[Eric Barnett:] Chairman appointed to E I P and to the North Yorkshire number three. Can I say that the purpose of the E I P is to examine the various issues that have been id identified for discussion. And the panel's role is to report on those issues. Er we are not required or intending to look at objections which have been submitted on other aspects of the structure plan. We are simply concerned with those issues which we will be discussing over the next erm eight days or so. The er other aspect I think erm for the purpose of those who were not at the er pre meeting, is to introduce the other panel member, and that Miss Roz who is a senior inspector, with the planning inspectorate on my right. On my left is the panel secretary Mrs Clare. And of course you will already be aware of the er program office which is outside just off the corridor. Now can I get some of the mechanics out of the way first of all before we before I ask North Yorkshire to make a start with their presentation? Firstly, I presume that those who want lunch, sandwiches here have already er taken care of their order. I would also like to add that the small meeting room which is off the corridor, opposite the program office, is ava available for you to er relax during the lunch break, and eat your sandwiches in there, rather than bring them into the hall. The other thing I would like to make sure and this applies also to the members of the public as well as those people who are participating in the discussion, could you please make sure that you have registered for the day. Er you can do that during the coffee break if you haven't already done so. now some of you will also have seen a form being circulated, asking you to agree that the recordings that are being made of the discussions, can be used as part of a research project. Certainly I was asked about this er well before the er E I P er and we agreed that there w Well certainly I agreed that I could see nothing wrong with that since it is a cl closed research project, and nothing will be divulged at all er publicly. Apart from which of course, that everything we say is being held in public session in any event. The recordings are available for you if you wish or will be available for you if you wish to er improve your memory on what has been said during the discussion periods. I must add that we will not be producing daily summaries, er I think it's a task which is a fairly daunting on and quite frankly, er they will not be produced in the sense At the end That they would not be available at the end of each day. Erm as I say, the recordings will be available if you wish to refresh your memory. They will be held during the course of the E I P here, otherwise they will be help by the county council. Now I was about to make a comment that er well most of you know who who you are and where you're sitting, er those that have already done that have turned their name tags round so we can see. Er one or two others, I would welcome that. We can identify you more readily that way. In terms of progressing or taking part in the discussion, can I suggest that if you want to come in on a particular item, you put your name board up like that, so that we can readily observe it er and equally, our friend who is looking after the microphones can make sure that the vol the volume of your microphone is turned up at the appropriate time. I don't think you wish us to tamper with the microphones at all do you? No, fine. Now if I can move on to today's session, we are going to concer concerned ourself obviously with housing land applications and primarily with matter one A. But before before I ask North Yorkshire to introduce the matter, can I put H B F on notice that I would like them to follow on from North Yorkshire, when they have made their contribution. I would also like to say that er whilst we are going to talk about the housing allocations in the sort of strategic sense, across the county first of all, there are as you will remember er the matters of some disagreements, differences of opinion on demographic issues. I raised this at the pre-meeting and asked that the various participants should have a look at those issues where they had areas of disagreement to see whether or not er they could reconcile those. And I I would like that to be touched on as well. Er by North Yorkshire. I think s the differences in some cases ar are so large that it's inescapable er that we have a discussion on. The other thing, and this is a case of where the panel bites back as it were. We have laid on the table, two tables, P S O one and P S O two. Erm and what we have done in compiling these tables and this has been done by the panel secretary, is to take from the various submissions of the participants, the various housing figures, the the various projections of likely need, of the housing requirement and the effective summary really is in P S O one, but when you look at P S O two er there's a little more detailed work gone into that. Now could I ask, if there are any erm matters on there where you have found and error and it's an error of fact, can I just stress that at this stage? Erm could you let the panel secretary know er about that this mo sometime this morning, but certainly er in time for our start of the afternoon session. But we felt the tables themselves, could provide a useful background er and in having had them compiled, they point up some rather interesting issues, which we would return to eventually. Now if I can pass on and ask Mr from North Yorkshire, who first of all is going to give you an introduction which in effect which effectively will set the context of alteration number three. And then I presume Mr you'll go on to deal with matter A one A.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes that's correct Mr, er it will be brief.... Well ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of this examination in public, it would probably be helpful to all present and participating, if the county council explained why this alteration is necessary, and the relationship of its content to regional and national guidance. Well now in case anyone present is uncertain, erm of the geography of the county, there is a plan displayed er on the board er at the back of the room which w should help er in that circumstance. The county is the largest by area in England, it borders two conurbations to the North and South, it's unique environmentally, both in its natural and built form. having two national parks, two and half areas of outstanding natural beauty, a heritage coast and a wealth of historic towns er and villages. The county council believes that North Yorkshire, the character of it, er is a national asset, but there is a view that because the county is large and relatively sparsely populated, there should be almost what appears to be an open door policy for development. We for our part are unaware of any statement of national policy that requires sparsely populated counties to be earmarked for development. Well now, the starting position today is that the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan was approved by the Secretary of State in November nineteen eighty. Together with subsequent alterations in January nineteen eighty seven and August nineteen eighty nine. I think it's fair to say that the Secretary of State has accepted that the special character of North Yorkshire, require a balance to be struck between environmental protection and development in the county. And we consider that this approach enjoys widespread support in North Yorkshire. Now district councils and National Park committees have approach in pursuit of their own plan making activities and although statutory local planning coverage in the county is still incomplete, the planning process at both county and district level, generally aims to meet the Secretary of State's wishes for North Yorkshire. As during the examination in public into the first alteration, this E I P will demonstrate again the wide measure of agreement between county and district councils. And we for our part think that this counts for a lot. As to the reasons why this alteration is necessary, the county council thinks there are three reasons, The first is to reflect the wish of government that the development planning system er is up to date, second and more practically, to provide a context for district wide development plan, and third, the urgent need to resolve the future strategic planning direction of greater York. As far as up to date development plans is concerned, this is supported by all sections of the community and need not be dwelt upon. An appropriate conte for context for district wide plans is necessary because the approved structure plan only extends to nineteen ninety six. Quite clearly the time horizon needs to be extended to allow structure plan numeric policies to provide clear guidance, not least in respect of a supply of land for housing in the county. District councils are presently making good progress on the development plans and appro and an approved alteration is clearly essential for that process. Well now the third factor, Greater York, has probably been the single most important planning issue for the county council and the Greater York districts over the past ten years. The ingredients I think we well know. A greenbelt agreed in principle by the Secretary of State but yet to be defined statutorily, a general absence of consensus on where future development in Greater York should be located, and increasing intervention by the Secretary of State on planning applications in Greater York. The county council and the five Greater York district councils began to address the issue in nineteen eighty eight and have spent five years in moving toward this examination in public. That might seem like a long time, but the issues have clearly been complex, and have been progressed as quickly as possible not least through vigourous prodding by the D O E, keen to see approval of a long term development strategy for Greater York and more importantly, a statutory definition of the York gre greenbelt. Well we think that the D O E would probably be quite pleased with the position that we reached today. During the period since nineteen eighty eight, the Greater York authorities have agreed a long term development strategy involving a new settlement contribution. This enabled progress on a York greenbelt local plan which in April nineteen ninety three completed a seven month public enquiry. The county council further accepted that an alteration to the approved structure plan was necessary to legitimize the strategy as the approved structure plan made no provision for it. That has also been progressed as concurrently as possible with the greenbelt local plan. So here we are today, almost at the end of a very long process, having experienced a wide ranging debate about the future of Greater York and numerous consultation exercises. The E I P today is probably one of the last pieces in the jigsaw. The completion of which will at long last resolve strategic planning issues in Greater York. Well of course this process pr could just as easily have been progressed through a full scale review of the structure plan rather than an alteration. As far as a full scale review of the structure plan is concerned, there is no doubt in the county council's mind, that such a full scale review would have significantly extended the process when all the players wish to see rapid progress, particularly to deal with the problems of Greater York. In nineteen ninety, the county council did consider the merits of a full scale review as against an alteration. It accepted that while there were arguments for a full scale review, the priority had to progress on an alteration which as quickly as possible, established the principle of a Greater York new settlement and progress on the greenbelt local plan. This approach was supported by the regional office of the Department of the environment. It is an alteration therefore that is t to be debated at this E I P and its coverage is relatively straightforward, though its content controversial. Policy H one provides the numeric provision for dwellings in the county after two thousand and six. Policy H two is a new policy which makes provision for a new settlement to help meet the development needs of the Greater York area. Policies I five and I twelve provide for land for employment in the period up to two thousand and six, while in the T policies, the opportunity is taken to update road schemes in the county. Finally, with the support of our district council, the dis the county council seeks to correct a serious omission of strategic planning policies for North Yorkshire, the inclusion of policy E two of a policy to control development in the countryside. All the policies have been the subject of consultation, but in the case of policy H two, we've experienced almost five years of continued discussion and debate first of all through the Greater York study and then through this alteration. The county council believes that policy H two is essential for the future of the Greater York area. The policy even has the distinction of attracting from the regional office of the Department of the Environment, in the paper to be considered at this E I P, a phrase of mild support. All these efforts do need of course to be assessed against their compliance or otherwise with national and regional guidance. The former in large part embodied in P P G, the latter in regional planning guidance for York and Humberside, yet to be issued by the Secretary of State. As far as the former is concerned, planning policy guidance, we will have different views. Certainly this alteration will ensure the strategic policy in North Yorkshire is up to date. And the alteration will address issues clearly appropria appropriate to structure plans. The the policies will be much debated, with quotes from various P P Gs, probably selective, being used by both the county council and objectors to justify their position. In any event, P P Gs are carefully drafted to ensure that few options are closed off. The county council does feel comfortable about the compliance of its alteration with national planning guidance. As far as regional planning guidance is concerned, there is none. It's quite clear, the needs of sensible planning require progress on development plans. nowhere has this been more evident than in Greater York. While P P G twelve provides for a cascade of planning policy, I suggest that only a purist would delay a resolution of the needs of Greater York, through the development plan process, in order to await regional planning guidance. In any event, the draft regional advice which has recently been the subject of consultation, does not conflict with this alteration, though Leeds and Bradford have reservations on the level of housing provision in North Yorkshire. We think the Secretary of State's present wish for ordered planning will benefit from the discussions at this E I P. There are I suspect, few organizations represented around this table, public or private, that would wish a delay in decision.... Finally panel, the county council considers that the issues raised in this alteration require early decision and not in two or three years time. It is the county council's responsibility to bring forward proposals to enable progress to be made. The county council has taken those decisions and we think they ought to be debated vigorously and following that discussion, the panel will come to its conclusion. The county council therefore commends this alteration to the panel. That's all I would like to say.
[Eric Barnett:] You don't wish to pursue in slightly more detail in terms of your introduction,th the issue one A which is the is the housing provision reasonable?
[Mr P Davies:] Ye Yes indeed I do. I was taking a step at a time and
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah well I'm quite happy.
[Mr P Davies:] Okay.
[Eric Barnett:] Can I can I just say before you start
[Mr P Davies:] Mhm.
[Eric Barnett:] Er I should have reminded everybody at the beginning, when you wish when you start to speak, would you please introduce yourself, give your name and who you represent. So we can make absolutely certain on the recording. That's each time. Sorry Mr.
[Mr P Davies:] Before we start chairman, I wonder whether we can make sure that Peter, North Yorkshire County Council, that all round the table have got the relevant North Yorkshire paperwork. And I think the documents that we have put in are N Y one,posi various positions er statements, Paper N Y two, described as population household economic activity rate projections, assumptions and methodology. N Y three is a county council commentary on the regional census study, funded by the local authorities and the D O E. N Y four is a paper entitled Housing Growth Provision. And then we miss a number erm er and move to N Y eleven which is a paper which we have put in which attempts to look at the differences between certainly between the N Y C C projections and the H B F projections. And that in fact is headed by erm a summary table erm which attempts to set down on p one piece of paper, where the differences erm erm lie. And I wonder erm we specifically er identified erm the wish to to to address that particular issue. Erm and what I would like to do, that paper was written by Mr, erm our research officer and perhaps after I've made one or two general remarks, he could give you the flavour erm of of of the difference as we as we see, if that would be acceptable to you?
