You are on page 1of 37






April 2011

Page No









A Site Location Plan

B Draft Head of Terms – Unilateral Undertaking

1.1 This statement, prepared on behalf of Kitewood Estates Ltd, relates to land west of
Puffin Road, Herne Bay and is in support of an outline planning application for
residential development.

1.2 The site is an urban fringe site, immediately abutting the built up area of Herne
Bay. It extends to 1.09 hectares and is greenfield currently used as farming land.

1.3 The outline application is for 40 dwellings (to include 14 affordable dwellings). All
matters are reserved apart from access. Access to the site is via Puffin Road.

1.4 The site is allocated under Policy H2 of the adopted Local Plan as a reserve
housing site, proposed to accommodate an additional 40 dwellings in the Plan
period up to 2011.

1.5 This planning application comprises of the following plans and documents:

 Application form and certificate of ownership

 Plans and drawings
 Design and Access Statement prepared by Enplan UK Ltd
 Transport Assessment prepared by Waterman Boreham
 Drainage Assessment prepared by Waterman Boreham
 Stage 1 Protected Species and Habitat survey by Tom La Dell Associates

1.6 This Planning Statement outlines the overall case for the proposals and contains
the following chapters:

Chapter 2 – Site and surrounding area

Chapter 3 – Relevant Planning History
Chapter 4 – Development Proposals
Chapter 5 – Planning Policy Considerations
Chapter 6 – Housing Strategy and Delivery
Chapter 7 - Conclusions


2.1 As stated, the site is 1.09 hectares and is located to the east of Herne Bay, on the
urban periphery of the town within the neighbourhood of Beltinge. It is located
directly south of Rosebery Avenue, Rowland Crescent and Richmond Drive and
west of Puffin Road. It is an urban fringe site as development exists on all three
sides of the site where it immediately abuts the built up area. Please refer to the
Site Location Plan attached as Appendix A.

2.2 The site is an open field that is currently arable farm land.

2.3 The residential areas immediately abutting and surrounding the site comprise of
low density housing, mostly semi detached chalet bungalows and a mixture of
other styles including two storey houses and smaller bungalows. All properties
have individual driveways and front and back gardens. The dwellings along
Rosebery Avenue, Rowland Crescent and Richmond Drive are mostly 1960’s/70’s
with more recent infill or newer developments interspersed. The properties along
Puffin Road and the wider Beech Grove housing estate comprise of more modern
2, 3 and 4 bed properties around cul-de-sac’s and estate roads.

2.4 In terms of access to local facilities, the proposed site is located in close proximity
to the Reculver Primary School within a walking distance of 450 metres. Herne
Bay County Infant and Junior School are located approximately 1250 metres from
the centre of the site within walking and cycling distance. A doctor’s surgery is
located on the northern arm of the Reculver Road / Sanderling Road mini-
roundabout approximately 300 metres from the development, again within easy
walking and cycling distance.

2.5 Existing bus route number 7, 7A and 36 travels past the proposed development on
Reculver Road at a maximum frequency of 2 buses per hour during the AM Peak
and provides links to Canterbury, Herne Bay High Street and Herne Bay Railway

Station. The nearest bus stops to the development are located on both sides of
Reculver Road approximately 200 metres walk from the centre of the development
site. There is also a parade of shops at Beltinge. Further details are within the
Transport Assessment report.


3.1 There has been one planning application on the site, submitted in 2003. The
reference number is CA/03/01433/HBA and was an outline application for
residential development of 72 dwellings with access via Puffin Road. It was
proposed that 83% of the housing should be affordable. An illustrative layout
accompanied the application.

3.2 The application was refused on 9th December 2003 for the following reasons:

The Local Planning Authority considers that having regard to advice contained within
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, the site is not needed for development at the current
time and that the following are material considerations which justify a departure from
the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan, notwithstanding the site’s allocation for
housing development within that plan:

(i) Paragraph 32 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 and Policy H3 of the Kent
Structure Plan give priority to previously developed sites before greenfield sites and
there are other such sites currently available which make up the overwhelming majority
of the housing requirement up until 2011.
(ii) Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 post dates both the Local Plan and the Structure
Plan and is a material consideration of some weight and is stated to be able to override
the policies of the adopted Development Plans (paragraph 38).
(iii) The site is on the reserve list and makes no contribution to the Council’s housing
land supply for the period to 2011 and given the likelihood of other sites coming forward
within that period, the ongoing monitoring of housing sites and the preparation of a
review of the Canterbury District Local Plan, it is inappropriate to grant permission at
this stage.
(iv) Current figures show that there is a surplus of development land until 2011 on
previously developed sites and there is no justification for bringing this greenfield site
forward at this time.

