Elmbridge Local Plan

Autumn Update. Stoke d’Abernon Residents’ Association, October 2018

Download the complete presentation slides here.

• Now-May 2019: collection and consideration of evidence.
• June 2019: preferred options document published
• Aug-Sep 2019: Regulation 18 consultation
• Autumn 2019: Final Plan document published
• Jan-Feb 2020: Regulation 19 consultation
• March 2020: Submission of plan
• July-Sep 2020: Examination of the plan by the Planning Inspectorate
• Jan 2021: Likely adoption date

Why The Delay?

• New National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2018
• 2 key documents not produced by outside suppliers in time: Flood Risk Assessment (Environment Agency), Transport Assessment (SCC) – in turn delaying other work
• Cannot consult during election purdah*
• Advantage of not being first mover

*Note: This means the Elmbridge council elections in May 2019

Current Situation

• Elmbridge is in a local Strategic Housing Partnership group with Kingston, Epsom & Ewell & Mole Valley
• We compare our housing needs with theirs and consider cross-boundary and common strategic issues.
• Kingston subject to wider London needs
• Epsom slightly ahead of Elmbridge at present

Objectively Assessed Housing Need

• The Government has imposed its own methodology for assessing a planning authority’s need for housing.
• Under the 2016 calculation, Elmbridge needed 474 new homes per year for the next 10 years.
• Double the number being built: in 2015-16 only 243 units were built
• Under the new methodology called OAHN 612 new homes per year required.
• This is the starting-point.

The homes we need

• 28% 1 bedroom
• 42% 2 bedroom
• 29% 3 bedroom
• 1% 4+ bedroom
• 25% open market housing
• 21% affordable (non-social) housing
• 54% social housing
• Source: 2016 SHMA assessment

Urban Capacity Study

• Examines what can be developed within existing settlements.
• Local Cobham & Oxshott councillors were consulted about our own areas.
• Focussed on brownfield sites and sites where the current use could be intensified.
• Likely to involve higher density in built-up areas. But not like Woking or Staines (Spelthorne).
• Elmbridge might achieve about 50% of the OAHN target by increasing urban capacity.

Green Belt Sub-division study

• Carried out by Ove Arup & Partners
• 57% of Elmbridge by area classed as Green Belt
• Examines the current Green Belt boundaries
• Scores plots of land according to whether they are performing “poorly”, “moderately” or “strongly” as Green Belt sites
• Required by the NPPF to review our Green Belt when preparing a new local plan.
• Not include land “which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open”. (NPPF paragraph 139(b))

Green Belt Sub-division study

• 2016 version identified 3 strategic sites, 2 in Cobham / Oxshott: Chippings Farm and Knowle Park
• Roundly rejected by the public
• Ove Arup have been told they must not repeat the error
• Likely to produce a number of small sites across Elmbridge.
• Cobham cannot expect to be untouched.

Drake Park

• Green Belt site
• 1,024 residential units (50% affordable)
• Supermarket, pub, primary school, offices, doctors’ surgery
• Refused permission by planning sub-committee. Developer appealed.
• Public inquiry began in October 2017
• Appeal refused 24th May 2018

Matters Considered

• Inspector held that Elmbridge only has 2.65 years’ land supply.
• Inspector found that this would not improve in the next 5 years if Drake Park did not proceed.
• He considered it likely that Elmbridge’s Green Belt boundaries would be amended as part of its Local Plan preparation.
• The location of the development would cause Walton & Hersham to sprawl.
• Would also affect Esher: the Mole is not a sufficient boundary to compensate for loss of the open land.

Conclusion

• The land being developed is a “strategic arm of Green Belt which is already narrow and fragmented”.
• The benefits of the development do not outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the open space
• Therefore, no “very special circumstances” exist to justify granting planning permission

Lessons

• Lack of a 5 year housing supply makes Elmbridge more vulnerable to appeals.
• The Inspector expects that we will need to amend Green Belt boundaries to meet housing need over the plan period.
• The Green Belt remains a formidable obstacle for developers to overcome.

Our Choices

• Do we accept that we must release some Green Belt land from the outset?
• Do we point to our local constraints and refuse to “chase numbers”?
• Some Green Belt land is far from attractive: “brownfield in the Green Belt”.
• But if we offer that up, we might open the floodgates.

Download the complete presentation slides here.