of exceptional circumstances the non-standard method is to be used it says.

In other words the 2016-based ONS figures must be used because this is considered by PPG to be the non-standard route.

The Government has not defined what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" however we all know ad nauseam, that the North Herts District Council is claiming they have them!

The Council is claiming there are huge "exceptional circumstances" - enough for 87 per cent of its required development to justify removal of Green Belt. Page 7 of ED159:

It still claims it has such a case of "exceptional circumstances" and attempts to use this to justify taking away so much of the Green Belt - not now just for Luton, but for the wider housing market!

With exceptional circumstances the standard method is not to be used- and thus instead the non-standard method described by PPG as being the 2016-based ONS figures, must be used.

Therefore under the Council's claim of having "exceptional circumstances" the 2016-ONS figures must be used instead of the standard 2014-based ONS figures.
The new household projections dramatically reduce housing need.
Using the Government's new standard method for assessing housing need, the projections would translate to a housing need figure of just 214,000, according to Lichfields' own analysis.
When combined with the Government's proposed standard methodology for housing need, the new ONS methodology reduces the required housing numbers considerably.

When published in 2017, the standard method gave a national total of 266,000. That was 34,000 less than 300,000.

In June 2018 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its methodology for how it will turn the 2016-based population projections into household projections.

The 2016 projections were released in May 2018. The ONS has taken on this task from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This is the Office of National Statistics' (ONS) first set of projections, having taken over responsibility in 2017.
Released in September 2018, the 2016-based household projections will provide the critical input to estimates of housing need that will inform the next generation of Local Plans.

The 2016-based household projections that were published on 20 September 2018 suggest a 25% fall in the growth rate of households over the next 25 years.
ONS project average household growth nationally of 159,000 per annum between 2016-41 (165,000 over the ten-year period 2018-28), compared to 210,000 per annum between 2014-39 (218,000 over the ten years 2018-28).
The higher projections form the current basis for estimating housing needs under the 'standard method', but further changes to the methodology are to be consulted on by MHCLG to provide one that is consistent with achieving 300,000 homes per annum.
ONS, Household projections in England: 2016-based, Indication of the future number of households in England and its regions and local authorities Lichfields, The 2016-based Household Projections for England
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/2016basedhouseholdprojectionsinengland/2016basedhouseholdprojectionsinengland]
The Council is trying to persuade the Inspector to pass 87 per cent of its development upon Green Belt, claiming it has exceptional circumstances which warrants not using the standard method.

If the Council cannot use the standard method, then they cannot use the higher 2014-based projections either.

They could use the lower 2016-based projections however. Yet they have not.

The PPG gives the option to use an alternative approach leading to a higher or a lower need.

The Council unsurprisingly has chosen to arrive at the highest possible need and then stubbornly adhere to it, even when presented with instructions that it needs to depart from that and make a reduction.

The lower figure would reduce their housing numbers by4,000-6,000 and thus their New Homes Bonus total by about 100-120 million.

The vast majority of Representors are arguing it should be the lower need of course.

So to settle it we must return to the PPG.

It says if the Plan uses an alternative approach that identifies a need higher than the standard method, it must also prove it adequately reflects the current and future demographic trends and market signals to be considered sound.

What are the current future and demographic trends? What are the current market signals?
The Plan has decided to use an alternative approach. It has selected the highest possible OAN figure but yet demographic trends are projected to fall, as are market signals. Thus where then is any justification for not arriving at a lower figure instead?

PPG says to use an alternative approach which results in a lower housing need figure than identified by the standard method, the authority needs to demonstrate robust evidence, that the figure is based upon realistic assumptions of demographic growth and that there are exceptional circumstances to justify deviating from the standard method.

The 2016-projections are based on the most recent demographic growth available.

The Inspector needs to be sure that he can explain what method the Council has used before, during and after the latest projections.

If approving a Plan proposing 87 per cent development upon Green Belt, this proof of understanding is a definite prerequisite and most critical.

As the Council has only just submitted its homework figures (supposedly with 2016 ONS projections included), but it has arrived at a higher figure yet still, and if "how" wasn't clear before - it is even less clear now.

This is too big a factor to leave unexplained. We need to have an emergency Examination Hearing to discuss all of this.

*************************

NPPF (2018) 35 Not Met Because the Plan and ED159 has Failed to Provide a Clear Justified Method for Reaching its Objectively Assessed Needs Figure

NPPF 2018 paragraph 35 says Plans relating to housing must use a clear justified method for reaching their OAN figure.

Para 35. Plans are "sound" if they are:
a) Positively Prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs [Footnote 19]; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

[Footnote 19]; Where this relates to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 60 of this Framework.

The Plan and ED159 fail to present any clear OAN calculation methods.
The Plan and ED 159 fail to justify the methods chosen.
The Plan and ED 159 fail to identify ANY method at all.

ED159 merely gives an indicative OAN figure in name only. Claiming it to be based upon the latest ONS data.

Yet in our examination we find nothing to support there is any correct usage of the 2016-based data or any clear methodology.

Beyond mere statement alone it gives absolutely no detail or explanation as to how their strange figures and random uplifts were arrived at.

It does appear that their default method has been to simply pluck the biggest greediest figure from the air.

When we go back and contrast their OAN figures with basic logical mathematics; we prove their calculations are point blank wrong.

This can be numerically proven beyond doubt or argument.

Because many inconsistencies so quickly emerge it can lead to only one conclusion - the Council have concocted a response to the Inspector's request to legitimately show how the latest 2016 ONS data shall affect the OAN.

*************************

Unjustified uplifts of Stevenage HMA Data in Attempt to Offset and Cancel out the Unwanted OAN Reductions Caused by the 2016-based Figures

Why and how does the Stevenage HMA etcetera modify the ONS data?
The indicative figure shows an uplift to the 2016 ONS data of 13.4%. WHY?

The 2014 ONS figure for North Herts was 711 annually i.e. 14,220 over 20 years.
As the NHDC Plan OAN is 13,800; this shows a diminution of 9.7% over the ONS figure.

So why does the new indicative figure of 11,000, presumably produced by the identical mechanism, show a difference of 9.7 plus 13.4%, an uplift of 23.1%?

A gargantuan leap which is laughable - since employing the same mechanism which arrived at an OAN of 13,800 should give an indicative figure of 8,759.

This Plan simply does not present the OAN clearly or justifiably.

None of the Council officers were able to successfully isolate or describe what method/s they used when asked previously.

The Hearing spilled over into a second painful session and was eventually snuffed out when the enlightenment failed to emerge.

A year and half later the light has dimmed yet further; still officers have been unable to successfully isolate and describe exactly what method/s have been used during their latest "OAN Homework".

One thing is clear however - NHDC refuse to employ the latest 2016-based ONS figures.
So the Plan is in direct contradiction to the NPPF para 158.
What does North Herts District Council have to say in relation to Luton's housing needs and is it credible?

In its ED159 response to the Inspector NHDC refers to the actual statistical numbers contained in the ONS 2018 statistics.

This shows, says NHDC that the new projections for Luton's housing needs are some 40% less than the previous ONS 2016 projections; with 9,500 less homes being required.

Despite all the evidence hitherto being that NHDC's desire to build 2,100 homes around Cockernhoe is to meet Luton's unmet housing need - that is from within the Luton town borough area - they go on to say to the Inspector that it is necessary to review these new figures across the wider Luton HMA. Clearly and cynically, they are beginning to change the ground rules.