3.3 The refusal of planning permission was appealed against and subsequently
dismissed in January 2006 (reference APP/J2210/A/04/1141698). The Inspector
considered there were 2 main issues in the appeal: the first being whether the
release of the site is necessary at the time in order to satisfy the District’s housing
requirements; and the second concerned the implications of the development on
the Council’s affordable housing strategy.

3.4 At the time of the appeal the allocation of the site had been carried forward from
the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan (1998) into the First Review of the Local
Plan which was at a Revised Deposit stage as a reserve housing site. In the
Appeal Decision, the Inspector noted that the main parties submitted an agreed
updated housing analysis indicating an over supply of 813 dwellings. Taking these
factors into account, the Inspector concluded that the proposed development was
not necessary at that time.

3.5 In terms of the affordable housing issue, the Inspector concluded that the scheme
would not have adverse implications for the Council’s affordable housing strategy.

3.6 With regard to other matters raised in the application and appeal, the Inspector
made the following comments:

 The Council was satisfied that the site met the necessary sustainability and
environmental criteria.
 No objection was raised to the number of dwellings by the local planning
 There were concerns about the density of the proposed 72 dwellings for the
 There was no highway evidence that indicated the existing capacity is over
stretched to the extent that the existing road network would be unable to
cope with the existing traffic generated by the development.
 No objections raised by Southern Water or the Council regarding drainage.

3.7 In conclusion, the Inspector considered the development to be an unnecessary
release of land for housing at that time.


4.1 This proposal comprises an outline application for 40 dwellings. All matters except
access are reserved. However an indicative layout (please refer to drawing
number 02-463-102) has been provided. This illustrates the suggested layout of
the proposed development taking into account issues such as access, the need to
protect the amenities of neighbouring properties and retaining hedgerows where

4.2 Vehicular access to the site will be via the adopted road Puffin Road. This adopted
road continues up to the boundary of the application site. Cycle and footpath
access will be via Richmond Drive. Further details are set out in the Transport
Assessment which includes a walking catchment plan.

4.3 The proposal includes the provision of a LAP (Local Area for Play). This is in a
visible location and is suitable for 5 years and under. There is an existing LEAP
(Local Equipped Area for Play) at the western end of Puffin Road within walking
distance of the development. Access is provided from the site to the open fields to
the south of the development.

4.4 New landscaped areas will be provided within the site to include an enhanced
boundary treatment to the north and west of the site where it adjoins properties
along Rosebery Avenue, Rowland Crescent and Coventry Gardens. A
continuation of the existing southern hedge will also form part of the proposals.
These are shown in plan 02-463-103. Further information is provided in the
Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment report.

4.5 It is proposed that the development could provide a range of family sized housing
with a suggested mix of:
16 x 2 bed houses
16 x 3 bed houses

4 x 4 bed houses
4 x 2 bed apartments

The illustrative layout shows that there will be a mix of detached, semi detached
and terraced properties with 4 affordable units provided in 2 bed apartments.
Further details on the design and layout are provided in the Design & Access

4.6 The adopted Local Plan contains Policy H4 on the provision of affordable housing
and gives a threshold of 30% to be provided on appropriate sites. However as set
out in the adopted Canterbury District Council Developer Contribution SPD
January 2007, more recent policy advice indicates a need 35% affordable in the
District. On this basis, the application includes a provision for 35% affordable to
reflect the needs of the local area.

4.7 Canterbury City Council, together with other authorities in East Kent has completed
a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2009 for the sub region. This
assessed the need for affordable housing and analysed past, current and future
housing trends. The conclusions to the study, whilst general for the sub region are
still relevant to the District and the site:
 The role of improving the housing 'offer' for incoming younger households is
essential, as well as meeting the needs of an ageing population.
 The housing role in turning round economic performance is both to provide
appropriate and attractive housing products for higher earners and to
ensure that local young families can stay in the sub-region.
 Housing development should prioritise an appropriate mix to support young
and expanding workforce, meeting both affordable and market housing
 It is important that future development policy prioritises a rebalancing of

4.8 The SHMA also states that in terms of affordable housing contribution target,
Herne Bay shares many of Whitstable’s characteristics, but has a weaker
economy. House prices are also lower but there are still substantial numbers
(nearly 400 – 8th highest) in housing need.