[Eric Barnett:] That that that's quite acceptable.
[Mr P Davies:] So first... So if I Peter, North Yorkshire. If I continue then with some introductory remarks erm on policy H one a and one A, perhaps that would set the scene er for the discussion, then Mr will very briefly erm look at the differences as he sees them between the two sets erm of projections. Well policy H one addresses the number of dwellings to be provided in the county and the districts and and in in Greater York. And quite clearly there's a disagreement on the number of dwellings that the county council proposes. The this happened before, it happened in nineteen eighty seven erm on the first alteration when review er when they were a w wide range er of suggestions er made as to the appropriate level of provision. And to an extent, we ran through this same debate erm at the greenbelt local plan enquiry for two days during September er nineteen ninety two. It seems to be a relatively simple debate, there is either too much development in the views of some participants, erm or there is er too little. Others suggest that the county council er is about right. The county council would appear to be somewhere in the middle, based on the range of views that have been submitted to this E I P. At the top of the range we have the House Builders Federation with and excess of fif fifty thousand dwellings. At the bottom, we have J C with a figure in excess of thirty one thousand dwellings. The county council appear to be somewhere in the middle, er at around forty one thousand er two hundred dwellings. I think I need to say on that, that that should not be taken as the county council sitting on the fence between two opposing er extremes. The county council thinks that its proposed provision is the right approach and it's a balanced approach in line erm with Secretary of State's previously e stated wishes. The approach of the county council is based on certain principles, first of all it reflects the decision of the Secretary of State on the originally approved structure plan and particularly on the first alteration to the structure plans er in nineteen er eighty seven. And we've summarized in N Y four, paragraph twenty one to twenty seven, the main issues erm as we see them er there. And the conclusions appear to be that migration into the county needs to be modified, and secondly, that government policy was then and still is to pursue policies leading to the regeneration of urban areas e around North Yorkshire particularly West Yorkshire er and Cleveland. In Cleveland to the North, we have a deprived area er by any standard which is making valiant efforts to make provisions to retain er its own population as part of regenerating county Cleveland. In West Yorkshire to the South we have similar problems of inner city decline and there as we understand it the authorities wish to cater for their housing needs. The county council accepts the problems and is keen to do all it can to support those authorities er to North and South. But the county council does accept that trends for migration into the county are there and the county council cannot turn off the top to turn off the tap to reclu to preclude any further migration into the county. As a result, the county council accepts the need for a substantial element of development, which is the response to inward migration in the county. And around about sixty percent of the overall provision as we calculate it is to accommodate migration led development in North Yorkshire. As far as the debate with Leeds and Bradford is concerned, there are three districts adjacent to West Yorkshire, Selby, Harrogate and Craven. And the difference between us and the West Yorkshire authorities, appears to be eighteen hundred dwellings. That doesn't appear to be much erm in terms of quantity in our estimation in terms of the level of provision that Leeds and Bradford er are providing, but it would create a major problem er in North Yorkshire. At the other extreme, there are arguments for reduction in the at the other end of the spectrum there are arguments for reduction in the level er of housing provision proposed er in North Yorkshire. The county council does not accept that there should be any further reduction in the amount of housing that is proposed to be commodat accommodated in the county. The county council quite clearly accepts its regional responsibilities to accommodate a significant degree er of migration led er development. We believe to further reduce erm erm the level of migration led development in North Yorkshire er would not be in the best interest of the region as a whole and more importantly, would not be in accord with the general provisions o of the structure plan to accommodate a a significant level er of development. As we see it therefore, the county council is not turning the tap off in respect of migration led development, and it is not being e too generous. We believe that the balanced approach e of the county council e is right, it reflects the views of the Secretary of State er in nineteen eighty seven, and we think it's the appropriate way for North Yorkshire to develop, bearing in mind the clear environmental constraints er within North Yorkshire. Well chairman that gives a flavour of the documentation the various documentation that we put in. You did ask erm for us to try and help this examination by giving some indication of the differences between shall we say, the two sides of the debate. Er we put in N Y eleven which is our attempt er to identify first in a summary page, er and then in a more voluminous paper, with appendices, where the differences lie and the reasons that er that we pursue one course as opposed to another. Erm this has been prepared by Mr erm and perhaps it would be helpful if he gave you the flavour of it....
[Stuart Cowley:] Stuart, North Yorkshire. Well sir er we have as Mr has said, in N Y eleven, the commentary er of our o opinions on the situation put forward by the House Builders Federation. Whereas our own er reasoned commentary is in N Y two. Er N Y two paragraph nine er gives us the background to our approach in population projections. [clears throat] We have er framed them to take account of the most recent information available, subject to limitations that staff time limits causes. We have sir
[Eric Barnett:] Excuse me Mr. Can you all hear?
[speaker004:] It it shouldn't be necessary either to adjust the microphones, to switch them on or to move them actually. [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Alright carry on.
[Stuart Cowley:] Wherever possible sir, we have tested the validity of the individual assumptions against alternative sources of data. Er we have looked to supplement national e information by our local knowledge specifically I might instance one er where we have made a survey of the institutions which is one source of er possible difference between er people looking at the situation locally and those from further afield. We have erred I think in several instances to try and give a margin of flexibility er I think if we'd really tried hard to follow a policy of restraint within the assumptions of this model, we could have produced even lower figures than we have. I think we've tried to err being being reasonable. So that was the general approach. Er the particular methodology we've used is a population projection model, produced by the Institute. The Housing and Population model. Er this is quite commonly accepted as er in use in many places and I think my our colleagues on the other side of the table have been using the same basic modelling methodology. It starts by taking the present population a as the population of the base year, and proceeds to age the population, er adding births and subtracting deaths to get a population in the projection years. Er it begins by subtracting the institutional population from the total population in order to get the private household population. Once the population levels are calculated in the model, the population is converted in to households using marital status and rates. And once the households are calculated, the final process is to convert the households into dwellings. And to summarize the methodology that we've used, we've set out our in the single sheet in the front of N Y eleven, various assumption areas that constitute the use of the model and our choice of the appropriate assumption for each of these areas. [clears throat] So that for instance, er starting with a base population, we've used the Registrar General's nineteen ninety one provisional estimates. Er this was because er at the time the est that the calculations were made and reported to the committee, these were the most recently available. Er other have been able to use more recently er released information,n er namely the Registrar General's nineteen ninety one final revised estimates. As you will see from the sheet, small difference in the total population. Had the county council been able to use the final figures, the dwelling requirements at the end of the projection period would have been somewhat lower than the figure that we have produced. [clears throat] The conversion of the rate of population to private household population has been accepted that er we use as everybody has used, the county council's estimate of the institutional population. So this does not appear as a technical difference.
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry would you re would you repeat that. You say there is no difference of opinion on that one now.
[Stuart Cowley:] On on the level of the institutional
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.
[Stuart Cowley:] population. There is a difference of opinion in the effect on the number of households produced by the way that the military
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.
[Stuart Cowley:] population in married quarters is treated.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I appreciate that.
[Stuart Cowley:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] But you haven't highlighted that
[Stuart Cowley:] I haven't highlighted that as an area of difference.
[Eric Barnett:] N n no no. Cou co could I ask you and try to short circuit actually the presentation if you if you if you don't mind, to actually concentrate on those issue items where there are these significant differences which which you which you mentioned.
[Stuart Cowley:] Well the largest difference er from the sheet is in the death statistics. And er we will maintain that we've used the appropriate statistics from the office of population censuses and surveys and the Registrar General's er and erm our colleagues have made an error is our opinion on er the er death statistics that they've used in their calculations of the model in our opinion. In that they have not taken the correct figures. I can't explain the reasons why. Our our figures we maintain are the correct ones.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah I mean I I would assume that [clears throat] there must be agreed death rates which everybody would accept as as as being applicable in projecting population.
[Stuart Cowley:] We would have said we would have thought that too sir but er it appears that er
[Eric Barnett:] Well I I think I'll wait for H B F to come back on that one. But yo the figure the the figure which you mentioned Yeah.
[Stuart Cowley:] Can can I just add sir o one point I I in my in my preamble I said that we were sometimes able from a local point of view to take into account information locally that perhaps you wouldn't have got from further afield. [clears throat] Er within the model, there is the provision to er not take the date which is issued with the model, but to allow for local correction factors and it er maybe [clears throat] that we've got the locally correct death statistics in and our colleagues haven't got the local corrections.
[Eric Barnett:] Well we'll we'll we'll come back to that one later one but if you just carry on talking through the various er items where there is these there are these significant differences.
[Mr P Davies:] Well that is the er most significant difference sir. Er a difference has er appeared in concealed households, at three thousand. The county council maintains that er the project methodology takes account of all classes of households er within the methodology itself. And so there does not need to be a separate provision made for numbers of concealed households. Er our understanding is that er our colleagues the other side of the table wish to reduce the number of consumer households from the level it was at the nineteen ninety one census, which is the figure here, three one seven to zero. Eliminating the numbers of concealed households, and therefore the number of dwellings to be provided to cater for that. Er [clears throat] and we feel that that would be er unrealistic but within the modelling context, we don't think that it needs to be separately taken into account. There are households concealed households at the beginning of the period in our projections, there are households at the end of the period which are also concealed. This we feel matches the real world situation, where er the poor being always with us, there will always be people who while wishing to have accommodation. [clears throat] So that is an area of er significant difference. The next er most important er in terms of of erm numbers is er migration levels. H here we we have two categories of of areas of difference. There is the technical basis on the one hand, and there is a policy er er area. I think then there's a catchphrase, environmental discounts. And I think these phrases appear in the text. As far as the technical points are concerned er there is the question, which source of data should be used to quantify migration. And over how long a period should the migration be taken. [clears throat] The county council [clears throat] has used the National Health Service's central record of patient re-registrations as its principle source of for migration data and has chosen an eight year period to measure the trend. Er our colleagues I think have chosen a different period trend. I think it's a ten year period they've taken and th the er source is as much the a sort of a residual [clears throat] figure that comes from the Registrar General's mid year estimates, nineteen ninety one. As against the nineteen eighty one estimates. Deducting actual change and ending up with. We maintain that this balance not only includes migration but includes other adjustments. So the figures for migration are not necessarily purely migration figures [clears throat] and we are er we don't dispute the length of the trend to take the ten years. Ten years as it happens is not a lot different to eight years. The choice of the time period for migration is very important. [clears throat] if we had taken the most recent trend, it would have been over the last three years. This is shown er in the appendix to N Y two. Appendix five. Which is a table showing annual average migration figures for the years nineteen eighty five to nineteen ninety two. Appendix five of N Y two.... There you'll see there is an eight year trend, the mean of which is just under five thousand. From which we make a deduction and I'll come back to that deduction in a moment if I may sir. If one took just the last three years, the annual average migration figure would be a little under three thousand three hundred. Had we used this three thousand three hundred figure as the annual migration, then the housing requirement figures come out of the projection rather then two thousand and six, would have been some ten thousand fewer. So the choice of the length of the trend is er very important. The source is important and er how you deal with the source. Er I mentioned that we have made an allowance for students in this migration. Er this is not to say, I must emphasize that we have discounted students in this migration assessment. What we have done is to discount excess students. Er there is a technical report that has examined this sort of information erm for the year nineteen eighty one nineteen eighty eighty one, specifically for this county. Er the research found that there were three hundred or so students who registered with the health service but didn't re-register or didn't leave. So that that was a a a fact that er
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. Does this make a significant difference to the the hous household requirement?