Whilst, on the one hand, stating that the new ONS 2018 statistics show that 9,500 less homes will be required in Luton itself, in their tabulations close by in the paper they appear to contradict that statement.

They list, correctly, Luton's current Local Plan requirement for new homes as the 17,800 discussed above, but instead of showing the large reduction down to 9,500 for the new indicative figures based on the ONS 2018 statistics, they show the new Luton requirement as being 17,000 homes.

So, magically, the 40% reduction in homes suggested by the ONS 2018 statistics has become only a 4.7% reduction to 17,000 homes, according to NHDC.

Why does Table 1 (North Herts ED159) state that the Luton total needs will be 17,000 homes and Central Bedfordshire will be 10,100 when using new 2016-based figures WHEN REALLY...
Luton total needs will be 3,640 homes and Central Bedfordshire will be 7,420 when using new 2016-based figures...
...?
Area Original Need figure in NH Local Plan Wrong OAN Figures re-calculated by NHDC in ED159 True Correct OAN Figures When correctly calculated Unexplained number of extras NHDC has concocted & added The Lichfield 2016-based reductions
Central Bedfordshire 8,400 10,100 3,640
[8,400 - 4,760 = 3,640] 6,460 4,760 fewer homes
Luton 17,800 17,000 homes 7,420
[17,800 - 10,380 = 7,420] 9,580 10,380 homes fewer.
Fictitious ED159 and its ever-expanding mythological wardrobe of housing numbers pages 2 & 4:

Lichfield doesn't agree with North Herts either.
Luton needs 519 fewer p.a. which over 20 years is 10,380 fewer homes.
Central Bedfordshire has 238 less p.a. which over 20 years is 4,760 fewer homes.
Central Bedfordshire and Luton combined now need 757 per year fewer properties across the HMA. That is 15,140 fewer houses over 20 years than was originally required.

On page p.4-5 North Herts has decided to make the stupid and arbitrary claim that Stevenage HMA would be 11% higher than the figures underpinning the Plan.
Really?! And why might that be, can we ask? Most places are clearly lower.
There isn't a justification given at all.
They tell you that Luton HMA figure is now 7% higher....
There isn't a justification given for that either.
Even though they do admit that the new method would require -4,800 less homes than the standard method.
They still arrive at what they call a "7%" uplift/ except they haven't used a 7% - instead they've slipped in a 150% uplift!
Yet this is the clincher. Notice the use of the words "approximately".....they've rather over-stretched the use of "approximately" though haven't they; using it to extend to a range of 150% instead of the 7% they specify.
ED159:

22. Looking across broader market areas, the potential standard method figure for the Stevenage HMA would be 11% higher than the figures underpinning the Plan. The potential standard method figure for the Luton HMA would be approximately 7% higher. In terms of the Luton HMA, the figure for Luton itself is substantially lower under the potential standard method when compared to the evidence underpinning the Plan (-4,800 homes).
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals, accessed 5 October 2018

If you look at Stevenage and North Herts in the Lichfield paper below - there are 287 less per year which means 5,740 fewer houses in total across the HMA.

So Stevenage's HMA could not be 11% higher at all.
On p.5 it says:
Unmet housing needs arising from Luton

25. Luton's adopted Plan, and the evidence supporting this examination, quantify the level of unmet need as 9,300 homes14. This is based upon Luton's identified capacity and Plan target of 8,500 homes.

26. Under current agreements between the authorities, it is anticipated that Central Bedfordshire will make the largest contribution towards meeting unmet housing needs from Luton15, recognising that this approach will be subject to independent testing through Central Bedfordshire's own, ongoing Local Plan examination16.

27. Taking Luton's capacity as a fixed figure, the unmet need arising from within Luton Borough would decrease under the alternate scenarios discussed above. This is summarised in Table 3 below.

Page 6:

Page 7:

ED159 slaps down in front of us, some pseudo reasoning and planning jargon sandwiched like spam between some fake numbers -trying desperately hard to pull the wool over eyes - presuming utter stupidity from the reader.
It's a complete hash-up.
This is justified, they say, by taking the ONS 2018 statistics (they mean the 2016-based figures, released in 2018) and combining that with 'vacancy rates and market signals uplifts applied in line with the approach taken in respective Housing Market Assessments.'

There is no explanation as to how they are applied to the Luton housing figures and why that results in such a tiny housing reduction.

Market Signals Uplifts are used by local authorities to respond with extra housing to meet challenges such as perceived unaffordability through either high house prices or high rents, or overcrowding etc. The uplift should be proportional. A quick glance at some other local authorities in the wider area seems to show an uplift in housing numbers due to market signals averaging from 5% - 20%; (examples include South West Herts comprising Dacorum, Hertsmere, St Albans, Watford and Three Rivers - 5.1%; Welwyn and Hatfield - 20%; West London Boroughs Alliance - 18%; Tower Hamlets - 20%).

The proposed uplift suggested by North Herts for Luton's housing comes out at a stratospheric 79% (an increase from the figure of 9,500 to the suggested figure of 17,000). This sized uplift is abnormal. It is very difficult to assess how this seemingly huge increase due to market signals can in any way be justified. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what, if any, reaction there might be from both Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire to this.

However, there is a further tabulation from NHDC which provides another level for forecasting which is based upon Lichfields - a planning consultancy - which has offered a potential approach to the new proposed Government planned standard methodology for assessing housing needs. Using this approach, the housing figures for Luton are reduced from the 17,800 in the Luton Local Plan to 13,000 - a reduction of 4,800.

If those Lichfields figures are adopted it means that Luton's plans to build 8,500 homes in the 2011-2031 period will result in an unmet need of 4,500 homes (compared to 9,300 in the Luton Local Plan. Later on we will discuss why it is entirely likely that Luton will deliver more housing than this over the period, so this unmet housing need could well come down to more like 4,500 - 2,062 (over-delivery of housing using the higher build rate) = 2,438 unmet need; or, (at the lower build rate) it could be 4,500 - 1,451 = 3,049 unmet need.

In this scenario the question then arises should it be Central Bedfordshire which takes up the slack to build the homes to meet Luton's unmet needs. It has already stated it will build 7,350 homes as its contribution to meeting Luton's unmet needs so it seems it could do this and still have spare capacity, and it is acknowledged that it will be Central Bedfordshire that will make the largest contribution towards meeting unmet housing needs from Luton - rather than requiring NHDC to build 1,950 homes on Green Belt land.

And what does NHDC say about housing requirements in the part of Central Bedfordshire that is within the Luton HMA?

Well, there is a further twist in the tale. NHDC also says that the area of Central Bedfordshire that lies within the Luton HMA will experience an increase in homes required under the new ONS 2018 statistics from 13,400 to 16,000 (again no explanation as to why there is an increase but it appears to be a 10% market signal uplift). NHDC then applies the Lichfield consultancy methodology and comes up with an even higher increase in homes required for Central Bedfordshire within the Luton HMA from the 16,000 to 20,100 - again no explanation or justification for this increase. I can find no explanation for these figures in the ONS 2018 tabulation and detailed datasets.

This is despite the fact that according to the ONS 2018 statistics Central Bedfordshire will require on average 238 less homes per year. Over the 20-year period that equates to 4,760 fewer homes. Central Bedfordshire itself says that these new statistics applied to the standard methodology would lead to a housing reduction for many authorities, including Central Bedfordshire. So where NHDC gets these increased figures from is a mystery to us all.