4.9 The proposal provides for a total of 14 affordable dwellings (35% of the total).
These will be a mix of household size and tenure to reflect the local requirements.
A recent conversation with the Housing Department at the Council confirmed the
need for family affordable housing in the area. The proposed mix of housing size
for this scheme is 8 two bed dwellings, 2 three bed dwellings and 4 two bed

4.10 The proposed development will comply with the current government guidance on
the code for sustainable homes.

4.11 A report on Ecology has been submitted with the application. The report provides
an overview of the ecology of the site and the occurrence of protected species
together with a recommendation for more detailed surveys where appropriate. The
report states that the main area of the site is of very low nature conservation value
but the hedges to the east and south have some value which could be enhanced
by suitable management. It is proposed to retain the hedge to the south and the
remaining parts of the hedge to the east once the access has been created.

4.12 A Drainage Assessment report has been submitted with the application. This
covers surface water and foul drainage. With regard to surface water, the report
concludes that the preferred option is the use of the existing surface water drains in
Puffin Road subject to on site water attenuation under the two main car parks. The
preferred option for the foul drainage is to connect to the existing sewer in Puffin

- 10 -
4.13 The draft heads of terms for the unilateral obligation is attached as Appendix B.
This has been completed in accordance with Canterbury’s City Council’s
supplementary planning document January 2007 and Kent County Council’s guide
to Development Contributions and Provision of Community Infrastructure March
2007. It is in draft form for further discussion with the local planning authority.

4.14 The residents immediately surrounding the site will be notified about the application
and will be sent a covering letter with details of the proposal and the illustrative

- 11 -


5.1 This section provides a detailed analysis of the planning policy considerations that
provide the framework for the proposed development. A detailed analysis of the
identified housing supply and delivery within Canterbury District is set out in
Chapter 6. This chapter outlines the housing policy documents as well as other
key policy issues.

5.2 The Development Plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (South East Plan
2009) and the Canterbury District Local Plan (adopted 2006). Further details on
the status of the South East Plan are set out below.

5.3 Before progressing onto the policy considerations, it is important to make note of
the recent changes to the planning system as set out in the Budget March 2011.
There is now no longer a requirement to prioritise previously developed land over
greenfield sites. Greenfield sites which do not fall within specially protected areas
such as greenbelt and are in sustainable locations are now supported by the
Government for residential development. This is a key change in policy of
relevance to this proposed development. Further details are set out in paragraph

National Guidance

5.4 The current Government, elected in May 2010 is seeking to introduce a number of
significant changes to the national planning system. The first of these is the
Localism Bill currently with Parliament. A letter was sent to all local authorities
dated 6th July 2010 by the Government’s Chief Planner outlining the implications of
revoking the regional spatial strategies. Much of the content of this letter remains

- 12 -
important even though the position regarding sub regional strategies has recently
changed. The key messages are:

 All other PPS's will continue to apply until they are replaced by the National
Planning Framework.
 Local authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to
justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF
examination process. They should do this in line with current policy in
 Local authorities will still have to provide a 5 year land supply.

5.5 The existing national framework of planning guidance documents and statements
currently remain as material documents pending a review of planning system at
national level. A key document is Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPS3) – (dated
2006 and amended June 2010). Recent changes to this document were made by
the current government relating to ‘garden grabbing’ and densities of development
but the central messages remain.


The level of housing provision should be determined taking a strategic, evidence-based approach
and authorities should take into account - Local and sub-regional evidence of the availability of
suitable land for housing using Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA) and
other evidence (para 33).

The Government’s objective is to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive
supply of land. Reflecting the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, Local Planning Authorities
should develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure that sufficient, suitable land is
available (para 52).

Drawing on information from the SHLAA and or other relevant evidence, Local Planning

- 13 -
Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five

Local Planning Authorities should also:

Identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for
years 11-15.

Once identified, the supply of land should be managed in a way that ensures that a continuous
five year supply of deliverable sites is maintained ie at least enough sites to deliver the housing
requirements over the next five years of the housing trajectory (para 57).

Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of
deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been reviewed to
take into account policies in this PPS or there is less than five years supply of deliverable sites,
they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the
policies in this PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69. (para 71).

5.6 Other relevant national policy guidance of relevance to the application includes
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development and PPG13 – Transport (updated
January 2011).

Regional Guidance

5.7 The regional planning guidance for the South East is the South East Plan (SEP),
adopted in 2009. However, since the election of the Government in May 2010, its
status as a statutory development plan document has been the subject of
government announcements regarding its revocation and challenges to the High
Court by developers. The present position is that the SEP remains as a statutory
document but the Government's intended abolition of Regional Strategies can be

- 14 -
taken into account when making planning decisions as confirmed by the High
Court in February 2011.