[Stuart Cowley:] Yes One o one of the elements that goes towards the four thousand four hundred
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.
[Stuart Cowley:] difference in migration. Er I don't think I couldn't at this moment in time, give you the components
[Eric Barnett:] No.
[Stuart Cowley:] of of which of these four thousand four hundred is d due to the time period which is due to the source which is due to the er student er excess student discount. So that is a significant er difference sir between e our calibrations of the model and others.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.
[Stuart Cowley:] other differences are smaller in scale as you will see, there is a difference in er vacant dwellings, [clears throat] the county council er takes the view that er
[Eric Barnett:] Yes I I I Yeah sorry to interrupt, I mean I follow the arguments you've used within the document but I... the figure which the H H B F have attributed to vacant dwellings for example is just under two [tape change] thousand five hundred. Or is this th is this an adjusted figure now? Having had the discussion between the two parties. Is it six hundred?
[Stuart Cowley:] Er we have had er recent correspondence with the H B F and er my e colleague Mrs Long can give you the the detail of that. We would we would er revise the difference figure on the basis of that conversation. So d d d the the six thousand the six hundred does not really apply any more.
[Eric Barnett:] Well No well I I'll I'll come back to that issue with with H B F but
[Stuart Cowley:] Er but but it it is not simple as in any of these matters [clears throat] er in that the change in the vacant dwellings difference here also has a consequential figure for dwellings different at the end. Because of what the er effect is in the calculations and again we we could go into that in some detail if wanted to.
[Eric Barnett:] No I'm I'm trying to avoid too much detail if I can. What I'm trying to to establish in in a fairly simplified form actually, are the areas of difference and whether some of those are still capable of being reconciled, because of the way in which you a you know the the the different parties may have made different approaches but in fact you might come to an agreement about that. But there are other ar areas where in fact you may simply agree to disagree. For various reasons.
[Stuart Cowley:] Mm. Well I think [clears throat] having had a meeting with the er house builders er representatives earlier on, this table of differences now represents the differences that there are still remaining.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah right.
[R Whittaker:] Before the H B F respond and I appreciate they want to respond to what Mr said. Can I say in relation to what Mr has said
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr P Davies:] .
[Stuart Cowley:] Sorry I'm er
[R Whittaker:] Mr has er... Our aim must be to identify what really matters. Technical experts will always disagree, erm there was a time when I too would claim to be one of them. But I'm not here to play that role. We must please be clear about those factors which actually matter, always bearing in mind that it is for the county council in the first instance and perhaps for the panel in the second instance, to take a decision about the suppression of past migration trends. In other words not to provide for a continuing level of migration as it has been in the past. In that context, it seems to me that some of the differences between the technical experts pale into insignificance and therefore do net deserve our spending any great time upon them. There are other matters however, which seem to me to be much more significant in statistical terms and in relation to the total level of provision
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[R Whittaker:] which the county propose. Can we please concentrate on those that are truly significant? Mr I hope that hasn't cleared anything of what you wanted to say. Thank you.
[Roy Donson:] Right, thank you very much. Er Roy, House Builders Federation. I'll try my best to to respond to most of what we've already heard this morning. Erm, the basic stance of the er er of the federation is that we erm make use of the latest information. We regard that as being consistent with government policy, as set out in P P G twelve. But it is in our view, government policy to provide for development needs. Consistent within a framework of regional guidance. We have as Mr said already this morning, we have no regional guidance. Erm and his claim that in fact the regional draft regional guidance er that has emerged is consistent with this alteration, is not really surprising since the same parties drew up the same document. [clears throat]. So our purpose here and I would echo er what Miss has just said, is essentially to take a view about migration. That is the essential component erm which er will determine e effectively the strategic policy which will apply to this county. It's interesting that despite all that's been said about migration and I'll come back to it, but we actually start, the county and ourselves, from the same point, more or less, within about four four dwelling I think. Erm and but it's after that that we we we differ a bit. However as far as the basic strategy is concerned of this particular alteration, it includes for the first time, conversions. And that is a fundamental change to the previous strategy. And it amounts to, in effect a twelve point five percent decrease in housing provision. At a time when household formation rates suggest we should be going in the opposite direction, simply to stand still. This is a fundamental change of strategy without doubt. I don't want to hold up this alteration, and I, like Mr, don't want to wait three years for a decision. But I would say to you that such a fundamental change of strategy, would normally have its proper place in a replacement plan, rather than an alteration. So how do some of our differences come about. We have a number of technical differences which are essentially differences about the composition of the population and its natural change. And we would say that that difference amounts to sixteen hundred dwellings. We have a base dwelling difference, although in view of your remarks, that may well pale into insignificance. But nevertheless, it is a matter of fact that there is a difference of seven hundred and fifty dwellings, in the base dwellings that we've used. We do have a difference in vacancies. Er whereas the County Council have sought to re to er keep vacancies constant, we have said that it is reasonable to seek to plan to keep second homes etcetera as a constant number but what I would term normal vacancies, can be reasonably be expected to go up to maintain the same proportion. That does I think form a significant element because it makes a difference of nearly two and a half thousand dwellings.
[R Whittaker:] Perhaps I could intervene and try to establish a view on vacancies, so at least we can get one element of out
[Roy Donson:] Mm.
[R Whittaker:] of the debate out of the way. And perhaps Miss and D O E may have a view to contribute too. But if I can put my thinking erm on the floor first, it seems to me that vacant Normal vacancies as Mr has described them, are a function of people moving from one house to another. And it seems to me there is no reason to suppose that because there are more houses, the propensity to move from one house to another declines. Perhaps before gentleman of the County Council whose name I still can't see comes in, Miss may wish to say something.
[M Rees:] I think in this day and age, there is probably a greater propensity to move and consequently there may well be an increased erm amount of vacancies occurring and that was why in our statement, we actually increased the number of vacancies, but I think that is a function of the number of houses on offer at the time.
[speaker004:] Mm.
[R Whittaker:] H how in that context, does the County Council defend its position Mr [LAUGHTER] You're not Mrs, you're Mr [] Thank you.
[Stuart Cowley:] Mr will
[Malcolm Spittle:] Yes Malcolm, County Council. I think our concern is that the vacancy rate erm in the census indicates that some seven point one percent of the the properties in the county are vacant at er at that time. We are very concerned that in in making provision for housing through to the year two thousand and six, we should not be making provision for that level of vacancy rate, which seems to us to be artificially high when compared with the the national figures. And indeed we hear from the D O E that they have a figure in their paper of something like five and a half percent. The figure that we have come up with in fact is derived by holding constant the numbers rather than the rate of vacant dwellings through to the year two thousand and six, which implies that by the year two thousand six, we'd have would have a vacancy rate of six point two percent or or thereabouts. Which is still substantially higher than the national figure, and substantially higher than the figure being proposed by the Department of the Environment for North Yorkshire.
[R Whittaker:] Can you split that six point two percent between the the second homes etcetera and the normal vacancies?
[Malcolm Spittle:] Erm I don't have the figures off hand but I er we could provide those figures.
[R Whittaker:] Because it presupposes, if one a assumes that the second homes etcetera remain constant. It presupposes a reduction in the rate of normal vacancies.
[Malcolm Spittle:] I I th would prefer to look at the vacant dwellings as a single entity rather than necessarily splitting them down between the the the various types.
[R Whittaker:] My question still remains the same then. Does it not presuppose a reduction in the rate of all vacancies?
[Malcolm Spittle:] That's right, yes, from seven point one to six point two percent over the period through to two thousand and six.
[R Whittaker:] If you accept that that derives from the propensity to move, is it sensible to make that assumption?
[Malcolm Spittle:] But that is only one of the factors in North Yorkshire that is influencing the vacancy rate. We do have a very large proportion of holiday accommodation and second homes, which are concentrated in certain parts of the county. And we're concerned that this figure of seven point one percent, is in fact artificially inflating the housing requirement through to two thousand and six.
[R Whittaker:] I had hoped this would be a short point. Could I ask
[Malcolm Spittle:] Mhm.
[M Rees:] Our figure discounted second homes. Our figure of the vacancy assumptions is the number of vacant dwellings.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes your rate was something like five and a half percent if I remember rightly, yes yes. Yes. No Whereas
[M Rees:] That's right yes, but it has takes no takes no account of second homes.
[Eric Barnett:] H B F have gone for four point four five percent.
[Roy Donson:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] But leaving the second homes as a constant figure and separate from is that right?
[Malcolm Spittle:] I can't quite see the reason for discounting second homes altogether as the D O E have done. They are a factor in the the housing market in North Yorkshire and I think that we have to take those into account when we are looking at vacancy rates through to two thousand and six. And I think the overall figure that we've had produced, which is around the six point two percent, is still a very substantial level of vacant dwellings within the county. And I'm in no doubt that that will allow for the operation of a housing market, through movements er population and so forth.
[R Whittaker:] What can the County Council do first of all to stop people moving house and secondly, to stop people stop d... to prevent any change in the number and distribution of second homes?
[Malcolm Spittle:] The County Council isn't actually trying to control who occupies houses and what purpose they occupy them. What we're concerned with is the amount of land that or the amo number of dwellings that we are providing, through the structure plan, through local plans for the future. Er we're not seeking to control individual occupancy, that is not possible through the planning system.
[R Whittaker:] But the implication of a declining rate of vacancies, is that something will stop people moving house.
[Malcolm Spittle:] No I I'm not sure it necessarily will stop people moving house, what we're talking about is a level of provision for vacancy rates which is still well above national rates.
[Eric Barnett:] Is that including your second homes though?
[Malcolm Spittle:] That is including second homes yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes. But it
[R Whittaker:] Mr, I'd hoped it would be a short point. Obviously we're not going to reach [LAUGHTER] agreement on that [], but do you want to come back on vacancies. Or or indeed does Mr want to come in on vacancies?
[Steven Grigson:] I could. Steven from. I think inadvertently, Mr has has slightly muddied the waters, by reintroducing second homes. I think that discussion is more usefully conducted in terms of what you called normal vacancies. And this is the basis on which the D O E have put in their figure, it's the basis on which we have put in a figure for vacant dwellings, and also the H B F. And all of us as it were, set aside as a block, all the second homes as holiday homes and say, those are as it were, outside this enquiry, we'll leave them there. They don't even enter into the projections we have done at all. Because they're a constant number, it doesn't arise. I think the issue as you rightly as Miss rightly put it, is the normal vacancy rate and is there any reason to suppose as the County Council must be supposing, that this shrinks to a degree. And when I say the vacancy rate, I mean a percentage rather than a number. And I don't see any mechanism whereby that production can be engineered, or indeed any intention by the County Council to engineer such a reduction. In which case I would see that the sensible thing to do, which is what we have done, is to assume that the current vacancy rate stays the same as a percentage and that with a larger dwelling stock, results in some additional vacant dwellings.
[Roy Donson:] I I can't say any more than that. Erm that is exactly our point of view.
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry can I just come back to Mr 's point, where you say, that the current rate of vacancy. Are you talking about the current rate as it prevails or we're told it prevails ion North Yorkshire, or are you looking at a figure which is somewhat nearer the national average or the figure which Mr 's organization have chosen.
[Steven Grigson:] Steven,. We have sought to use the rate for the percentage for North Yorkshire, as at the nineteen ninety one census.