However, if we take these increased NHDC figures for the moment, combining this increase in housing for Central Bedfordshire with the reduction in Luton's requirement together with a tiny (statistically insignificant) increase in Aylesbury Vale from 400 to 600 extra homes, and leaving 200 homes as the (equally statistically insignificant) requirement for North Herts in the Luton HMA, it leaves the wider Luton HMA requiring an increase from 31,800 homes to a new higher figure of 33,900 homes - approximately 7% higher NHDC says.

Central Bedfordshire in its MoU with NHDC in September/October 2018, has said in relation to its requirement to build 39,350 homes in Central Bedfordshire (32,000 for its own needs and 7,350 to meet unmet needs from Luton) that it is currently planning to meet its housing needs in full within the plan period and has confirmed 'that at the current time assistance is not required from any other local authority including NHDC to meet its OAN'. It should be noted here that the Central Bedfordshire Draft Local Plan period is from 2015-2035 so exact statistical comparisons are not so straightforward.

The increase from 32,000 identified by Central Bedfordshire as its housing requirement to the 33,900 suggested by NHDC does not seem to be hugely significant. However, there has, as yet, been no reaction by Central Bedfordshire to this apparent uplift.

If NHDC's own analysis of Luton's housing needs using the Lichfield methodology is followed then, at the very most, the Luton unmet need will be 4,500 homes (though with the strong likelihood that Luton will build more than this).

If those 4,500 homes are added to the extra 1,900 homes suggested by the NHDC study of Central Bedfordshire's own requirements within the Luton HMA, that brings a total of 6,400 homes. This can be met by Central Bedfordshire's commitment to providing 7,350 homes in addition to the 32,000 it needs for its own purposes and at the same time eliminating the need for NHDC to build 1,950 homes on Green Belt land around Cockernhoe. This, of course, will require some serious discussions between the local authorities.

But there appear to be more serious issues at play. It is very difficult to predict future housing need and it is important that the most robust and transparent methodology be used and that consistency be applied. Sadly, the arguments presented in ED159 have demonstrated statistical gymnastics and a cynical and duplicitous approach adopted by NHDC.

Such is their apparent desperation to build these homes, that they have now changed the goalposts by suggesting that the homes are not - as everyone has consistently believed for many years - to meet unmet needs arising from within Luton itself but, they now argue, to meet needs arising from within the wider Luton HMA.

This goes right against the explicit statements in the MoUs and Statements of Common Ground signed between NHDC, with Central Bedfordshire, Aylesbury Vale and Luton Borough Council which make direct reference to the housing need arising from within the Luton Borough Council authority area.

The figures to justify this simply do not add up. NHDC must be compelled to produce robust and clear justification as to why they have calculated that extra homes will be needed in the Central Bedfordshire area of the Luton HMA under the new ONS 2018 statistics, when Central Bedfordshire itself states that it sees these new statistics leading to an overall reduction in homes required. In any event, NHDC does not appear to have produced these figures with any sign of co-operation or verification from either Luton or Central Bedfordshire.

NHDC's conclusions to ED159 state that under the various alternative scenarios discussed, 'the unmet housing needs from Luton could decrease. Viewed in isolation, this could call into question the justification for the allocations proposed to the east of Luton in the current Plan. However, this issue needs to be considered in the context of the broader Luton HMA's ability to absorb the shortfall'.

It goes on to say: "Under the alternative scenarios, Central Bedfordshire could have to provide additional homes in order to meet its own requirements. As such, although the unmet needs from Luton are lower, Central Bedfordshire's potential ability to address them could be reduced to an equal or greater extent. Once the potential combined requirements for Luton and Central Bedfordshire are taken into account, the east of Luton sites would still be required to make a positive contribution towards housing needs from the wider housing market area under the alternate scenarios".

NHDC must also be compelled to explain why it is so keen to continue in its quest to build 2,100 homes in the Cockernhoe area, despite there being scant evidence of any unmet need arising from Luton, and also why they have no regard to Luton's over-delivery of housing numbers over a 27-year period.

Yet their own figures, using the Lichfield methodology, suggest there to be no more than a notional increase in housing from Luton and Central Bedfordshire and this paper demonstrates that these homes can be can be met from within the Luton HMA by the number of homes able to be built by both Luton and Central Bedfordshire.

In short NHDC's argument that 'exceptional circumstances' for the use of the Green Belt land to the east of Luton remains applicable is utterly wrong and should be dismissed totally.

This area of land around Cockernhoe should be kept in the Green Belt and, furthermore, the firm offer made by NHDC to its neighbouring authorities in the Luton HMA to build 2,100 homes in this area should be scrapped. Even further, the idea that the narrow strip of land to the east of Luton with its tiny and statistically insignificant population of 1,700 people (500 of which are in the Cockernhoe area) should be part of the Luton HMA (322,000 population) in the first place is a nonsense and a convenient contrivance that has allowed, either - the unintended consequence of this small area potentially having to bear an utterly disproportionate and destructive contribution to meeting neighbouring authorities' unmet housing needs, or....a deliberately and knowingly-created situation to enable NHDC to build homes for reasons other than to meet other authorities' unmet housing needs through the Duty to Co-operate.

*************************

Need for Another Examination Hearing as this OAN Material was Newly Added in After Previous Hearing Sessions ended. Also Hearings Prior Reached no Clarity or Consensus on the Original Material Either
The OAN is such a pivotal and critical factor affecting everything.

When using the non-standard method, PPG says that it must be scrutinised more closely at examination.

"At Examination" means both written statement and hearing sessions. Not only written statement.

We should have more hearing sessions to discuss the newly added material. The newly added material out-numbers the documents that were present during the hearing sessions.

PPG says that when "exceptional circumstances" are present, and the authority has chosen to use an alternative approach, then they must be scrutinised more closely at examination.

This is a case of that. We know they have used an "alternative approach" but no one has yet seen the logic of what it is.

END OF PART I

*************************

Subject: Comment on Inspector's Modification MM410 and Examination Document ED159 - The Local Plan's Objectively Assessed Need for Housing and 2016-Based ONS Projections - PART II

Contents:

Government's Standard Methodology Results in Around 230,000 Homes Per Annum Instead of 300,000

Luton's Unmet Needs - The New ONS Housing Projections and How This Removes Luton's Unmet Housing Need

Doing the Maths of the OAN for Luton

Luton Has Already Over-achieved in Terms of House-building Numbers

Central Bedfordshire's Contribution to Luton's Unmet Need

Alternative Sites Opening Up In Luton

False Assertions that We Have Been in a Recession When We have instead been in a Growth Period

Public Trust Is Currently an Issue for North Herts District Council

NPPF 14 - Sustainable Development and Specific Policies in This Framework When Development Should Be Restricted

Before making the SHMA and SHLAA the Council Should Have Produced a Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA)

The Wider National Picture and Why ONS Statistics Should be the Benchmark Used

Overall Conclusions

Government's Standard Methodology Results in Around 230,000 Homes Per Annum Instead of 300,000

The Government appears torn and undecided. It cannot decide whether to alter the way that the statistics are compiled, so as to still meet its policy of 300,000 houses per annum, or else use the independent statistics as the basis for revised more accurate planning.

The Government's intention to produce a standard methodology for determining housing need is of no consequence for this Local Plan though. Since it is still making up its mind, and the NPPF 2012 must therefore be applied argues North Herts.