Pending abolition regional strategies remain part of the statutory development plan.
The weight given to any 'material consideration' depends on the individual
circumstances and it is for the decision maker to decide on the appropriate weight1.

The legislation that will allow regional strategies to be revoked is the Localism Act.

5.8 In terms of housing allocations for the Canterbury District, the SEP sets out in
Policy H1 – Regional Housing Provision 2006 – 2026 an allocation of 10,200
dwellings for the period 2006 – 2026 with an annual average figure of 510.

5.9 As the SEP remains as regional guidance on housing numbers, the Kent &
Medway Structure Plan 2006 is not included as a Development Plan in this

Local Policy Guidance

5.10 The Canterbury Local Plan was adopted in 2006 and covers the period up to 2011.
Only policies that have been ‘saved’2 are referred to in this statement. Before
considering the policies within the Local Plan, it is useful to outline the relevant
sections of the Inspector’s report (2004) into the Local Plan where it is relevant
to this site.

5.11 With regard to housing, the 2004 Inspector found a deficiency of nearly 200
dwellings in the Housing Land Supply, in contrast to the surplus of 400+ argued by

Saved policies are set out in a letter from GOSE to Canterbury District Council dated 30 June
- 15 -
the Council. His suggestion to include new allocations of land for housing entailed
the re- instatement of the two reserve sites at Mill Lane and Richmond Drive,
Herne Bay (para 15). The Inspector also raised concern with regard to other sites
such as the Council car park sites and encouraged the local authority to progress
with these proposals.

5.12 In his report he states at paragraph 3.3.12 ‘The Richmond Drive site is the unbuilt
residue of the “Reculver Road Caravan Park/Richmond Drive” allocation in the
Adopted Local Plan, carried over into the First Deposit Draft of April 2002.
Inspector O’Rourke considered objections to the Council’s draft allocation, but
found positive factors: In paragraph 3.3.13, he concluded that ‘however described,
Richmond Drive has very strong claims to being re-instated as an allocation, filling
an open area of no visual distinction within the Urban Area Boundary, for which no
other land use suggests itself as superior’.

5.13 In paragraph 3.4.21, The Inspector recommended that the Local Plan be modified
to incorporate 4 new housing allocations comprising a total of 530 dwellings
including Land at Richmond Drive, Herne Bay, with a notional capacity of 40

5.14 The adopted Local Plan provides a number of policies and statements of relevance
to the application site. Paragraph 1.6 states that research indicates that a
significant proportion of the housing land requirement for the Plan period can be
met by the release of previously-developed land in the urban areas. However,
some “greenfield” sites will also need to be released to ensure the full housing
requirement is met.

5.15 Objectives for providing decent housing are set out in paragraph 2.1 and strategic
housing requirements are set out in paragraph 2.2. These provide allocations for
the District. The Plan identifies, in paragraph 2.3, that total housing land supply is
made up in part by large unidentified sites. Paragraph 2.6 outlines the need for

- 16 -
regular monitoring to ensure there is a controlled delivery of new housing. With
reference to the Council’s first Urban Housing Capacity Study, paragraph 2.11
states that there is no need to allocate or grant permission for large housing
development outside the urban areas before 2011.

5.16 Policy H1 seeks to permit residential development on allocated sites for housing or
mixed use.

5.17 Policy H2 is:


In addition to the housing provision in Policy H1, a reserve housing provision on land adjoining
Richmond Drive, Beltinge is proposed to accommodate up to an additional 40 dwellings in the Plan
period up to 2011. The timing of its release will be decided by the City Council, in the light of
monitoring. Until then, planning permission for housing development on this site will not be
granted, and other development which would prejudice its possible use for housing will not be

5.18 Paragraph 2.18 sets out the explanatory text to Policy H2. It states that Richmond
Drive is the remaining reserve site3 and will only be released once the criteria in 1)
and 2) of paragraph 2.15 have been fully assessed. The criteria in paragraph 2.15
reads as follows:

The City Council will consider 1) the rate of development of existing permissions
and allocations and 2) the development programme of other sites i.e. assess
whether other previously developed sites are coming forward in the short to
medium term.

The Mill Lane site was granted conditional planning permission for housing in February 2005
following an appeal against refusal of planning permission
- 17 -
5.19 Other relevant planning policies within the Local Plan include:

Policy H14 – Seeking the provision of a percentage of affordable housing.

Policy C1 – Taking into account the principles of the Transport Action Plan.
Policy C28 – Provision of outdoor playing space.