[R Whittaker:] I interrupted Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Right, er thank you very much. Roy, House Builders Federation. Erm so moving on, apart from the difference in in in vacancies, we then have erm a difference related to concealed households. Erm Mr has explained the view which is taken been taken by by North Yorkshire. Our view is that we should seek to accommodate concealed households. Concealed households are people who exist currently within the county. Whether or not further concealed households are formed over the next fifteen years, seems to me to be an irrelevance. It it should be the purpose of the planning authorities to seek to house its people. By ignoring concealed households, it is in fact not seeking to house its people, and is in fact not doing what in fact it says it should be doing within the explanatory memorandum.
[R Whittaker:] I suspect after the Prime Minister's speech last night, it's no longer political correct to talk about single parents. If he's back to basics, but is it realistic to suggest that there will that all concealed households will disappear?
[Roy Donson:] I am er it it may or may not be realistic to suggest that all concealed households will disappear. I did say that it's probable that concealed households will be formed over the fifteen year period. So they will continue to arise, but I think that it is right to plan to accommodate the ones that you know about. And the ones that we know about at the moment are the ones revealed from the census. The information from the Department of the Environment's nineteen eight nine based household projections, suggests that in fact there is a slightly larger number possibly erm in in in the round and that is five thousand dwellings as opposed to the three thousand one hundred and seventy we're seeking to include. And so to take what we would describe as a reasonable view on this, we say that if you know from evidence there are a number of concealed households, you should seek to accommodate them. And it is that is essentially the bottom line. Erm one could plan to accommodate more on the chance that they will arise, but we're not putting that forward.... Erm the then the seems to us the final er difference between ourselves and the er county council, is the issue of migration and what's already been referred to as environmental discounts. I'm sure we'll come on to discuss the nature and extent of those environmental discounts later. Erm but what we would say at this stage, is that there doesn't seem any rationale behind the discounts that have been applied by by the County Council, indeed we have a situation in Hambleton district, where there is a seventy percent discount, erm which doesn't seem to us to have been explained or justified. Erm we have put forward an alternative er mechanism for environmental discounts and er I can say by at this stage, by reference to the erm critique that has taken place of that of those environmental discounts in N Y eleven, that erm, while we wouldn't go along with making anywhere near the the additions that are suggested there, erm it may be that it would be sensible to make a further discount in respect of the heritage coast. So long as that does not include Whitby and Scarborough and er any settlements to the West of the what is essentially the coast road. Erm it may be that it it is sensible to make that discount and would only ap apply to Scarborough dis district, but as for the rest of the additional elements of er environmental discount that should be applied, I can't see why you should apply a discount in relation to agricultural land. I'm not aware we've got people living physically on agricultural land at the moment, they are fields as far as I know. Er and it would be just as sensible to make a discount for industrial land on that basis. I don't see why you should make a discount in respect of greenbelts. It is a matter of fact that greenbelts simply displace people around. Indeed the York greenbelt is entirely designed to do that. Displace people from York to er according to this structure plan alteration, partly to a new settlement on the outside of the greenbelt. And indeed within the greenbelt there are a number of settlements which we are sitting in one at the moment. Er which er have housing proposals within them and er to just make an average for the discount for the whole of the relevant parish, would be to overstate that particular case. Erm so we have we have er a a a a major difference there. Erm... but... our summary really would be that if one followed the County Councils proposals, this county would end up with a severe housing shortage. And that will actually drive people away from North Yorkshire. It won't actually stop people coming in to North Yorkshire. We don't have passports in this country, although as a long-standing Yorkshireman, I've always thought we should have them with Lancashire, but that's another issue. Erm but we don't and in fact what will happen in a housing shortage is that in migrants will be able to buy their way in. To some extent, the government's policy of affordable housing will enable an element of affordable housing to be provided, but it won't satisfy the needs of either people who are currently on the bottom of the housing rung and seeking to move up, nor will h help people who might be seeking to afford to c to come in as first time buyers as opposed to people who are otherwise er some other arrangement through an affordable housing provider. I have circulated round this morning, three er sheets which which help demonstrate that particular point. The second sheet which is headed commitments, is a list which is derived from er the statements made by the different authorities, er about the number of dwellings which are already permitted in one form or another. Er within their area. And we can see there that there are some nearly thirty three and a half thousand dwellings already committed. And having looked at identified needs for affordable housing, within again various statements made by the local authorities and compared those with the commitments that are left, in other words the places where they they could reasonably be found, we get some fairly large percentages of affordable housing requirement le on on on the remaining land. And on the front sheet o entitled affordable housing, we see there that in the case of Hambleton we'd be looking at forty one percent, of the remaining dwellings being unaffordable being affordable houses, down to York where it goes up to ninety percent. That is on the basis of the proposals put forward by the County Council. On the other hand, if the panel were to accept the figures which we are putting forward, you can see from the s the t table at the bottom of the page, those proportions come back to down to much more reasonable amounts. And we would say that that is much more likely to be achieved. In short, we are the people who are looking after the interests of the North Yorkshire people. And providing for their needs. Similarly,... I have also circulated a table entitled environmental capacity, where I have looked at what is the difference in percentage land-take terms, between the proposals of the county council and the proposals of the federation. We can see from that table that even on unconstrained land, we are talking about a difference of point one nine percent of land take. I would suggest to you that this must be an extraordinarily sens environmentally sensitive county if it cannot afford over fifteen years, to take an extra point one nine percent of its unconstrained land into development. And if by doing so it was to ensure that people who are already resident in this area are driven, this would be a totally inadequate response to the needs of the people of North Yorkshire.
[Eric Barnett:] If we convert your nought point one nine percent into hectares we're talking about roughly five hundred, is that right?
[Roy Donson:] Erm
[Eric Barnett:] If I if I take
[Roy Donson:] Yes yes Yes two one four O from
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Roy Donson:] one six four eight.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.... That
[Roy Donson:] Erm
[Eric Barnett:] Sorry.
[Roy Donson:] Just one final point if I may about er er about about migration. Which I'll just pick up on as a as as a final point. Erm Mr introduced the the the the the prospect that erm if they'd have taken migration over the last three years, it would have been a much reduced figure. Oh yes, of course it was, the last three years have been a recession, what else would you expect. We don't think it is sensible to plan for a recession. And indeed, given the number of dwellings that are proposed by the County Council, we see from completion rates that in fact those figures, broadly compare to the sort of completion rates we've had through the recession. This then is essentially as we see it, a plan for the recession. It is not a plan for the needs of the people of North Yorkshire. And indeed, in efforts to des to also confirm our reasonableness in the figure that we've put forward, despite the fact that it's much higher than the counties, I have included in my submission, paragraph thirty nine, that there are a number of factors we could have taken into account, but haven't have chosen not to do so, er which would have in fact upped the dwelling requirement. And one of them to some extent has has has already been discussed. Which was which was that we didn't take the whole of the vacant dwellings, we only took a part, even though we are not aware of any planning policy that will restrict occupation of dwellings as second homes. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr Mr, Thank you for that, er er so we're we're still talking in terms of a difference of just over twelve thousand dwellings between yourselves and the county.
[Roy Donson:] Indeed.
[Eric Barnett:] Er at the risk of upsetting everybody again, can I go back to the point which has been made by North Yorkshire on this summary sheet here. To the apparent difference between yourselves and them on the death statistics.
[Roy Donson:] Yeah.
[Eric Barnett:] I mean is this real or is it a red herring, which?
[Roy Donson:] Well I think it's only part of the picture, that is one element of er the whole make up of er of the population structure. And therefore, it takes one element and er it it erm it it seeks to highlight that particular element. I would also say that in fact er in in the paper that the number of deaths is converted into houses by app application of a factor of one point seven. Which I understand is the pensioner h er occupancy rate. I I In other words, all the extra deaths are going to occur only in pensioners? That may be very good news for the people of South Yorkshire who are below the age of sixty five, but I don't think it's realistic. Erm and so er I think that that is a slightly over-exaggerated figure anyway, and should be more like four thousand one hundred dwellings, even on this basis. But that said, erm what what it what the position is, er i is that we have put into the model Well we haven't put it into the model because it was given to us a part of the model and possibly by now North Yorkshire may have the revised model, No they haven't yet. But erm and essentially, the difference is this, if I can illustrate it by means of reference to appendix four in er N Y two of o o of North Yorkshire. It seems to me from looking at the figures within the projections that what North Yorkshire are are planning is that we'll have a return to that widening black area that's part of that particular diagram. What we are saying, and this is as a result of figures which are supplied by O P C S is that we are broadly saying that we will remain in this narrow band towards the end.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[Roy Donson:] And that essentially is the difference. And erm since we're both to some extent, crystal ball gazing, I suggest it's a matter of choice which to believe is most likely.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr.
[Steven Grigson:] Steven,. I think I can help you on the particular limited point of deaths and their effect. Erm You asked some while ago whether it shouldn't be possible at least to have a an agreed view on how many people are dying as it were. But what is more difficult is to have an agreed view on how many people will die and at what rate, in the year two thousand and one and beyond. Erm I have laid round the table this morning, and I hope you have it, a single sheet of paper which sets out the component differences between the projections and the County Council. I only want to speak at this juncture on the element of that which is due to lower mortality as I call it, I E deaths and this is addressed in paragraph five and in the table at the bottom which shows an effect of about two thousand er extra households, due to lower mortality rate assumptions in our projections. Lower that is than the County Council. The difference arises essentially from an improvement which is now evident in the latest national projections. And those date from a nineteen ninety one base, as compared to what was being forecast from the nineteen eighty nine.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Any view from the county on that point? Mrs.
[Mrs Long:] Mrs, North Yorkshire County Council.... I think one point that seems to have bis been missed by the H B F or is the fact that the population is growing. I too do have increased erm life expectancy for the very elderly, in our figures, the number of eighty five increased by sixty percent. We are not trying to say that the number of deaths are going to increases substantially so that the population is not growing. Within the sorry within the H B F projections, the populations grows by seventy thousand persons, so even though we have increased death statistics, mortality statistics where life expectancy is going to increase, by applying those onto a higher population you're naturally going to have more deaths. I don't see how that you can possible reduce the number of deaths within the county, or even maintain it at the same level. With this sort of growth. And migration is restricted to the very young, we do have high levels of migration by those in retirement age groups.
[Stuart Cowley:] Can I add a supplementary er c coming back er. I think it's very instructive that er H B F didn't deny that they'd made a mistake on this number and just talking about old people, er the fact is that eighty five percent of deaths in the county occur to people aged over sixty five. And so er there is a very strong correlation between er age and death unfortunately. And we're not trying to er be er unduly morbid about this, but recognize the facts of life. Er the er narrow band that is referred to in eighty nine, nineteen ninety one between births and deaths. We would be very pleased to see it continue to narrow, indeed we we we we we wouldn't wish to to see it revert, but that again is a demographic fact. Er not because of the number of deaths is going to vary sig very significantly as Mrs said, we we are allowing it to improve over time gradually. But it's a factor because of the births is more volatile. And the numbers of births will reduce and so there will be more deaths. Er m more of a natural change.
[Roy Donson:] I I I Roy, House Builders Federation. I I think I must come back with the fact that I haven't denied we made made a mistake. I haven't confirmed it either. Erm the simple fact is that the factors that have gone into the model that which we have used, have been the nineteen ninety one based fertility, mortality and infant mortality rates. And have been the nineteen ninety one based,correc local correction factors. The fact that it gives a different result from the ones that North Yorkshire have used, certainly they've used the neight eight nineteen eighty nine based fertility, mortality, infant mortality rates. I'm not sure what local correction factor they've used. I thought from the discussion we had a month or so ago, that they've used the eighty three based correction factors, but it maybe something else because the description this morning was given it was some lo other local one. But nevertheless it's a different one. The fact of the matter is we've used different factors. I used ones supplied which come effec effectively from government sources. They have used some other. They are different, but they're not necessarily right or wrong.