Thus the RH column in Table 2 is irrelevant as a comparison.

However, in the Lichfield data in NHDC ED159 the potential standard method for calculating the OAN from the 2016-based ONS data is almost identical to the ONS data anyway.

ONS has yet to publish any detailed methodology or figures, but Figure 2 shows what a simple linear trend would be on national formation rates (for 25-34 year olds) based on 2001-11 change.
It is clearly projected to decrease.
Figure 2 - Projected formation rates for 25-34 year olds (England) based on 2001-11 trend

Fig 2 shows that formation rates for 25-34 year olds would fall more significantly in the short term than DCLG had previously suggested.
For 25-29 years, formation rates could even be as low as 36% by 2021 (compared to 45% in 1991).
For 30-34 year olds they could be just under 48% (compared to 52% in the 1990s).
Over the next 10 years (by 2026) this could yield 150,000 fewer households, or 15,000 less a year than indicated based on current projections.
When the Government's standard methodology is applied, this could bring the national total down to around 230,000 homes per annum, some 70,000 below the 300,000 aspiration.

Luton's Unmet Needs - The New ONS Housing Projections and How This Removes Luton's Unmet Housing Need

The Inspector has suggested that 2,095 homes be for Luton's need and 5 be for NHDC.

So the east of Luton site is all about trying to maintain argument that there are "exceptional circumstances".

However this has always rested on whether or not Luton's unmet need is indeed true.

The Inspector has decided that 2,095 shall be for Luton's unmet need yet the Inspector did not explicitly impose any conditions such as; "cancel site if there is no unmet need after all" along with "all other site options must be thoroughly examined and exhausted before even suggesting a Plan to destroy any Green Belt".

This should of course be added or its absence shall be vicariously exploited.

The Council's duty to co-operate with the neighbouring local authorities under the Localism Act of 2011, to ensure that housing numbers are built should be extending co-operation to also ensure numbers are fairly worked out, correct at the very least, and calculated only according to the most up-to-date accurate housing projections.

2,100 houses planned on Green Belt land between the east of Luton boundary and engulfing the villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green - is an EXTRAORDINARILY BIG DEAL.

In December 2018 the Inspector has asked NHDC to comment on whether there are any implications arising from these new numbers generally and, specifically, in relation to the Local Plan's proposal to meet unmet housing need from Luton on land currently designated as Green Belt around Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green, Tea Green and Wandon End.

North Herts are of course keen to point out that the new 2016-based projections need to be treated with some care, according to the UK Government. NHDC accompanied its comments on the new statistics (ED159) by including an article from www.planningresource.co.uk dated 1 October 2018 which reported Kit Malthouse, Housing Minister, warning at a fringe event around the Conservative Party Conference last October, that there could be anomalies in these statistics as they take as their base-line study period the trends from only two census years of 2001 and 2011 rather than the previous method of longer trend calculation. Mr Malthouse urged councils not 'to take their foot off the accelerator' in terms of building new homes as this is a cornerstone of Government policy.

Kit Malthouse was at a fringe Conservative event at the time and clearly trying to win points amongst his peers. Kit Malthouse isn't a god or an all-seeing eye. We have seen many politicians and ministers reduced to ridiculous caricatures in the recent months anyway, so why not instead apply ones' own straight-forward common sense as a starting point instead?

He is a short-term "Housing Minister" and could quite possibly be gone in a couple of months, as the Government is re-organised. Ministers often just say whatever the political party line tells them to. This is not genuine free-thinking or accurate advice upon which to decide the future of a real country or even a real countryside area.

And whilst everyone who agrees to contribute to this disaster will be dead in a few years, those green lands that they've devastated will be a deficiency blighting generations to come delivering diseased fruits long after their limited lifespans.

But in answer to NHDC it is also worth noting that Housing Minister Kit Malthouse has also said a development above 500 units is a neighbourhood. The East of Luton site is 1,000 times larger than the villages it will smother. So by definition of sheer size, compared to that which is around it, this is an entirely new neighbourhood complex being proposed here. It is not merely "a development".

The East Luton conurbation adjacent to the proposed site is called Wigmore. Wigmore is a ward in itself comprising of 4,700 houses according to electoral records.

So being proposed are four new neighbourhoods by the Malthouse standard, and plonking them on top of several tiny villages.

I'm not sure everything needs to look like Cambridge, but how many people in this room believe they have built the conservation areas of the future. Probably not that many.
[...] when we are building this number of houses, if we can get to 300,000, we are not really just building houses we are building neighbourhoods. Developments of a thousand or 500 units are bigger than most villages, and we need to think in those neighbourhood terms, we need to think about the place, the design and beauty, where it fits and what we are, frankly, leaving to posterity.
Housing Minister Kit Malthouse, in his speech to the RESI Conference 2018 on 14 September
RESI Conference 2018

We next go into detail regarding the housing numbers involved and how they have arisen. How have they been calculated and what happens when we critically examine the NHDC response (ED159)?

We provide conclusions across a variety of examined scenarios that there is in reality, no unmet housing need from Luton.

Doing the Maths of the OAN for Luton

Representor Mr Reg Norgan from Graveley, wrote to NHDC Planning Officer Nigel Smith, asking, "upon what basis doesNHDC accept an unmet need in Luton exists" - to which Nigel replied "Paragraphs 25 to 28 (and associated tables) and paragraphs 38 to 40 specifically in ED 159 discuss unmet needs from Luton".

From: Reg Norgan
To: Nigel Smith <Nigel.Smith@north-herts.gov.uk>
28 Feb 2019 at 1:14 PM
Subject: Luton Unmet Need (1)
Dear Mr Smith,
On exactly what basis does NHDC accept that an unmet housing need of Luton exists such that NHDC need to cater for it in the NHDC Plan?
I ask this question as the 2016 ONS household projections indicate 9500 less houses will be needed for Luton.
Regards,
Reg Norgan

Subject: Luton Unmet Need (2)
From: Nigel Smith <Nigel.Smith@north-herts.gov.uk>
To: Reg Norgan
1 Mar 2019 at 10:27 AM
Mr Norgan,

This is set out in the note we prepared on the new household projections (ED159):
https://www.north-herts.gov.uk/files/ed159-nh-implications-new-household-projections-nhdc-local-planpdf

Paragraphs 25 to 28 (and associated tables) and paragraphs 38 to 40 specifically discuss unmet needs from Luton

Regards
Nigel

Nigel Smith
Strategic Planning Manager

Direct Dial: 01462 474847
North Hertfordshire District Council
Council Offices, Gernon Road
Letchworth Garden City
Hertfordshire
SG6 3JF

We will now proceed to dismantle paragraphs 25 to 28 and 38 to 40 - proving them to be erroneous and misinformed.

Through clear logical mathematical calculation we shall remove mythical elements from Nigel the Planner's unmet "needs".

NHDC argues that the revised housing figures from Luton does not invalidate their belief that there will still be a need for the 2,100 houses in the Green Belt. This they argue, is because those houses will be needed to meet the unmet needs arising from the wider Luton HMA.

So now we have all been asked to step through the portal of "belief".
North Herts Housing Need has become a matter of "belief"!

It is dangerous to enter into the world of "blind faith" and depart from the facts. It's starting to resemble an evangelical mission/ not the planning department it should.

All along the cited need for the houses on NHDC Green Belt has been to meet Luton (town's) unmet need; now all of a sudden they have reinvented the wheel and performed cartwheels to try and justify mere belief that building these homes has justification.