5.20 In terms of the progressing the Local Development Framework and Core Strategy
– a brief update on the position to date is provided.

Core Strategy

The local authority undertook a Core Strategy Options Report consultation exercise
in January 2010. An initial Strategic Housing Land availability Assessment
(SHLAA) was also undertaken at the same time but it is understood that no further
significant work has taken place on the document. We are advised that the Local
Authority will be proceeding with the Core Strategy work this year with a view to
publishing a preferred strategy in January 2012.

5.21 The next immediate stage is for the Local Authority to agree on the local housing
targets for the District but in the meantime the development plan for Canterbury
comprises of the adopted South East Plan and the 2006 Local Plan.

5.22 The following chapter considers the housing strategy and delivery for the District.

- 18 -

6.1 In terms of the present planning framework relating to housing delivery, this can be
summarised as the following:
 PPS3 exists as providing the national guidance on housing strategy and
 The South East Plan exists as the sub regional framework for providing
housing targets for Canterbury;
 The adopted Canterbury Local Plan (2006) remains.
 Recent changes to the planning process as set out in the Budget March
2011 regarding the priority of previously developed land over greenfield
which no longer applies.

6.2 Policies within the adopted Local Plan have been overtaken by the provisions
within PPS3. With regard to the SEP, the current situation is set out in paragraph
5.6 – 5.8 of this Statement. It could be considered that less weight should be given
to the SEP housing targets as a result of the Government’s stated intention to
revoke them in due course. However, in the absence of an alternative strategy and
targets that have been the subject of consultation and examination, the SEP
targets are the only sound basis upon which to base housing requirements in
Canterbury District at the present time. It is considered that this is the agreed
position of the Council at the present time.

6.3 Taking the above planning framework into account, it is considered the main issues
to be assessed in terms of this outline planning application are:
 What are the housing targets for Canterbury, against which this
application should be assessed?
 What evidence is there of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites
in accordance with PPS3?
 How is the delivery of housing performing against these targets?

- 19 -
 Does the site meet the terms of Policy H1 and H2 and is it now required
to come forward to meet a housing need?
 The suitability of the site for development.

What are the housing targets for Canterbury against which this application should
be assessed?

6.4 The housing targets set out in the Local Plan (taken from the Kent and Medway
Structure Plan 2006) and those within the South East Plan for Canterbury are set
out in Table 1 below:

Table 1
Canterbury Local Plan Structure Plan
2001 - 06 2006 - 11 Total 2001 - 11 2011 - 16
2,100 2,300 4,400 2,200
South East Plan4
2006 - 2011 2011 - 16
2,550 2,550

6.5 It is considered that the housing target figures to be used in terms of assessing
delivery of housing within Canterbury are those within the South East Plan - 2,550
houses to be brought forward in 2006 – 2011 and the same for the period 2011 –
2016. The Kent Structure Plan and the housing targets in the Canterbury Local
Plan have been superseded by the South East Plan.

Is there a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with PPS3?

The SEP provides a total of 10,200 houses over a 20 year period with 510 being delivered
annually. This table uses the same 5 year time-frame as the Local and Structure Plan
- 20 -
6.6 PPS3 states that at a local level, local authorities are encouraged to deliver
housing for at least 15 years. They should identify specific deliverable sites to
provide housing for the first 5 years. Where local planning authorities cannot
demonstrate an up to date five year supply of deliverable sites, they should
consider favourably planning applications for housing having regard to the advice
in PPS3.

6.7 It is not clear from Canterbury City Council what evidence they have of a 5 year
supply of deliverable sites. The documents that are available are:
 A Housing Information Audit (HIA) completed by Kent Planning Officers
 A first draft of a SHLAA which contains several lists of sites but with no
 The Annual Monitoring Report.
 A significant ‘pack’ of data sheets provided by the housing monitoring
team at Kent County Council and Canterbury City Council but with no

6.8 Since the adoption of the Local Plan, PPS3 and the SEP place more emphasis on
delivering a supply of housing land and a sufficient quantity of housing taking into
account need and demand. There is now a requirement for an evidence base and
realistic assessments of a 5 year continuous supply of housing and the housing
targets given in the SEP can be considered as a minimum requirement as opposed
to a maximum requirement.

6.9 According to the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2009/2010, the following
housing completions have been undertaken:

Table 2
Year SEP Annual target Completions

- 21 -
2006/07 510 638
2007/08 510 1284
2008/09 510 965
2009/10 510 3055

6.10 This provides an indication of the level of housing completions for the first 4 years
of the SEP period. It also illustrates the difference in housing completion rates
between the early years of economic buoyancy and the recent housing slow down
fuelled by the recession. This will reflect in the number of housing completions
going forward. In order to meet the SEP target of 10,200 dwellings by 2026 a
further 7,008 dwellings are required to be built during the next 16 years; an
average of 438 dwellings a year.