[Mrs Long:] Mrs, North Yorkshire County Council. The actual local correction factors that are supplied by the Institute are calculated by themselves. They do look at the statistics the government statistics for fertility and mortality, but they have then the ability to amend, to adjust to local erm to to match up with local information. But they are supplied by the Institute and not the government.
[Roy Donson:] I don't want to be picky about this but but I mean they are government based. It's a comparison of of what's happening in the county in terms of registrations of births and deaths, and what's happening nationally. So of course they're based on national figures.
[Eric Barnett:] I I have a I have a nasty suspicion that we could go on all day like this if if I allowed it to happen. Er er I d I don't think that we as a panel are necessarily going to ever and and and it may not be our role in fact to do so, to come to a judgement on it, but I would have thought as a matter of common sense, and common agreement, that there should be some er way in which the various parties would come together on the basic demographic statistics and would certainly accept that certain basic projections should be used i in looking forward. But before I move on to suggest we have a break for coffee, is there anyone else would like to pick up any points on the demographic matters that we've been discussing, leaving aside the discussions on migration. come back to that later on.
[speaker004:] Leeds,
[Eric Barnett:] Mr from Leeds.
[speaker004:] Yes, Ed from Leeds City Council. Yes chair I I'd like to raise a question. Is it legitimate for North Yorkshire to include environmental discounts in their calculation? And I say that because as Mr touched on in his introduction, the West Yorkshire districts are set a methodology for the definition of their housing requirement, buy R P G two. Strategic guidance for West Yorkshire. Now that guidance does not entitle the West Yorkshire districts to introduce environmental constraints the calculation of their housing requirement. Necessarily therefore, if North Yorkshire proceed with environmental constraints applying in their county as a whole, the proper planning of the region is being frustrated because somebody is not being planned for. [tape change]
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mr P Davies:] Can I just clarify er this point that the concept of environmental discounts is not one that's been pursued by the County Council, though the Secretary of State quite clearly requires local to take into account environmental consideration. Environmental discounts and our comments on those are in relation to a concept, I think introduced largely by er the House Builders Federation. And our comments are to what you should or should not include erm as an environmental discount. So it's not our concept, we're not applying environmental discounts. The County Council's position is that er it has taken on board, environmental considerations. I think if you look at the House Builder's Federation's papers, there you will see, their idea of environmental discount.
[Eric Barnett:] I think environmental discount and environmental considerations are factors which we'll come back to in in looking at the migration rates, so you're going to have another shot at this one. Mr. Yes thank you chair. Erm it's really just coming back on the issue of concealed household earlier. Er notice from the York City Council's submission, there is a difference in opinion between ourselves and the county on the calculation of housing requirement for the City of York. That what is discussing this morning, a relatively minor difference in terms of numbers. Now it does in fact arise from this issue of concealed households. Erm I think it is one of the important that should be emphasized. I think as Mr did say, erm the issue of affordable housing is a very real one. The government guidance er in P G three makes it very clear now that it's an issue we do have to address and if we don't for land requirement. We live in urban areas as well as rural areas. Erm. And so we have considered that an additional should be made in the City of York to take account of a policy objective of reducing the level of concealed and sharing households. Thank you for that. Can I just finish this this this session with one question back to North Yorkshire because I think you said, Within your sorry within your Sorry I'll come back to you, Within your projections you actually take account of concealed households.
[Mrs Long:] They are identified.
[Eric Barnett:] True or false?
[Mrs Long:] False. They are identified within the census.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Mrs Long:] The additional dwellings are not added on to eliminate the problem. However as the actual number of dwellings increased, the proportion of those living in concealed households does actually reduce.
[Eric Barnett:] Right okay. I understand now what you're saying. Mr.
[Mrs Long:] Steven,. Two small points sir still on these technicalities of projections. And the first is to pick up on concealed households and just to add to the points that have already been made that erm neither the House Builders Federation nor ourselves are assuming that all be housed, but the projected number is five thousand whereas we're housing three thousand odd of them. But also to say that elsewhere in this region, planning is on a basis that all consumer households will be housed. West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire strategic guidance housing numbers include all concealed households. So if we are to have a consistent regional planning framework, that should be weighed in the balance as to whether they're taken into account in North Yorkshire. I also want to to actually draw your attention to one item on household rates. I hesitate to do so because that's actually a source of difference between us and the County Council. But there are parties round this table who have nostalgic hankering for a projections. And I've put around today a short paper which has a a graph attached to it which I think adds to the explanation when I draw your attention to. It's a graph of average household size in North Yorkshire, and it's to that extent it's an attempt to summarize into one figure, the headship rate effect as it affects average household size. The the falling line in er in a continuous line is. Derived either from County Council sources or actual census reports so that is as it were, fact. And when you come to the lines on the right hand side, you have two views of the future, which are labelled eighty five based and eighty nine based. And the are these are the D O E's projected household sizes from those two sets of household projections. And I think the point the graph makes very clearly is that the eighty nine based set up here at least in my view, to fit far better to what has been happening than eighty five based set. Not only had a much slower rate of fall, but are actually detached nineteen ninety one from what we know has been happening. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. Mr Mr?
[Mr P Davies:] Yes. Chairman representing. I'd like to ask a question please of Mr. Could he explain or clarify please what his unrestrained land, this four hundred and ninety two hectares. Is it erm the national parks and greenbelt or I'd like to understand what it means.
[Roy Donson:] Erm the if if if you turn to the er Selby submission on H one, you'll find a table at the back of that submission and that's where that's the that's where that the basis of that.
[Eric Barnett:] Could could you Are you happy with that?
[Mr P Davies:] Erm.
[Eric Barnett:] Would you like it spelt out?
[Mr P Davies:] I'd like to turn turn to the. Selby?
[Roy Donson:] Selby. Selby H one.
[Eric Barnett:] Have a look at it while we're having Coffee Mr. Can we have a break now for fifteen minutes? Come back at quarter to twelve. [break in recording] are you.
[Mr P Davies:] No that's.
[Stuart Cowley:] Yes sir the erm
[Eric Barnett:] Mr Cowie.
[Stuart Cowley:] Mr Grigson the positive paper this morning was er one item and also the more general question of the nineteen eighty nine projections closer than the nineteen eighty five ones. Er we've used the nineteen eighty nine ones but we are reluctant to do so. We don't necessarily believe that they are all correct in what they say.
[R Whittaker:] Sorry the nineteen eighty nine projections for what?
[Stuart Cowley:] Headship. Erm they're obtained by looking at the results of the labour force survey which is a very small proportion of households surveyed each year. And so there must be an element of doubt over having updated from nineteen eighty one here to nineteen eighty nine. Er we are confirmed in our reservations about this by the results of the regional census study as I noted in my brief commentary N Y three. Erm the point about the regional... census study was that it did a reasonably good job of analyzing the present situation, but not a very good job of the projections. And we did compare the eighty nine based headship rates come from that ninety one against the census in. And it showed er some doubt about the er actually levels of comparison, but there was a question mark they raised, specifically about North Yorkshire. North Yorkshire in that context was different to what they found in the rest of the region. There is n there is a doubt about whether the eighty nine headship rates are appropriate. Had we used the eighty five ones, the housing provision would be some ten thousand or so fewer than it is. Two thousand and six.
[R Whittaker:] Sorry could you repeat
[Eric Barnett:] Ten thousand.
[Stuart Cowley:] Ten thousand. The second small point I just wish to reemphasize was er coming from what the House Builders Federation said earlier about the house builders being the people who are looking after the interests os North Yorkshire locals. I would remind all concerned that the local needs element in the predictions is sixteen and a half thousand dwellings. This as far as I'm aware hasn't been challenged by anybody else. So any dwellings over and above sixteen and a half thousand, would only be taken by people moving into the county and not by locals. And so it would not be right to say that we're not looking after the local element of the population.
[Eric Barnett:] I don't think that was necessarily the drift of the the House Builders Comment. But er I'll leave that. Your comment about the headship rates raise an interesting issue, in fact goes back to the comment Mr made, about the West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire who've got a consistent approach in projecting. Is that correct? That's correct. I'm not sure whether Mrs is either able or would wish to comment necessarily at this stage but er and I but is there any possibility that in the course of the operating the R P G, although I know that circulates to me certainly. Is there any likelihood that that consistency of approach which is being used by the South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Counties, would er could be adap adopted for o by other authorities in the North Yorkshire County.
[M Rees:] Thank you chairman. Margaret, D O E. The erm draft of or the advice that the local planning authorities intend to give to the secretary of state is currently out for consultation, we hope that it will be submitted by the end of the year. At the moment the figures of housing provision in that draft advice are rat are done on a rather different basis for West Yorkshire as opposed to the other counties in the region. it remains to be seen what figures are included when it is submitted to the Secretary of State and what view he takes on that. But certainly when we in the regional office get that that advice before before we put a submission to ministers, we will of course try to reconcile the figures so that they are on a consistent basis. As for Mr 's point that Not Mr b Steven 's point that the erm figures for the strategic guidance for West and South Yorkshire were done on a different basis, those figures with the exception of Sheffield, were erm figures that were put in by the local planning authorities, the Secretary of State accepted those figures, they were done on the nineteen eighty five based household projections, coupled with different assumptions about vacancy rates and demolitions etcetera, and the Secretary of State accepted those figures. Erm in my view the Secretary of State may come to the view on the latest figures that are available for him and erm No that is what I hope he will do when it comes to erm producing regional guidance.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. I m I must confess I'm one of these simple folk who thought that once we got the nineteen ninety one census figures through then it would it would all start into place.
[M Rees:] Me too chairman. [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] However
[Stuart Cowley:] Can can I just?
[Eric Barnett:] Carry on.
[Stuart Cowley:] I was going to add a supplementary point er on that very issue of the nineteen ninety one census. Er referring to the graph in er Mr 's paper, which showed that er the ninete well purported to show the nineteen eighty nine based headship rate figures were more in line with past experience. Er that very much depends on the er intervening line at nineteen ninety one. And I'm just wondering whether er the er point at nineteen ninety one is a correct v in view of the under-enumeration er in the census which isn't taken into account. So it could be that there were line from eighty one would come up to the eight five based starting point er a rather than the eighty nine based starting point on the graph. We can't look into it because it's only just been given to us. I I would I would suspect that it needs some some interpretation.
[Eric Barnett:] .
[speaker004:] [LAUGHTER]
[Eric Barnett:] Has anybody or or else want to make any comments on on the. I'd like to move on to this er this issue of migration.
[M Rees:] Chairman I I wonder whether I could just make a sort of general statement from the department's view before we go on to a particular issue if I may. Erm I hope it didn't take too long to read our statement. [LAUGHTER]. It was rather shorter than than everybody else's. [LAUGHTER]. Erm I understand that the House Builders Federation have written to my headquarters on expressing concern about the possible temerity of the regional office having actually put forward a suggested figure for housing provision in North Yorkshire. We thought from where we sat that the department should stand up and be counted along with all the other participants around the table. I hope you will view that figure in that light. It is not necessarily the Secretary of State's definitive view, it is the view that erm the regional office have come to given the erm evidence presented presented at the time. Erm secondly, I'm not a statistician, I am unable to comment about all the technicalities of the the various assumptions that go into things but some of the people sitting around this table will know that I've been in Yorkshire and Humberside for quite some [LAUGHTER] time []. I therefore have a fair amount experience of this region and also erm I have been involved in quite a lot of erm estimates of housing provision over the years. We've set out the assumptions that erm we used as a basis for our projections in the note in front of you. I hold hold no great sway to those assumptions. I'm sure many people sitting around this table could drive a horse and cart through any of them. But I believe that what you should do with trying to come to estimates of housing provision, is to put together the best technical assumptions that you can, to then sit down and take a long hard look at the figures based on the erm the policies of the County Council as approved by the Secretary of State in previous structure plan approvals, the current government policy. I have particularly in mind, the erm regeneration initiatives of this government, the experience that erm you know of an area and erm... the experience of what is happening in neighbouring counties. This chairman is what we have done. Our conclusions for what they are worth are set out and we come to a figure of about forty five thousand.