Woo-woo and not at all believable.

Central Beds apparently needs more homes under the new ONS statistics claims NHDC!

I am hoping that the inspector will see through all of this. Whether he does or does not however doesn't alter the black and white numerical facts in front of him.

.....Which we can now use to prove how many houses have already been built, and which ultimately dispel all mythical elements of this claimed unmet need.
If the key officers responsible at NHDC Planning Department wanted to have an accurate and up-to-date relevant OAN assessment, they certainly should have mentioned these 2016-based departures from their previous calculations and others as well. That certainly betrays their prejudice.
The Local Plan is for 20 years. Thus the diminution in the OAN is 20 x 519 = 10,380.
Anyway, this is the way that the NHDC employ the figures in their Plan.
They calculate an OAN for the whole period including what has gone.
The fact that 7 years of the Plan has passed does not come into the calculation.

The plan is for the total period 2011-2031.
A certain number of houses have been built during those 7 years.
Therefore planned housing need for that period also has to include those houses already built and deduct them from any OAN.

According to the Luton Housing Market Area (HMA) Growth Options Study of November 2016, the number of "objectively assessed need" new homes required in Luton itself was identified as 17,800 from 2011 to 2031. This number underpins the Luton Local Plan. Luton is the major component of the Luton HMA which consists of the town itself, plus a large section of Central Bedfordshire and much smaller parcels of land from Aylesbury Vale District Council and NHDC - being the land to the east of Luton.

The Luton Strategic Land Housing Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of 2016 identified that Luton itself would build at least 8,500 new homes within the Borough over the 2011-2031 period and this is committed to in the adopted Luton Local Plan.

This leaves a shortfall - the so-called unmet housing need for Luton - of 17,800 - 8,500 = 9,300 homes. To meet this unmet requirement of 9,300 homes, NHDC has offered to build 1,950 homes in the Cockernhoe area with the balance of 7,350 being provided by Central Bedfordshire District Council. The Inspector has since asked the figure be altered so that 2,095 of the homes be for Luton's need only.

But now we have the new ONS 2016 housing statistical projections to consider. Predicting fewer houses being required across the UK than previously estimated, these show a reduction of 519 homes per year to be required in Luton. Over the 20-year period of the Luton Local Plan that results in 10,380 less homes being required.

So, at an elementary level and, at the very least, the figure of 10,380 less homes required wipes out Luton's unmet housing needs of 9,300 homes, to the tune of 1,080 homes.

Or to put it another way, if the new ONS 2016-based projections suggest that Luton's housing needs are now not 17,800 but 17,800-10,380 = 7,420, then the planned building of Luton's 8,500 homes comfortably exceeds the number of homes required and, thus, no unmet housing need exists.

Luton Has Already Over-achieved in Terms of House-building Numbers

Irrespective of what the actual level of housing need in Luton might be, we should also be looking at what Luton Borough Council has already achieved in terms of building new homes over the past few decades, since this covers the first seven years of the current Local Plan (2011-2031). The 20-year period of the previous Local Plan (1991-2011) and the first seven years of the current Local Plan (2011-2031); that is the period from 2011 to the end of 2018.

During the period 1991-2011, Luton over-achieved, delivering 814 extra homes over the 20-year period (7,014 built compared to the target plan of 6,200).

In the current Local Plan period of 2011-2031, Luton is committed to build at least 425 homes a year in the Borough. But, as in the previous 20-year period, Luton has also over-achieved its building thus far. To the end of 2018 it had built 3,698 homes within the Borough against the planned target of 2,975 homes from 2011-2018 in the Luton Local Plan.

This leaves just a further 4,802 homes to be built (8,500 - 3,698) to meet its target over the remaining period 2019 - 2031.

With the targeted rate of delivery of 425 homes per year this would mean that over the next 13 years to the end of 2031 Luton would deliver 5,525 homes which, (together with the 3,698 already built), would mean that at least 9,223 homes could be built.

That is 1,053 extra homes in excess of what they said they need.

Luton's actual rate of over-delivery of new homes achieved in the previous Local Plan 1991-2011 was 40 homes extra year. Thus far in the current Local Plan (2011-2031) it has actually delivered an extra 723 homes, or over the seven - year period an extra 103 homes per year.

If this rate of building over-achievement was continued at the same rate as in the past seven years it would mean that an extra 1,339 homes could be built over the period (103 x 13 years = 1,339).

Add that total to the 3,698 homes already built, plus the targeted delivery of 425 homes a year over the remaining period = 5525 and we reach a grand possible total of 3,698 + 5,525 +1,339 = 10,562 homes.

This exceeds the number in the Local Plan by 2,062 homes (10,562 - 8,500).

Perhaps, more realistically, we should look at a lower rate of new homes over-delivery than the 103 currently achieved during the past 7 years.

Maybe, let us take an average of the 40 extra homes achieved on average each year during 1991-2011 and combine it with the 103 extra delivered from 2011-2018...

This brings an average of 56 extra homes a year over 27 years. This would lead to a total of new homes being built by Luton in the remaining 13 years of the Plan at 3,698 + 5525 + 728 = 9,951 new homes, exceeding the number in the Local Plan by 1,451 homes.

So on several levels, it looks as though Luton could deliver anywhere between 1,053, or 1,451 and up to 2,062) extra homes over the Local Plan period, depending on the rate of build it achieves.

If we now look back at the housing shortfall figure of 10,380 (as defined in the ONS 2016-based statistics) compared to the figure of 17,800 identified by Luton as new homes required during the 2011-2031 period - that leaves only 7,420 homes to be built.

Luton has already built 3,698 of these leaving 3,722 to be built during the next 13 years = an average rate of 286 a year. At the current rate of build (425 +103 = 528 per year), a further 6,864 homes would be built to reach 10,562 at the end of 2031. At the lower average rate of extra build considered above (an extra 56 per year) that would still result in 481 homes per year x 13 years = 6,253, which added to the 3,698 already built gives a total build of 9,951 new homes.

Both of these build rates would comfortably exceed the housing figures suggested by the new 2016-based analysis (7,420) by some 3,412 (the higher rate) or 2,531 homes (the lower rate). Thus, even if the ONS analysis was to be too pessimistic and more homes were likely to be needed, the chances are very good that Luton would be able to deliver those extra homes. And remember - this still means that there would be no unmet housing need from Luton.

But even if we assume that local authorities are forced to continue to use the, perhaps outdated, ONS 2014-based figures, and therefore, there would still remain an unmet housing need within Luton of 9,300 homes, the fact is that Luton's record of over-delivering on its house building over the past 27 years would indicate that it could deliver perhaps between 2,062 extra homes (at the higher build rate) and 1,451 homes (at the lower average build rate). At the higher rate of delivery this could mean that here would remain an unmet need of 7,238 homes. At the lower level of build rate, this would leave 7,850 homes as still needed.

Central Bedfordshire's Contribution to Luton's Unmet Need

Central Bedfordshire Council in its draft Local Plan has committed to delivering 7,350 homes to meet Luton's unmet housing needs, with North Herts planning to contribute 1,950 (or 2095) homes from the Cockernhoe Green Belt; a serious debate will be needed between these local authorities as to which one will build the houses first to meet this residual need from Luton. Central Bedfordshire is by far the biggest area outside Luton town to meet this need with its population in the Luton HMA contributing 35.6% to the population of the Luton HMA, as opposed to the area around North Herts contributing just 0.15%.