6.11 The Housing Information Audit (HIA) 2009/2010 illustrates that the total estimated
residential land supply identified for the remaining 16 years of the SEP period is
3,480 units (excluding windfalls and SHLAA sites), resulting in 3,528 units less
than the SEP requirements.

6.12 However the HIA considers the shortfall in land supply will not occur before
2018/19. Taking the information supplied within the HIA on future projections, it
considers the phasing of delivery for both allocated sites and extant planning
permissions. Table 3 sets out the delivery phases:

Table 3
Year Land supply Land supply Projected SE Plan Cumulative
Allocations Extant Completions cumulative completions
requirement & estimated
Up to 2009/10 2,040 3,194

The HIA 2008/09 predicated that 792 houses would be completed this year taking into account
land supply allocations and extant. In reality less than 50% were completed.
- 22 -
2010/11 5 841 846 2,550 4,038
2011/12 0 574 574 3,060 4,612
2012/13 138 659 794 3,570 5,409
2013/14 123 150 273 4,080 5,682
2014/15 914 76 990 4,590 6,672
2015/16 0 0 0 5,100 6,672

6.13 The projected completions far exceed what is expected to happen within the
housing market over the next few years mostly due to the current market
conditions. PPS 3 requires local planning authorities to have an up-to-date 5 year
supply of deliverable sites. Where development plans have not been reviewed to
take into account the requirements of PPS3 or there are less than 5 year supply of
deliverable sites, PPS3 states that planning permission should be considered
favourably if they meet certain development criteria.

6.14 The Development Plan for the Canterbury area has not been reviewed to take
account of the PPS3 requirements and there is no clear evidence of a 5 year
supply of deliverable sites. The HIA appears to have taken forward the Local Plan
extant permission sites and the allocations together with other sites with planning
permission and allocated these into future delivery years. The evidence given as
to how the sites are phased is through a phasing survey with landowners/
developers. It is our understanding that the viability and constraints of each site
will be assessed as part of the Core Strategy/SHLAA work but no ‘one to one’
discussion is currently undertaken with the site landowners and there is no
proposal for a round table discussion to seek to reach an agreed position with the
industry on housing land availability. In our view, this does not represent a robust
assessment of the deliverability aspects of each site.

6.15 It is considered that the Council cannot rely on all of the sites that have planning
permission or are allocated in the Local Plan coming forward in the next 3-5 years.
In order to carry out such an assessment would require detailed consideration of

- 23 -
the right market and other conditions and at the present time, housing is not
expected to come forward as rapidly and in such volumes as recent years.

How is the delivery of housing performing against these targets?

6.16 For this application, we have carried out our own research into the deliverability of
sites that are allocated within the Local Plan and also sites of over 5 units with
extant planning permission. Those allocated sites without planning permission are
further away from delivery because of the requirement and time taken to apply for
permission but in some cases these sites have been continually rolled forward as
housing sites for over 10 years.

6.17 We have taken into account the following criteria for assessing the deliverability
and timescale for development coming forward:
 Current housing market conditions especially with regard to flatted
 Any resolution from landowners to bring the site forward.
 If site is still occupied/in active use and the prospects of in being
disposed and cleared.
 The physical constraints of developing the site.
 Whether it is part of a more comprehensive scheme that needs to come
forward at the same time.
 Barriers to development such as flood zones.

Each site has been visited and assessed individually.

6.18 Our starting point is the HIA 2009/10 and Table 4 below is the same as Table 3
above but includes the phasing of sites as concluded from our assessment. These
are set out in bold/red below the HIA figures. We have inserted the completion
figures for 2010/11 up to end of February 2011 as the March figures were unknown
at the time of submitting the application.

- 24 -
6.19 Our research is dependent on all of the Local Plan allocations coming forward at
some point but in real terms, it is unlikely that many will if they have not in the last
4-5 years which included a housing ‘boom’. It is also debatable as to whether the
Council should continue to ‘shift’ forward the Local Plan allocations and extant
housing sites into later years after 2011.