[Eric Barnett:] Well.
[M Rees:] Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes well
[M Rees:] Mm.
[Eric Barnett:] for the next day and a half. Can I just come back to this migration question. And. But the difference between the H B F and the County Council on migration is somewhere in the order of four thousand....
[Stuart Cowley:] No No.
[Eric Barnett:] Now on a North Yorkshire I can't remember which paper it is. It's in one of those. in one of those papers, there is a figure a hundred percent migration forty six thousand. Correct?
[Stuart Cowley:] Yes.
[Eric Barnett:] Now very simple if I deduct forty one thousand two hundred from forty six thousand you'll probably say I'm doing the wrong sum. Erm we have a difference of four thousand eight hundred. Now is that difference four thousand eight hundred, due to wastage or entirely to your adjustments to take account of environmental considerations?
[Malcolm Spittle:] Yes that is.
[Eric Barnett:] The question is do I need?
[R Whittaker:] I'm chairman. I think it's impossible to explore why there is a difference, it does not explain why the matters we have already discussed, like vacancies, households and death rates why there is a difference between what the County Council say is one hundred percent, and what the H B F and others are advocating which is considerably more. First of all can I check that I am right in saying that the difference between the H B F's figures of fifty three thousand and the County Council's figure of forty six thousand is explained by the vacancies, concealed households, death rates etcetera.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes. Can I short circuit that question and say, what in fact is your hundred percent?
[Roy Donson:] Erm Roy, House Builders Federation. Erm fifty five thousand e No sorry, I'll have to look that up. One hundred percent migration.
[Eric Barnett:] Never mind the other factors concealed households.
[Roy Donson:] Fi Yeah. Fifty five thousand seven hundred.
[R Whittaker:] .
[Steven Grigson:] Erm Steven,. It would be fifty four thousand eight hundred if there was no reduction for environmental considerations....
[R Whittaker:] To what extent is the difference between that figure or those figures and the County Council's forty six thousand, not explained by what?...
[Roy Donson:] Roy, House Builders Federation. My understanding is that there there there isn't any difference that is not explained by those. Those those figures. Erm the difference between us is of the order of... ten thousand I think. Erm...
[R Whittaker:] Yeah....
[Eric Barnett:] That's a for your calculations
[Roy Donson:] Mhm. No I'll have to I'll I'll I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw that that that comment. There is not erm I I I I would erm I have the figures ready to hand but.
[Mr P Davies:] I think Peter, North Yorkshire. I think on this side there's also a degree of corporate confusion at North Yorkshire about the what exactly the what exactly we we we're trying to establish during this current round of er.
[Eric Barnett:] I'm trying to establish put down a figure of forty six thousand for migration. That was taken, for vacant dwellings.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes....
[R Whittaker:] What we are trying at this stage, is the extent to which the difference between the H B F's of fifty five thousand, is explained by any technical treatment of migration, as opposed to....
[M Rees:] Chairman I wonder wonder whether it would help if I quoted from the erm the study into b the census information. The and and and other information. Their figure for North Yorkshire for eighty one to ninety one, from the National Health Service register, was forty seven point two inward. The residual estimate which is from the census figures, was fifty point nine. I don't know whether [LAUGHTER] that helps in any way [].
[Roy Donson:] Roy, House Builders Federation. Er that they're they're not the figures that ei either the county or ourselves started from.. I think I can answer your original question now if I may. Erm I think I'm right in saying that the difference on a hundred percent migration between the House Builders Federation and the County Council, is accounted for by the technical differences that we've talked about this morning, one thousand six hundred. Seven hundred and forty which you may card to ignore, that there are some base dwellings.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.
[Roy Donson:] Two thousand four hundred and ninety on vacancies. And three thousand one hundred and seventy concealed households. And the remaining difference which I estimate to be one thousand five hundred, is really the I think is the difference in the treatment of students.
[Malcolm Spittle:] Martin, North Yorkshire. I think we all agree with er Mr, that that there is a technical element to migration figures which is our fifteen hundred dwellings. As a a difference between us on technical measure.
[Steven Grigson:] Sir if I could complete the er arithmetic, I think it would be helpful, if you were to look again at the single page note that was handed on this morning. At the table, in paragraph seven where we set out our differences from the County Council. I appreciate this is not in quite the form you asked the question, but you asked the question in terms of the differences apart from migration considerations. And as I'm able to do the arithmetic, the difference between the County Council's full migration which is forty six thousand two hundred, and ours with no environmental reduction which I gave you as fifty four thousand eight hundred, comes if I've done my arithmetic right, to eight thousand six hundred. If that's the difference between us which are not due to migration environment. If you now look at the table, you'll see that that's made out of three thousand two hundred for concealed households. Two thousand one hundred for a constant vacancy proportion. A difference of one thousand one hundred in the base dwellings stock which I've not discussed and don't propose to go into. And two thousand for the lower death rates, national projections which I've already mentioned. And I think that will be roughly of the order of eight thousand six hundred, so those are our component differences....
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah well, does anybody want to make any comment on that because I'm I'm quite environmental considerations Yes. Mr.
[R Whittaker:] Er John, of of Consultants on behalf of the er Council for the Protection of Rural England. Erm you you've asked er chairman for for a general comment on on what's been referred to as environmental discount, environmental considerations and so forth. I I think the C P R E's general comments and and you'll see from our our evidence that we we've deliberately not entered into the the the debate that you you've heard to date this morning. Er our general response is is that the approach for the County Council is is to be commended erm i in terms of I think, interpreting the true spirit of of of government guidance in in plan making, that erm the the the the discussion about figures is but one consideration. Er to to to take into account wh when coming to agreement as to what the overall levels should be. Erm I think we feel quite strongly that that erm er the the emphasis that should be placed on environmental considerations is is considerable. Erm and as such, erm are concerned that perhaps i it is becoming a a secondary element erm i i in in the debate. In in that it's just being er interpreted as a percentage reduction erm as t to migration rates. Erm and I think just by way of introductory comment, I I refer to the the paper that that North Yorkshire put round, N Y eleven, erm in which there there's a far fuller discussion in there of what of what the environmental constraints are and what the considerations should be. Er county-wide, in terms of er how they should be reflected erm in the figures. And I think er w we're concerned that erm the the case presented by the county has in in concentrating on migration, perhaps they haven't haven't fully expanded on on the points that they've raised in document N Y eleven. I wonder if by way of introduction, the county might wish to to comment on that.
[Eric Barnett:] Do you want to?
[Mr P Davies:] Well I re Peter, North Yorkshire. I don't wonder whether it would be helpful just step back a bit and just look at the county council's view as to how it should treat migration in the light of what the Secretary of State has approved on two occasions, when this issue has come up. On the issue of migration and it's relationship with with adjoining counties. And our view is that whichever way you look at approved structure plan and the two decisions of the Secretary of State, first of all in er er on the approved structure plan and secondly, on the first alteration to the structure plan. Quite clearly there there is recognition that there should be some limit to the level of migration er inward migration in North Yorkshire. And the Secreta the Secretary of State is quite clear that the environmental constraint in North Yorkshire, is a particularly important one. Although we might try to decision method, the overall stress of the Secretary of State's decision methods, as they affect North Yorkshire, is that there must be some limit er to migration largely for environmental considerations and indeed, the panel in nineteen eighty seven were very concerned that er migration would not be slowed quickly enough er in North Yorkshire. So the there is the County Council we must try er and moderate migration. And it would appear to many rather strained within that agreed by the Secretary of State, a matter of general principle, the County Council accepted past level er of migration without looking er at the implications er of that. And indeed there are some who make think that the County Council has been too generous in that the reduction from the hundred percent migration in four districts, er amounts only to somewhere about four and a half er thousand dwellings. Now within that overall context, and H B F say we have no right to do that, it conflicts with. We say that it is important to the general stress erm of the structure plan. There should be some reduction er in migration er into North Yorkshire. That's the basic philosophy of the County Council's approach er in this plan. Yes er Joe representing Sams Samuel Smith's Brewery in Tadcaster. There is a technical difference that I should erm draw attention, draw the panel's attention to between ourselves and erm other p other in the migration rates. We believe that the migration rates that should be used should be a three year average rather than an eight or a ten year average. Our reasons for that are that the especially the eight year average used by the County Council, are unduly skewed by the boom of the late eighties, and give in our view, to high a trend t to erm to work from. Er the second reason that we would suggest this to the panel is that it is actually er used by OPCAS, the three year average is used by OPCAS rather than an eight year average. And as far as I can see, the only reason for an eight year average is because that was accepted by the previous panel. Well I don't believe that that should necessarily be a reason why it should be accepted in this case in by this panel. And it would in our view give a more accurate reflection of current trends if a shorter period were used.
[R Whittaker:] but if you're using three year average, three recent three years. that you in fact recession.
[Mr P Davies:] Well in fact we we do answer that point in our submissions that in fact it does take in Our three year average does take into account the tail end of the boom. So it does actually span the end of the boom, the beginnings of the recession.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes, gentleman, the problem is the shorter the period, the less chance you have of getting a measurement which is necessarily representative of a general trend.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes I I I would accept that as a general point yes that that that that that that the greater number of years, the more likely you are to get a long term trend. But er there is a a and I wouldn inevitably er one does stray into I know want it in particular points at the moment, but there is a policy consideration to be borne in mind as well, which erm does suggest that past trends should not necessarily be projected into the future. And i from a technical point of view I would support my case by saying that if OPCAS use it, it's good enough for us if it's good enough for OPCAS.
[Eric Barnett:] . Can I I know we've got two people wanting to make comments on this. Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Yes chairman, er Mike Cleveland County Council. Er I'm not quite sure what er stage you want us to b be involved on this intensive policy but I I can't comment on the the technicalities of the vacancy rates even migration rates. But erm in terms of policy, erm Cleveland County Council supports the approach that North Yorkshire and the district councils in the area are taking. Er on two counts in terms of policy. Er and following what er Miss indicated. Erm we have a major regeneration er issue in Cleveland and would like to retain as much of the population within the urban area within the compact urban area that we have as possible. And secondly we do recognize the quality of the countryside South of Cleveland and need to to retain its character and the lit the character of its villages which erm in fact do add to the attractions of the area when you're trying to e erm bring in new industry. Er undoubtedly a number of erm our res er our our er employed people, do live in the area immediately adjoining to the South and er the figures that Hambleton have produced and our own estimates based on the National Health er Service records on migration, do indicate that there is a strong movement er on an annual basis into the North Yorkshire area and in particular the sort of area. And we do recognize there are limits on the sort of growth in that area. So erm I can give you more detailed figures on these er if you wish. I don't I don't need to. And that's er just broadly speaking we we wish to support the general approach that North Yorkshire and it's districts are taking in terms of changing the trend.
[Eric Barnett:] .