There is no doubt that Central Bedfordshire is better placed geographically and with better access to superior transport links, key services and infrastructure and closer to the Luton jobs market, to contribute their 7,350 homes first, which at Luton's higher rate of build would immediately meet the residual need of 7,238 homes (with Central Bedfordshire supplying 7,350 homes). At the lower rate of build in Luton an extra 500 homes would have to be built to make up the shortfall (7,850-7,350 = 500).

In this instance it is strongly arguable that Central Bedfordshire has more land identified for possible housing sites (some 266 sites in the Luton catchment area), quite a few which are not in the Green Belt.

Also Luton Borough Council has stated quite clearly that it prefers housing provided from outside its immediate boundaries to help meet its unmet needs to be closer to facilities, transport links etcetera and, in particular, has noted the potential of land to the west of Luton in the Central Bedfordshire area which it is urging to be brought forward for development much more quickly; this is the subject of some dispute between Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire.

The SHMA and the Inspector of Luton Local Plan - Luton's OAN Will Need Reviewing and Is "Not an Exact Science"

The prepared SHMA must assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries.

However the Luton Inspector reported that the Luton Plan's OAN should be reviewed within three years anyway.

It was clear at the time of inspection that the Plan that did not accurately reflect needs.

The Inspector only passed the Plan on the condition it would be subject to an early review of its OAN.

So that has got to happen later this year. Luton Borough Council is already preparing for a review.

The Inspector said there were uncertainties about Luton's OAN figure. He acknowledged that "future need for housing is not an exact science".

Inspector Stephen Youle: "Finally, it should be noted that the PPG advises that establishing the future need for housing is not an exact science and that no single approach will provide a definitive answer. That is the case here."

There were definite uncertainties. He was concerned particularly about the assumptions regarding migration.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.22-23

106. For these reasons, although there are uncertainties about the OAN figure, particularly in relation to the assumptions regarding migration, I am not persuaded that it would be justified to significantly delay this plan by putting it into suspension to allow the figures to be re-assessed. Finally, it should be noted that the PPG advises that establishing the future need for housing is not an exact science and that no single approach will provide a definitive answer. That is the case here.
107. However, the uncertainties are significant enough to require a re-consideration in an early review of the Plan, when the effect of data concerns about the 2001 Census may be further diminished. This commitment should be set out in a policy which specifically refers to a re-assessment of migration trends and projections. (MM56) This aligns with the approach on plan reviews set out in the PPG and in Examining Local Plans Procedural Practice. The use of an early review would also allow the OAN to be reassessed having regard to any standardised approach to assessing housing needs which may be put in place following the consultation announced in the Government's white paper 'Fixing our broken housing market' in February 2017. On this basis, the OAN figures expressed in the Plan can be regarded as sound, subject to a clear commitment to an early review. There is one exception to this which I will discuss below.

Brexit plans have already lowered immigration. This will be a long term trend for decades to come. Immigration may well not be as high as what it has been for the last 20 years.

Brexit has already affected the economy and is slowing down the housing markets. Already there have been clear signs of a downturn.

This is specifically going to affect Luton because most of its population growth has always been due to immigration.

The Luton Inspector recommended that a new joint SHMA be produced. He also didn't recommend North Hertfordshire as the best fit candidate for the unmet need,

"Central Bedfordshire is clearly the most obvious candidate to accommodate a significant proportion of that unmet need" he said.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.22-23

105. Fourthly, if an updated SHMA were to lead to a different, and potentially higher, OAN, the effects would largely influence planning decisions about housing numbers outside Luton, particularly in neighbouring Central Bedfordshire. This is because, on any realistic assessment, the housing capacity of Luton is significantly lower than the OAN and because, both geographically and functionally, Central Bedfordshire is clearly the most obvious candidate to accommodate a significant proportion of that unmet need. In this context the SOCG with CBC confirms that a new joint SHMA will inform the new Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. This will cover the period 2015 to 2035. Consequently, the OAN for the HMA is likely to be revisited in the near future. The two Councils have agreed that any changes to the OAN for Luton itself would need to be considered in the next Luton Local Plan.

The Luton Inspector said the Plan should be split between four relevant authorities. However he said that it wasn't clear as to how the OAN was split between them. He asked that this be clarified in the future.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report 2017 - p.p.22-23

108. The Plan refers to an OAN of 31,200 for the Luton HMA. This covers most of the HMA but not the small areas that fall within North Hertfordshire and Aylesbury Vale or the need which relates to those areas. This should be corrected, taking the overall OAN for the HMA to 31,800. (MM12) It should also be clarified how this OAN is split between the four relevant authorities. (MM9)

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.22-23

109. Finally on this matter, given it is unclear what a reconsideration of the OAN through the plan review process might yield, it is not necessary for the Plan to refer to the OAN for Luton as being at least 17,800, a possibility that was discussed at the relevant hearing session.

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.23

Overall capacity
110. Given Luton's administrative boundary fairly closely aligns with the urban area, there is only a limited supply of potential land for housing. The Plan states that 6,700 new homes will be provided for, reflecting the availability of land. However, the more recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) of July 2016 refers to a capacity of 9,322 between 2011 and 2031. This includes completions in the first few years of the plan period.

Alternative Sites Opening Up In Luton

At the time of inspecting the Luton Plan, there were other sites potentially going to become available - such as Napier Park. Now the planning permission for development upon this site has since been granted. This is connected to the Newlands Football Stadium development. The old football stadium has therefore also newly become available - to build thousands of homes upon.

This wasn't the case at the time of Luton's Local Plan inspection. It has since occurred, although the Inspector mentioned it might be a future available alternative option.

It would be therefore more logical to put any unmet need in this west of Luton area where they are not competing with extremely limited local space - by being placed in the field directly next door to a new Gatwick-sized Airport Terminal two and current runway!

Luton Local Plan, Inspectors' Report August 2017 - p.p.24

112. The Council considers that a capacity of 8,500 is more realistic than the SHLAA figure of 9,322.25 This is partly because of the uncertainties regarding the amount of housing that might be delivered at the Napier Park strategic allocation and in respect of a specific scheme for student accommodation. Looking more generally, the amount of housing delivered on the strategic allocations is almost inevitably likely to vary from that which is forecast, given the size of these allocations, and depending on the particular detailed mixed use schemes developers will bring forward. In more general terms it is reasonable to assume that a limited amount of the identified capacity might not be delivered.
113. Furthermore, any assessment of capacity is prone to at least some uncertainties about delivery. For example, the housing allocation at Kenilworth Road is dependent on the relocation of Luton Town Football Club, which will be considered in detail below. Similarly, the amount of existing housing that might be released through the development of any student accommodation is to some degree uncertain, as is the amount of new housing that might be provided through the exercise of permitted development rights. Set against this, the windfall assumption from small sites is probably quite conservative (at just 114 dwellings)26 and so might in practice be higher.

The most basic road access and traffic congestion has always been the obvious elephant in the room for Crown Estates and Bloor Homes - a problem for the East of Luton site which the suits were determined to try and ignore - after all they don't live there and they are just paid to sell off the land, dig it up, stick a few houses on it, cash in the profits (ka-chink) and move on - swift n' fast. You wouldn't see them for dust. However the poor residents would be left to deal with the clouds of particulate grime ingrained into their nostrils from building for decades to come. At the same time Luton would also be building the new Airport terminal next door, and changing the Park into two dual carriageways feeding into the new terminal plus attached industrial estate! All within the same kilometre square!