Table 4
Year Land supply Land supply Projected SE Plan Cumulative
Allocations Extant Completions cumulative completions
requirement estimated
Up to 2,040 3,5376
2011 – 1,175 1,459 2,634 5,100 (over 10 6,171
2016 year period
2006 – 2016)
119 586 705 5,100 4,242

6.20 From our research, we consider there to be shortfall of provision for 858
(5,100 minus 4,242) houses in the 5 year period 2011 – 2016. Taking the residual
annual requirement of 4387 houses, this can be translated in to the number of
years of housing supply available. We calculate there to be just over 3 years
housing supply in the District instead of the 5 year supply are required under
PPS3. In order to achieve the SEP target of 5100, the local authority needs to
allocate sites that can deliver 1563 houses (the outstanding balance taking into
account those that have been completed up to February 2011). We consider this
to be unrealistic. There are clear reasons as to why our results do not concur with
the Council’s monitoring figures. These are:

This includes 345 completed up to end of February 2011
As set out in the 2009/10 Annual Monitoring Report
- 25 -
 The recession has caused a severe downturn in house building and this
is reflected in the completion figures for the last 2 years but seems not to
have recognised in the Council’s monitoring and phasing of sites.
 A number of Local Plan allocations have not been brought forward,
including the City Council’s own car parks. It would appear that there is
no resolution within the local authority to bring many of these forward for
development. This means that some 100 dwellings will not come
forward in the next 5 years.
 We are aware of a number of sites that are either in multi ownership
which makes them complex to develop or the owner/occupier no longer
wishes to move or develop the site.
 The AMR and the HIA do not include sound and robust monitoring
evidence of a 5 year supply of houses as outlined in PPS3 and the
SHLAA Practise guide.

Does the site meet the terms of Local Plan Policy H1 and H2 and is it now required
to come forward to meet a housing need?

6.21 Policy H1 of the Local Plan states that the City Council will permit residential
development on sites allocated for housing or mixed use as shown on the
Proposals Map. This includes this site. As part of the phased release for housing,
paragraph 2.15 states that reserved sites will only be released once the City
Council has considered: 1) the rate of development of existing permissions and
allocations and 2) the development programme of other sites i.e. assesses whether
other previously developed sites are coming forward in the short to medium term.

6.22 The accompanying text to Policy H2 appears to relate to applying a sequential test
to allocating housing sites. This was relevant at the time of the Local Plan as it
referred to advice in the previous version of PPS3 but this approach is not set out
in the current guidance.

- 26 -
6.23 It therefore remains that the only consideration is whether it is now relevant to bring
the site forward for development because of the requirement to have a supply of
deliverable housing sites and is therefore needed. We consider it is needed for the
following reasons:

a) It is an allocated site within an existing and adopted Local Plan.

b) It can accommodate up to 40 houses within the Plan period – ie up to 2011.
c) The Council cannot show it has a 5 year housing supply going forward and
our research shows that many of the Local Plan allocations are unlikely to
be developed.
d) There is no updated housing target work currently being undertaken as part
of the Core Strategy and the SHLAA is nowhere near completion.
e) The site is available and deliverable and is suitable for residential
development and can come forward straight away.
f) National guidance does not include a sequential test for housing allocations
or for bringing sites forward.
g) Granting planning permission for the site will not lead to an overprovision of
housing as the supply of housing sites going forward is certainly not
h) GOSE advised at the time of ‘saving’ Local Plan policies that Policy H2
should be retained, as it would support the delivery of housing, this being
one of the criteria of particular importance in the Government’s protocol on
saved policies.

6.24 In addition to this analysis of the housing land availability situation, it should be
noted that Government policy towards the release of greenfield sites has changed
significantly following the Budget March 2011. There is now no longer a
requirement to prioritise previously developed land over greenfield sites.
Greenfield sites which do not fall within special protected areas such as greenbelt
and are in sustainable locations are now supported by the Government for
residential development. This site clearly fits with this criterion which is the reason

- 27 -
why it was allocated as a reserve housing site in the Canterbury Local Plan 2006
and included in the adopted development brief for the adjoining development site.

- 28 -

7.1 The proposal is for a development of 40 units on land to the west of Puffin Road, in
accordance with the saved policies in the Canterbury Local Plan 2006. This will
include 35% affordable. Vehicular access to the site will be provided via Puffin
Road with cycle and pedestrian access provided via Richmond Drive.

7.2 The site is an urban fringe site, immediately abutting the built up area of Herne
Bay. It extends to 1.09 hectares and is greenfield currently used as farming land.

7.3 The site is allocated under Policy H2 of the adopted Local Plan as a reserve
housing site, proposed to accommodate an additional 40 dwellings in the Plan
period up to 2011.

7.4 It is considered the site is suitable for housing development and is located within
easy walking reach of bus stops, a doctor’s surgery and local schools. It is thus a
sustainable location for housing.