[Roy Donson:] Okay.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Steven Grigson:] Thank you sir, Steven,. Keeping away fro the area of technicalities on migration. I think we all need to bear in mind that as far as what Mr said about what the approved strategy was and what the Secretary of Sta of State previously said. As I read the previous documents, the strategy was to bring down the rate of development in North Yorkshire and that has happened. From the late seventies, to the nineteen eighties or rather from the from the seventies, not just late seventies, to the nineteen eighties, it's come down about a thousand broad terms, a thousand dwellings a year fewer being built. And we see that strategy as having succeeded. And we applaud the County Council for it. It shouldn't go to their heads. And it seems to me to follow that the migration rates which go with that lower rate are the migration rates consistent with the approved strategy. And we don't see in principle any reason to divert from them. The second point I want to make is in relation to something that has changed since the approved strategy and that is the inter-relationship between North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. I know we're going to come on to this again later. I only want to deal with it in broad terms and that is that compared to earlier E I Ps where West Yorkshire authorities were saying, Don't take too many people into North Yorkshire, as you'll undermine our regeneration to paraphrase. We now have the West Yorkshire authorities saying, Hang about, you're loading too much onto us, by not taking your share of migration out of West Yorkshire. And that seems to me a fairly fundamental shift in the regional balance of argument and need. [tape change] I only have one small comment in the point made by Consultants for the C P R E that one should place more emphasis on the environment. I'm afraid it's a negative comment. But the C P R E's evidence doesn't offer you anything to go on, save that the figures have been approached in the wrong way, cos they didn't start bottom up from the environment. And on that argument sir, the figures would be wrong whatever they are, whether they're half the amount the County Council put forward or twice. It's a valid point but it doesn't actually help you come to a recommendation. And finally, staying with generalities on migration, I think it behoves us all to be a bit cautious because I see quite a lot of fantasy and fiction around in in this E I P and I'd be guilty of it myself at times. We're all talking as if migration can be manipulated and a share between housing for migrants and housing for local need can be er arranged by us planners according to the numbers we write down on a sheet of paper. And in my experience, that usually is a foolhardy expectation. Migration has, particularly from metropolitan areas a certain tendency to keep going, a certain inexorability about it. And I would just caution all of us, when we're discussing local needs or migration, be it at the county level or at the district council level. How a little sort of warning flag that pops up in your mind to say, this may actually be largely fiction and we can't control migration anyway. I appreciate that's a useful way to discuss it, but let's not imagine it's necessarily going to turn out like that. What about?
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Yeah. Roy, House Builders Federation. To pick on u u up a few other points that have been made. I heard Mr say I think that it that the view of the H B F was that the county had no ra right to make reductions in migration. That is not the H B F evidence. The H B F evidence is that we they've no right to make any arbitrary reductions in just taking er unjustified blocks. And indeed B P G twelve, under the heading of environmental considerations says that a a authorities should have regard to environmental considerations, but recommend an environmental appraisal identifying, quantifying, weighing up and reporting on the environmental and other cost benefits of the measures which are proposed. That doesn't form part of this alteration, there is no such justification and that's our particular objection to it. In so far as a three year average is concerned, point b made by Mr and erm that being taken into account the tail end of the boom. I have to say that the boom of the nineteen eighties was something of a myth. Yes certainly in the late nineteen eighties, more houses were built in one particular year,depend depending on which part of the country you're in it happens to be different years. But the at the end of the eightee nineteen eighties. Compared with the average of the eighties as a whole. But the average of the eighties as a whole was low in house building terms. It was the lowest decade of house building since the Second World War. And in fact, on the County Council's own figures, which have g got completions since nineteen seventy seven, you'll find that nineteen seventy seven to nineteen seventy nine, have higher house building rates, than the highest rate of the nineteen e the highest year of the nineteen eighties. Which rather proves a point that in fact it was a low period, and therefore if you take a low period historically, which is er includes a a boom in inverted commas, within that, then overall you're going to end up with a very low figure er in total. So er it seems to me that it's particularly invalid to take the last three years. Erm as far as the C P R E's point is concerned, about erm government the true spirit of government guidance, being to take environmental considerations first, I find no especial support for that within any of the P P Gs. Indeed P P G one paragraph four, talks about guiding development to the right places. As well as preventing development which is not acceptable. P P G three e paragraph one, says the planning system must provide an adequate and continuous supply of land for housing. All seems to me and I could quote other other references from P P Gs as well to support the point, seems to me that the thrust of government guidance is balance. It is a matter of providing for the right amount of development in a balanced way. It is not putting environmental considerations first, last and if there's any left over, in between as well. Er I don't wish to pursue the point made by Mi Mike at this stage, but I will return to it under one C. Thank you.
[M Rees:] Michael, Hambleton District Council. Erm I think I'd like to pick on er up on something that Mr has said about the strategy underlying the er approved structure plan. And also to support er Mr. Erm I think that certain elements of the structure plan erm strategy have been well documented er, the environmental issues, erm high priority to conservation, erm protection of the county's natural resources, of development restraint and relating the scale of development much more closely to local needs. However there's erm a further aspect of the original strategy which I would like specifically to draw to the panel's attention. This is that the strategy of the structure plan from the beginning was to seek a progressive reduction in the rate of house-building in the county by seeking a progressive [clears throat] excuse me. A progressive reduction in the rate of inward migration. And I I'd refer the panel erm to the written statement of the county structure plan of nineteen seventy nine, erm and the section entitled, the Strategic Framework, paragraph three nine on page ten. Which states erm the strategy envisag envisages a progressive reduction in the rate of the population growth from this source, as the supply of housing land is reduced to levels more closely related to the needs arising from North Yorkshire. Now the original structure plan recognized that because of the substantial number of housing commitments at that time, erm it wasn't possible erm to er bring down the levels immediately. And it was going to be a long term strategy. The term, long term strategy in fact appears in a number of instances erm throughout those pages. And I'd refer you to paragraph three ten and also paragraph four two two which I'd like to quote a short erm element from. And this states erm that [reading] Its effectiveness erm must be must be considered as a long term rather than a short term objective. The structure plan can not be seen for providing for a major or sudden change in direction. It's essentially evolutionary in its approach []. So the point erm I wish to make erm on er Mr 's observations, is that it's not the strategy of the structure plan was not simply erm to seek an initial reduction erm in the rate of residential development in the county and then that roll that rate forward in progressive erm amendments to the structure plan, Hambleton District Council believes that the logical interpretation of these statements is that a progressive reduction er in house building and the rates of migration should be sought through subsequent alterations to the plan. Now we would add that representations which seek to achieve a continuation of past building rates, or a continuation of past migration levels, are not in accord with the strategy as originally approved. Finally, I'd refer you to erm the Secretary of State's decision letter of the twenty sixth of November nineteen eighty where in paragraph one he takes note of the recent justification and in paragraph six four, he states that overall, the Secretary of State broadly approves the main objective of the housing policies of the plan of reducing inward migration into the county....
[R Whittaker:] Yes I'd j I'd just like to to pick up on on two points er, one made by Mr, one made by Mr. Erm I think er Mr said I think that that C P R E hasn't actually offered a solution in this debate, just just raised questions. I don't think that's strictly true but I do think that the discussion we've heard so far er has fully justified erm the the raising of some fundamental questions about the the the the method of projections. Er and the point about not offering a solution, C P R E clearly has in in erm taking to to go on to talk about the subsequent parts of policy H one and H two, the County Council's figures and then doing an analysis of those in relation to the new settlement, but I appreciate chairman that erm we'll come back to that. Mr raised the point about erm the environmental appraisal of of development plans, erm as set out in P P G twelve which is is indicative of a a a new er a new framework in which plans should be prepared. And and I would argue that that er an alteration to a structure plan of this significance, should should fall within the remit of P P G twelve. My understanding of what Mr was saying was that because it's an alteration rather than a replacement structure plan, that guidance no longer applies. That's not my understanding of how government guidance works....
[Mr P Davies:] Peter, North Yorkshire. I think Mr picked up on the points that I really wanted to address in Mr 's remarks. Other than to say, the Secretary of State didn't limit his concern to reducing rates of development. Right through the decision letters, you get two elements. The effect of excessive development on the environment in North Yorkshire, and the second on is a relationship with places like Cleveland and West Yorkshire and the need to continue to see regeneration within those areas. It was a much broader package of for the Secretary of State than I think Mr, er suggests. The other point which Mr made on the difficulties of er manipulating migration. And I think, quite cl clearly, there are difficulties in manipulating migration. What it does require are complementary policies either side er of county boundaries. Mr, er about the policies of Cleveland within their area, to retain their population by making massive allocations of land. Er adjacent er to a North Yorkshire boundary. And if you go to places like erm Guisborough, erm er and South Middlesbrough there you will see a range of housing types available for range of groups in the community. If they weren't there, those houses, I suspect a large proportion of those people would now be living in North Yorkshire. So there's a requirement of complementary policies. And the County Council's consistently said to the West Yorkshire authorities, you must make provision for a range of sites in suitable locations to help draw er development that would othe otherwise come to North Yorkshire. Now something's been said for certainly fifteen years er that I can remember.
[Malcolm Spittle:] , Michael,. Several points on the the question of migration as reported or a as included by the Secretary of State in in his decision letters. The first point I'd like to make is that the original decision letter dates from excuse me, twenty sixth of November nineteen eighty. We're now thirteen years further on. I think whilst... the Secretary of State has clearly said what he's said in that decision letter. I think we have to remind ourselves that that is thirteen years old and that circumstances have changed. Not least in the neighbouring metropolitan areas, where urban regeneration is thirteen years old. There's substantial improvement, particularly in West Yorkshire, and that does need to be taken into account. I'll go on to say that on the question of progressive migration restraint, I don't think anybody round this table is suggesting otherwise. The population projections that we have seen in front of us we h have discussed, are based upon what has happened in the county over the past eight years. That is that is where the migration projections have come from. The... these migration flows are already constrained by s existing structure plan policies. I think the close co-relationship between the rate of building, rate of past building and structure plan requirements, shows that those policies have teeth. Th that has been what's happened, there has been a reduction in migration flow. Or or not in migration flow but in net inward migration. These population projections we have, the hundred percent projections of the H B F of fifty five point K, of North Yorkshire... of forty six point two K, of of fifty four point eight. None of the requests for housing requirement are at that level. That therefore assumes a continuing an i an increasingly progressive restraint on migration.
[Eric Barnett:] . Mr Sorry Mr.
[Roy Donson:] Right, er Ray, House Builders Federation. Erm Mr referred to er put great store it seemed to me on the long term effectiveness of of of reducing er building. I'd just make the simple point that a sudden twelve point five percent reduction, I referred to it this morning, er in in building, is not progressively and long term, it's a sudden change. Erm and I think that erm the C P R E have most definitely misquoted what I said. I'll repeat the point. I'm not saying that P P G twelve does not apply. But I'm making the point, it does apply but it has to be justified. You have to justify the restraints that you make. My criticism of the restraints that have been applied by the County Council, is that they have not been justified. And we would regard them as arbitrary. And I would also point out that we are not proposing excessive development, in one of the papers I've I've put round, and I repeat the point I made it earlier. We're talking about point one nine percent. Point one nine percent of the remaining unrestrained land. As an addition. And that presupposes in that calculation, if you were taking the worst case, that that would all be greenfield land. The truth of the matter is of course it probably wouldn't be all greenfield land, but that's the worst case that I'm talking about. S O I think that it would be a very special place if it was unable to absorb that amount of development.
[Eric Barnett:] Miss.
[M Rees:] Yeah., D O E. I merely wish to reiterate government policy, as reinforced by my Secretary of State, John Gummer, last week in the terms of the single bu regeneration budget. And the emphasis that government places on regeneration of the urban areas.
[R Whittaker:] Are you going to submit that document?
[M Rees:] If you wish, [LAUGHTER] by all means yes [].
[R Whittaker:] It seems to me to be important enough to be worth tabling if that can be arranged.
[M Rees:] Fine fine. Would you like would you like the press release?
[R Whittaker:] Yes. Please.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah.... Mr, do you want to come back on the point made on the other side of the room about your arbitrary... selection of building rates?