The most profitable business to enter into for the Luton teenage entrepreneur would be the gas-mask industry or air purification units with HEPA filters, and asthma spin-halers, or selling life insurance policies cashable upon death. Although if s/he were to live in east Luton their chances of reaching old age to reap any rewards would be considerably slimmer than they would have been prior to the North Herts Local Plan.

That's sad isn't it? That you sit with such a ludicrous plan before you and are having to pass and use words to justify an infringement upon the most basic human right - the right to life via the breathing of clean air.

Passing a Local Plan that hasn't even mentioned a new Terminal Two in the neighbouring field is insane beyond words!!

It is really rather laughable that whilst ignoring the new Airport terminal and the tripling of its capacity, North Herts has dared to call their East of Luton site "strategic"!

TEXT REMOVED

"Show us your money and we'll miss out Luton's Gatwick and hope no one'll notice"....

False Assertions that We Have Been in a Recession When We have instead been in a Growth Period

They have it around the wrong way. The North Herts response says we have been in a recession and that there will be big growth in the future. However as usual they have it back to front. We have been in a period of growth although the prospect of Brexit has slowed things somewhat, but the signals are that contraction is likely in the future.

The standard method requires local authorities to take its projected household growth from the latest official projections and make a fixed percentage uplift, depending on the local affordability ratio (the ratio of house prices to earnings).
The scope to adopt a number lower than the figure given by this calculation is very limited, although where authorities seek to adopt a higher number (e.g. based on employment growth or infrastructure) inspectors are advised to find this sound (unless there are compelling reasons not to).
Here are the compelling reasons why the Inspector should not accept the higher number based on employment growth or infrastructure:

Also included in the NHDC response are extracts from a paper by the planning consultancy Lichfields, which points out that the period between 2001-2011 coincided with low-levels of house building, a decline in housing affordability, and, increasing numbers of adults living at home for longer, as well as the recession.

The impression given is that much of the decade was in recession, when in fact it was just two years 2007/8 when there was a fall of growth by -0.5% and then - 4.2%. All other years in that decade showed growth of between 1.4% and 3.3% per annum.

The government has pointed out that these sorts of statistics are subject to periodic review and it has also announced that it will introduce a standard methodology for determining housing need for future plans, in place of OAN, which seems to be subject to many different variations in how it is calculated.

So it does look as though the future demand for housing needs in Luton (as indeed elsewhere) could well fall somewhere between the lower figures suggested by 2016-based projections and the number suggested by the current Luton OAN. It is also worth bearing in mind that the reasons cited by the Government for the lower housing projections identified by the 2016-based projections were still to a large extent in play in the period from 2011 and are largely still relevant today - namely there were, (and still are), low-levels of house building, clearly there was, (and still is), a decline in housing affordability, and, clearly, increasing numbers of adults are living at home for longer (that is still the case). Economic growth between 2011 and 2018 has been modest, ranging from 1.1% to 3.1% per annum. On these underlying bases, it is quite conceivable that the 2016-based projections could well be accurate.

At the very least there is some considerable uncertainty and disagreement about providing projections for future housing needs; it is a tricky statistical exercise and, if not done robustly and transparently, faith in the system will be undermined; some might even say that it is little more than guesswork.

In these circumstances, is it right that the destruction of the Green Belt around Cockernhoe and the engulfing of the three villages by NHDC to meet Luton's so-called unmet housing needs, should be allowed to go forward when there is such considerable doubt about what Luton's future housing needs will be?

Remember, the Green Belt rules state quite clearly that building can only take place in "exceptional circumstances". NHDC argues that the "exceptional circumstance" is their duty to co-operate to help meet Luton's unmet housing needs. There must now be considerable doubt that this unmet need exists at all.

There is also surely a strong argument that to persevere with the earlier housing statistics when newer housing statistics seem to show a different and lower housing need trend - especially in terms of destroying the Green Belt around Cockernhoe - is seriously damaging and counter to the strong protections afforded to the Green Belt and will further erode people's faith in both local and national governance.

TEXT REMOVED

NPPF 14 - Sustainable Development and Specific Policies in This Framework When Development Should Be Restricted

Development is specifically restricted by specific policies in this Framework in cases of --
Sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives
Land Designated as Green Belt
Local Green Space
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Designated heritage assets

In these cases development needs should be restricted when any adverse impacts of developing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

NPPF 14
9 For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
For plan-making this means that:
●● local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area;
●● Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless:
-- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
-- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be
restricted.9
9 For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

GREED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

This east of Luton site is part of a live AONB application awaiting determination.

It is next to the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

It is all Green Belt.

It is an Area of Archaeological Interest.

There are protected barn owls in the sites at Cockernhoe along with other species.

Before making the SHMA and SHLAA the Council Should Have Produced a Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA)

In this Local Plan development DESIRES have been confused and conflated with development NEEDS.

PPG says housing need must be undertaken separately from assessing land availability.
Housing and economic land availability assessment is given as the source of guidance on how constraints should be considered once a housing need figure has been identified.
Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 2a-001-20190220. Revision date: 20 02 2019
What is housing need?
Housing need is an unconstrained assessment of the number of homes needed in an area. Assessing housing need is the first step in the process of deciding how many homes need to be planned for. It should be undertaken separately from assessing land availability, establishing a housing requirement figure and preparing policies to address this such as site allocations. For further details on how constraints should be considered once a housing need figure has been identified, please see Housing and economic land availability assessment guidance. [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment]

Mr Wilfred Aspinall and Ms Carolyn Cottier each requested a HELAA at numerous points throughout the Hearing.

Mr Aspinall indeed requested it in many of his written statements and during his participatory sessions. Carolyn Cottier also requested it twice during in her attendance and in a follow up complaint to the Inspector afterwards.

So a HELAA must be presented. It is a register showing all land in the district regardless of whether or not it can be developed.

In this Local Plan, we are in no doubt that development desires masquerade as an imposter to development needs. The adverse impacts of developing at whim obviously significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which is why the Plan is so universally hated across the entire district by all who have set eyes on it- except those who stand to make the biggest amount of money from it.

When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole it is a crushing and damning fact that 87 per cent the Plan's entire development is upon Green Belt which is by definition meant to be restricted.

The Framework makes it clear that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.

NHDC claims there are "no alternatives" - which is an entirely un-based claim in the absence of a HELAA; that registry listing all sites in the area.

NHDC has produced no HELAA to date - which is proof enough that they do not know what other sites are available.

Paragraph: 045 Reference ID: 3-045-20141006
Do local planning authorities have to meet in full housing needs identified in needs assessments?
Local authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs.
However, assessing need is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan. Once need has been assessed, the local planning authority should prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period, and in so doing take account of any constraints such as Green Belt, which indicate that development should be restricted and which may restrain the ability of an authority to meet its need.

A HELAA has always been absent and has been allowed to remain absent.

No register of land sites exists and no complete and thorough categorisation of all sites has ever occurred.

So there are no neutral grounds or thorough foundation upon which to base any assumptions about how much land exists or where and what it is.

TEXT REMOVED

TEXT REMOVED

In fact it's the last chip in more ways than one; it's the last document in the library. They even decided to leave ED159 off of the list of consultation documents in their letter, sent out to the Public on 28 February 2019 inviting everyone to comment.