7.5 The central issue for this application is therefore whether there is a five year supply
of deliverable housing sites within the District in order that this site can be released
for housing within the timeframe of the Local Plan.

7.6 As part of the background work for the application, research was undertaken of the
existing housing allocation and delivery information provided by Canterbury City
Council. In addition, we have carried out our own research into the deliverability of
every site that is allocated within the Local Plan and also every site over 5 units
with extant planning permission within Canterbury District. Our assessment of
these sites has been sent to and discussed with Officers of the Council. No
response to this analysis has been received to date.

- 29 -
7.7 It is understood from the local planning authority that no ‘one to one’ discussions
are currently undertaken with the landowners of those sites currently within the
housing availability lists as set out in the HIA and in our view, this does not
represent a robust assessment of the deliverability aspects of each site. In
addition, we understand that no assessment of the current housing market is
included within the projected housing completions for future years.

7.8 We have therefore concluded that from our research, we consider there to be a
shortfall of 858 houses in the 5 year period 2011 – 2016. In order to achieve the
SEP target of 5100, the local authority needs to allocate sites suitable for delivering
1563 houses. We consider this to be unrealistic and therefore the application for
40 dwellings at land west of Puffin Road should be approved.

- 30 -

- 31 -

- 32 -


It is intended to complete a unilateral undertaking under the provisions of the S106 of

the Town and County Planning Act in accordance with Canterbury City Council’s
Supplementary Planning Document January 2007 and Kent County Council guide to
Development Contributions and Provision of Community Infrastructure March 2007.
Where there is a difference between these guides the higher figures have been


An application for 40 dwellings has been lodged with the City Council. This outline
application has an illustrative layout showing the following mix of dwellings.

Table 1 2 Bed Houses 3 Bed Houses 4 Bed Houses 2 Bed Flats

Affordable 8 2 4
Market 8 14 4

This draft heads of terms is based on this illustrative layout.

Heads of Terms

Affordable Housing

It is proposed to offer to City Councils nominated RSL 35% of the total number of
dwellings. On the basis of the illustrative scheme this would comprise of 4 x 2 bed
flats, 2 x 3 bed house and 2 x 2 bed houses as social rented homes. Plus 6 x 2 bed
houses as shared ownership intermediate cost homes.

The delivery of these dwellings will be dependent on grant availability. It is proposed

that no more than 20 market dwellings could be completed in advance of the
affordable housing. If grant is not available then it is suggested that the affordable
housing could be provided directly by the developer. In such circumstances all the
affordable dwellings would be rented with rents pegged to 80% market rent in

All affordable dwellings would be designed to Housing Corporation scheme design

standards and the sustainable homes category pertaining to the date of construction.
Two of the affordable dwellings would be constructed to lifetime homes standards.

The location of the affordable dwellings to be distributed within the scheme in no less
than two locations.


Depending on the school capacity assessment for this location as identified by Kent
County Council it is proposed to make a contribution following the completion of the
20th market dwelling in accordance with the following table:
Table 2 For each Flat For each House
Primary – £ 590,24 £ 2, 360.96
Primary – New £ 1,389,99 £ 5,559,96
Secondary – £ 589,95 £ 2,359,80
Secondary – New £ 1,272,90 £ 5, 091,60

Source: KCC guidelines

Community Services

Dependent on the capacity assessment for this location, to make the following
contributions following the completion of the 20th market dwelling in accordance with
the following table:-

Table 3 For each Flat For each House

Libraries and Archives £ 227,00 £ 227,00
Adult education £ 180,00 £ 180,00
Youth and Community £ 206,75 £ 827,00
Adult social care all £ 1,201,00 £1,201,00

Transport Infrastructure

As per the City Council SPD the proposed tariff for highway contributions in the
coastal towns is £ 400 for the first bedroom and then £ 60 per additional bedroom.
On the basis of the illustrative scheme this would mean the highway contribution is:

£ 400 x 40 = £ 16, 000

£ 60 x 64 = £ 3,840
£ 19,840

Open Space

The scheme will include a local equipped play area for small children. Direct access
will be provided to the footpaths and tracks over the adjoining farmland. It is not
therefore appropriate to contribute to parks / Amenity Green Spaces / Semi Natural
Areas. Accordingly the open space contribution is calculated as 104 bed rooms =
104 persons 104 x £ 21.15 = £ 2,199.60 for POS for sport. The on site play area
would be managed by private management company formed by the owners of the
proposed dwellings. No maintenance cost would therefore fall to the Council.

PW 24 March 2011