[Mr P Davies:] I think presumably you'll be wishing at a later stage to look at what we're proposing in erm in individual districts. And one against another. I think the quite clearly what comes out erm of reading our papers and the papers of the district, is the er tremendous degree of consultation that's taken place on a number of occasions back and forth between district and making use of er of emerging working on er on local plans across the county. Erm to make sure that the proposals the County Council er is is putting forward are are soundly based. And we'd elaborate that when we talk about er individual districts.
[R Whittaker:] I think it might be worth adjourning ask if there are any more demographic. And start again .
[Eric Barnett:] Right.
[R Whittaker:] I'd like to say a little bit about this table.
[Eric Barnett:] Now?
[R Whittaker:] Mm.
[Eric Barnett:] Mhm. Any more points anybody wants to make on the demographic aspects? The migration rates.
[Steven Grigson:] environment, I don't know whether that's later
[Eric Barnett:] Well I think we'll probably deal with that this afternoon. Yeah. Yeah.
[R Whittaker:] There's a Harrogate.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Steven Grigson:] Thank you, er David, Harrogate Borough Council. Er one or two small points I'd like to make. Mr, er a moment ago congratulated the County Council in fact on the success of the strategy in reducing migration over the last ten years or so. He then went on to say it's not actually possible to control the rate of migration and I'm sure that the the s success of of the policy in the past shows that that that is not the case. That it is possible through the appropriate use of policies, to bring down levels of immigration into the county. Er Mr also made the point that er urban regeneration erm no longer seems to have the emphasis that it did have. er I'm sure that the er representatives from the West Yorkshire authorities wi will say that their that objective is still extremely important in the in the respective U D Ps. Erm it seems to me that the emphasis has changed slightly in the representations being made by the West Yorkshire authorities and that they're now saying that it's much more difficult for them to accommodate housing developments within their own er districts. And that therefore, that growth should be exported to North Yorkshire. Er another minor point, er Mr n erm said that e the level of restraints that we're er seeking to or that the County Council is seeking to impose, represents a sudden restriction on house-building levels in in North Yorkshire. That certainly wouldn't be the case in Harrogate. Erm we would be allocating land through our local plan for the year two thousand and six. That restriction suddenly wouldn't be imposed in the next two or three years, it would be a gradual reduction through to to the year two thousand and six. And the point about erm er the extra development taking up only point one percent of the counties unrestricted land, erm is is statistical point really. It's even less taking up i i er land being taken up in the region as a whole, it's even less in terms of the U K. The important point is what it means for the settlement to the environment of North Yorkshire. And er that level of development, at five hundred hectares, is an extremely large area of land, in very sensitive locations, particularly around the main urban areas, which are restricted to a great degree.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. I think we'll come back to that when we start looking at the county district by district as it were. I think Miss would like to make some comment about the table, which was presented to her.
[R Whittaker:] I thought you might like an for the lunch hour. Erm as the notes to this table indicate, it is a compilation by the panel secretary of what we believe is before us. You will have noticed there are some pregnant gaps on this table. We're not optimistic that we will fill them all, but one, we can for example talk about conversions. The more numerical evidence we can have before us, the better. As the chairman also said, the table points up some interesting questions. One of those interesting questions is, for example, the relationship between column H and column I and the way in which those relationships change as we move from one district to another. Thoughts for lunch time.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Mrs Long:] of. Er this is clearly go going to become an important schedule and I think it you will inevitably run into difficulties here on different definitions of allocations for example. Erm if you er if I take the Greater York area for example, erm if you er if I take the Greater York area for example, the County Council erm have included in their figure of four thousand seven hundred and ten units, no new allocations, is my understanding. Right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
[R Whittaker:] This is the sort of thing we want to discuss as we go through each of the areas which we shall do under matter one C. Or one C.
[Mrs Long:] But I think there must be I I would suggest to you that you sh you should request a discussion between the principle parties here to agree what allocations they're taking, whether in adopted plans or proposed plans or previous plans and what windfalls. One of the great problems of this schedule would be, the definition of the amount of windfalls, bearing in mind that many of the local plans coming forward erm are about to be produced rather than have just been produced.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah yeah.
[Mrs Long:] And I think that it is an important er qualification to this schedule that the principle parties can agree what the in inputted are.
[R Whittaker:] Indeed and I would hope our discussion of the provision within individual districts, will amend many of these figures. Certainly those which are relate to the future as opposed to what has happened in the past.
[Mrs Long:] Okay thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr.
[Malcolm Spittle:] Martin, North Yorkshire County Council. Just a couple of of quick comments er er chairman just on the the the vacant co blank columns you have, J K L and M. Erm whilst the County Council can provide you with some figures on vacancies at a district level, we would be very loathe to make any comment on the assumptions for conversions and windfall sites. We feel that this is very much a matter for the district councils in the preparation of their local plans, with their local knowledge which is something we do not have at the county level to be able to to make comment on.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. I I I think we do accept that you probably not be able to fill those gaps. Er some districts may have some knowledge. I mean Hambleton for example having just produced their draft local plan, but other districts are not quite in that position.
[Malcolm Spittle:] Yeah.
[Eric Barnett:] But eventually those gaps would be filled.
[Malcolm Spittle:] That's right.
[Eric Barnett:] But certainly wherever it is possible to put a figure in, then we would appreciate it.
[Malcolm Spittle:] Yeah, Could I also just quickly comment on the differences between columns H and I that you've referred to. That this does to a very large extent reflect the differences in local plan preparation across the county. You have already referred to Hambleton's progress.
[R Whittaker:] Mm. Yeah Yeah.
[Malcolm Spittle:] Which is perhaps not matched with the s quite the same stage by other districts across the county.
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[Malcolm Spittle:] Yeah.
[Eric Barnett:] I think that will be crystallized or become clarified as we get into the discussion, district by district. Mr, you want to come back on that.
[Mrs Long:] Er Richard,. Very briefly, I think the County Council must consider what they're going to do for conversions in windfalls. It's quite clear in in P P G three, paragraph eleven, that structure plans will make clear whether the housing provision figures include allowance from expected supply from conversions and changes of use, as well as from new building. And for unidentified and for losses from demolitions. The exercise must be done and should have been done by now.
[Eric Barnett:] Mm.
[R Whittaker:] Yeah, my objective was not actually to start a debate but to give you some indication of where we were going to go this afternoon.
[Eric Barnett:] Food for thought. Mr.
[speaker004:] Leeds City Council. I'd like to come back to policy on migration chair, and I'm grateful to Mr for pointing out that nineteen eighty is thirteen years ag away and things have moved on in every respect demographically. In development terms. We've even got a new planning system. And I venture to suggest we've got new guidance from the Secretary of State. Because we in West Yorkshire have got regional planning guidance is sorry strategic planning guidance issued in nineteen eighty nine
[Eric Barnett:] Yes.
[speaker004:] Which tells us how to determine our housing requirements and doesn't ask us to take into account restraint in North Yorkshire.
[Eric Barnett:] But that S P G is about to be replaced by R P G isn't it?
[speaker004:] Well we would all welcome that but in in its absence, I suggest that the current policy is defined by the R P G, even though that's not specifically targeted at North Yorkshire, none the less, to be consistent, North Yorkshire should not be entitled to a to reduce arbitrarily, it's er migration assumptions.
[Eric Barnett:] As I understand it, S P G is your S P G is not geared to the same time horizon is.
[M Rees:] D O E. Cone I just comment briefly chairman. The Strategic planning guidance goes to two thousand and one. it was based on the figures that the West Yorkshire authorities submitted to the Secretary of State, which was on a policy as I understand it, of containing as much of their population they as as they were possible to. Erm they estimated there was going to be a continued out migration, but the aim of the original West Yorkshire structure plan and the p erm strategic guidance was to contain rather more of the population. Regional planning guidance will go to two thousand and six. We shall have to see what that contains.
[Eric Barnett:] Yeah. I think that's all we can say at this stage.
[M Rees:] Mm.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you. I unless anybody has got a Mr.
[M Rees:] Erm
[Eric Barnett:] [LAUGHTER]
[M Rees:] Er
[Eric Barnett:] And Mr second.
[M Rees:] Just a just a very brief point. Erm it relates to er something that Mr said erm for er for Leeds City Council, that circumstances have moved on. I would suggest that indeed they have moved on erm since erm the original er decision letter of the structure plan. One area in fact that circumstances have moved on is erm on environmental awareness. I think that erm all would agree that now there is greater er concern than ever before about environmental issues. Erm planning legislation and advice in P P Gs erm have made the environment a far more prominent concern of planning than it was when erm the original structure plan was approved. And indeed the alterations were approved in nineteen eighty seven. Erm authorities are expected to show that environmental concerns have been comprehensively and consistently taken into adv erm account in their plans. Erm the planning conversation act nineteen ninety one requires the development plans to include policies for the conservation and that of the natural beauty and amenity of their land. Erm P P G twelve advises that policy should be in line with the concept of sustainable development. And now erm draft advice in P P G thirteen emphasizes the need to reduce the need for travel. Erm again because of the environmental con considerations. Erm and we would suggest that in the light of these new environmental erm of these new requirements and advice, erm it would be unrealistic to er to expect them not to be taken into account in the structure plan and give greater emphasis to the environmental originally environmental concerns of the structure plan. Thank you.
[Eric Barnett:] Mr
[Mr P Davies:] . Just to er the Leeds point, er it is actually a stated aim of the Leeds development plan to make adequate provision for the communities housing needs during the plan period, by identification of sufficient land for new dwellings, targeting of some provision for social housing, need groups and support for renewal of the existing stock. And then further in the plan, it deals with the er migration issue, and it says, New household t New household total still assumes that a substantial amount of housing will need to be met outside Leeds as a result of net outward migration from the district. Net out movement of the order of twenty seven thousand, eight hundred people is assumed over the period nineteen e eighty six, two thousand and one. Equivalent to around eleven thousand households. The loss is a little below the strategic guidance figure of thirty thousand two hundred and also represents an improvement over the historic trend. This is consistent a more optimistic view of future economic performance that is appropriate in the light of the counties economic strategy. And that and on the economic strategy which is U D P based. There's a clear implication there, that the U D P policy is moving in the dire the same direction as the Cleveland policy is moving. And that is to make provision for its own population and to claw back economic development er within the boundaries of the area.
[R Whittaker:] Mr that was a long quotation, can you submit
[Mr P Davies:] It's in it's in. My submission on that point is
[R Whittaker:] No can you submit the doc a copy of that paper the document.
[Mr P Davies:] Yes yes I can. It's an extract from the Leeds U D P.
[R Whittaker:] Yes I understood that. Our notes weren't that fast.
[Eric Barnett:] I have I have read it elsewhere and not necessarily having read the doc the whole of the document of the Leeds U D P but on that note, since Leeds leads would you like to
[speaker004:] Yeah, could I just er respond to Mr and say, this is not the public enquiry into the Leeds development plan. Er obviously we will er justify our position at that public enquiry. Er I'm simply talking about a level playing field. What is the framework within which we are operating at the moment. And I'm again grateful to Mr for reminding the panel of the con the constraints of the environmental policies within which we all work, not just North Yorkshire authorities, we're all required to look at environmental considerations. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And er if if it's appropriate for North Yorkshire to apply environmental constraints within the whole of its area, I'm not talking about particular districts but in in the whole of its area, then it is appropriate for Leeds and Bradford and the metropolitan districts to to do exactly the same thing. And that will just lead to planning chaos because obviously somebody's going to fall between the plans.
[Eric Barnett:] Thank you for R P G. On on on that note, can I suggest we adjourn for lunch, meet back here at two o'clock, prompt start. [tape change]