Their letter says: "Examination Documents produced or submitted to the Examination by North Hertfordshire District Council (NHDC) ...As at 26 February 2019"

The list starts with "ED2 Sep 2017.......ED158 Nov 2018".

They listed everything for people to comment on, except for the all-important ED1 and ED159 documents.

Their list missed those off entirely and I suggest purposely...

I comment on ED159 now, only because I have seen the Council pull this type of stunt many times before.

However all the other people who are less wise to their games, will now need to be given another chance to comment since they could not see the missing documents ED2 and ED159 on the original list. Hence they have been under the engineered wrong impression that they could not comment on them at all!

The Wider National Picture and Why ONS Statistics Should be the Benchmark Used

The Office of National Statistics is the largest independent producer of national statistics in the UK and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It has a high reputation for the quality and independence of its statistical output which is done without any political reference. The ONS reports via the UK Statistics Authority who are responsible for promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official statistics which serve the public good.

It is worth saying at this point that Central Bedfordshire District Council has stated forcefully that the ONS 2016-based housing statistics when applied to the standard methodology would lead to a reduction for many local authorities, including Central Bedfordshire. Quite how that statement stands against the North Herts projections for an increase in housing in the part of Central Bedfordshire that lies within the Luton HMA is difficult to assess.

If one looks they will find no comment from Luton Borough Council on their website relating to the new ONS 2016-based statistics.

This writer can confirm that this is because the Housing Portfolio Holder Cllr Tom Shaw is reluctant and has not yet reviewed the Housing numbers in the Luton Housing Strategy. Cllr Tom Shaw said personally to this writer back in October 2018 that he was reluctant to alter the Luton housing need numbers because Central Bedfordshire Council was refusing to "even speak" with Luton, so he did not yet know the future outcome of talks that are currently being refused.

In response to the statistical changes between the ONS 2014-based and 2016-based figures, the Government has published a Technical Consultation on Updates to National Planning Policy and Guidance which considers the method of calculating housing numbers.

This consultation sets out proposals to update planning practice guidance on housing need assessment to be consistent with increasing housing supply. It makes the case for continuing to use the ONS 2014-based projections for calculating housing need rather than the more recent ONS 2016-based published projections. Central Bedfordshire in its response to this consultation states that: "it fundamentally disagrees with the proposed amendment to planning practice guidance to require use of the ONS 2016-based household projections. It considers that the arguments for this proposed change are weak and unclear and that the calculation of housing need should be transparent, robust and based on clear evidence."

It further adds that there is: "no acceptable justification for this change, and adjusting the method to ensure that a national aspirational figure of 300,000 homes per annum is achieved is unfounded and lacks transparency, particularly when the government has not evidenced the use of this national target, or clearly set out how this figure was derived. Surely, using the most up to date evidence base provides firstly, the most robust justification for the use of the model and, secondly, the most confidence in the system by all stakeholders".

The Central Beds position is as clear as mud.

Central Beds is saying it wishes to use nothing but the most up-to-date statistics. Which is of course the 2016-based figures. Yet it wants to still continue using the 2014-based figures too!

These are the conflicted representations that are confusing everything. It will be interesting to see how other local authorities respond. To date, nothing has been found on either the North Herts or the Luton Borough Council websites in response to the Government's consultation. This does show that they are not participating constructively in the overall process as they should be.

Reverting back to the North Herts ED159 document responding to the Inspector, it makes the point that the potential revised housing figures arising from the ONS 2016-based statistics would lead nationally to 214,000 homes a year being built, rather than the 300,000 in current Government policy.

It quotes the government as saying: - "it should be noted that the intention is to consider adjusting the method to ensure that the starting point in the plan-making process is consistent in aggregate with the proposals in Planning for the right homes in the right places consultation and continues to be consistent with ensuring that 300,000 homes are built per years by the mid-2020s".

In other words, the government seems to be proposing to alter the way the statistics are compiled so to meet the requirements of its policy, rather than use the independent statistics as the basis for revised and perhaps more accurate planning. That is an untrustworthy policy step to make.

NPPF 158. "Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals."

The words of the Housing Minister and confused councils are of NO consequence to the Local Plan; since they don't even agree between themselves and it could take them years post-Brexit saga to figure it out - if ever. Their motivations are in a quagmire of political bias and uncertainty.
So the clear wording of the NPPF 2012 is all that counts; particularly paragraphs 158 and 159 in this instance.
Twisting of the figures to fit the rigid predetermined result which they've decided they want to do- that is the opposite of what is stated should be done; the using of clearly known figures to produce an accurate result in real-time which is flexible and relevant.
In February 2017, the Government's Housing White Paper agreed with the principle of simplifying the approach to OAN.

Guidance was given on how to address employment growth - removed from OAN but retained as a 'policy-on' approach.

In September 2017 it set out its proposed standard method as part of its 'Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places' consultation, which has fed into the draft revised NPPF and draft revised PPG.

It will save time in the long run to have the Council repeat their OAN.

They must present OAN figures for the standard method of calculation to show what the difference could be.

I also suggest that they re-do their non-standardized calculations using all possible methods of calculation.

And clearly present each and every process.

***************************

Overall Conclusions
In ED159 if you scroll down one last time to the Lichfield figures (actually the ONS data) (East Anglia, Central and North) for Luton. It quotes the difference as 519 per year in the 3rd column from the left.
In the Lichfield interpretation at the end of ED159 they give the potential standard method OAN figure for Luton of 651 houses per year when based on the new ONS data. That is 519 less than with the 2014 ONS data. Over 20 years that is 10,400 houses less. On the old 2,014 data there was an unmet need of 9,300. So now there is a surplus of 10,400 - 9,300 = 1,100 houses.
There is now no unmet need.
EL1, 2 and 3 are not needed.
I think that it is important we go back to the drawing board now and sort the Plan's OAN so that it can be clear for the future generation.
In almost all of the scenarios examined as a result of studying in depth the NHDC paper (ED159) to the Inspector, the ONS 2018 housing projection statistics and its accompanying detailed datasets, as well as referral back to the NHDC Local Plan, the Luton Local Plan and the draft Central Bedfordshire Local Plan there is the overwhelming conclusion that there is likely in almost all scenarios to be no unmet housing need arising from within Luton.

There is a possibility that in one scenario, a small number of extra homes might need to be built to meet a residual unmet need arising from within Luton - at the most this looks to be around 500 homes. In this case the question arises where will these houses come from?

Should it be from Central Bedfordshire - which is the second biggest component of the Luton HMA and with more identified building sites available, some not in the Green Belt, and with closer and easier transport links, services links and closer to the Luton jobs market - or- should it come from North Hertfordshire through building on the Green Belt around Cockernhoe and in the process engulfing the three villages of Cockernhoe, Mangrove Green and Tea Green - an area which has now recently been re-defined as making an overall significant contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt and next door to a Gatwick sized Airport and all traffic associated.

Clearly, there is no 'exceptional circumstance' demonstrated here to justify building on the Cockernhoe Green Belt.

CALCULATIONS - X PLAN FAILS
CLEAR AND JUSTIFIED METHOD - X PLAN FAILS
USING MOST RECENT PROJECTIONS - X PLAN FAILS
RELEVANT - X PLAN FAILS
MOST UP-TO-DATE DATA - X PLAN FAILS
TRANSPARENT - X PLAN FAILS
ACCURACY - X PLAN FAILS