UtkintonandCotebrookObjectionto16/01492/OUTFormalObjectionNotesforaresidentialdevelopmentproposalfor22houses.UtkintonandCotebrookParishCouncilrecentlydiscussedPlanningApplication16/01492/OUT–residentialdevelopmentofupto22dwellingswithaccessatNorthgate,UtkintonandatanExtra-ordinaryParishCouncilMeetingon26thJuly2016itwasresolved,unanimously,toplaceonrecordanObjectiontotheApplicationonthefollowinggrounds.ThisdecisionwastakeninthelightofdiscussionspriortotheParishCouncilmeetingproperwith19residentsinattendance.UtkintonandCotebrookParishCouncilasksCheshireWestandChesterCounciltorefusetheapplicationbasedonthefollowingbasedonthefollowingkeyfactors:§ NoprovenneedforAffordableHousingsubstantiallyabovethecurrentlevelof

supplyintheParish§ Thelackofsustainabilityofthevillage–asevidencedinpreviousplanning

applicationsdeclinedbyCWaC§ Impactontrafficandhighways§ Impactonthevillageandruralenvironment§ IssuesrelatedtocommunicationEachoftheseisdiscussedbelow.UtkintonandCotebrookParishCouncilwishestostatethatitsresearchshowsthattheParish,asawhole,isnotagainstdevelopmentperse,justdevelopmentsthatareseenasinappropriateforavillageofitssizeandrurallocation.WereadevelopmentofthescaleanytypeoftheoneproposedtobepermittedinUtkintonitwouldincreasethenumbersofhouseholdsby10.6%(i.e.from208to230)andadd64%tothestockofaffordableorsocialrentedproperties(makingthislattersectorsome16%ofthetotalhousingstock).ThisobjectionisasynopsisofdiscussionswithadvisorstotheParishCouncilwhohavesubmittedaseparate,fullandverydetailedobjectiontoCheshireWestandChesterCouncilPlanningTeam.OnbehalfoftheParishCouncilFTunney–Chair3rdAugust2016

HousingNeedSurveys§ TheParishCouncilquestionstheveracityoftheforecasthousingneedwithinthe

application–itisbasedonanextrapolationofdatarelatingtoanunsubstantiatedfutureneedthrough‘newlyformed’familyunitsratherthanverifiableneed.ItalsoquestionstheeconomicgroundsasbeingbasedonCensusandONSdataratherthandetailedquestioningofthewholevillage.

§ AnAdvisortotheParishCouncilcontactedaconsultantstatisticiantoreviewthemethodologyandconclusionsfromthearc4HousingNeedsSurveycommissionedbythedeveloperandhefounditlackinginsubstanceandcredibility.ThesefindingsarecontainedinanObjectiontotheDevelopmentsubmittedseparatelybyMrsAPownallandsummarisedintheAppendixA.

§ Thekeyissueisthatahighlyqualifiedandeminentstatisticianhaslookedatthearc4surveyindetailandhasconcludedthatitdoesnotrepresentstatisticallycredibleevidenceofanysignificantaffordablehousingneedinthevillage.Furthermore,heconcludedthattheParishCouncil’smostrecentsurveyWAScredibleevidence.ThisfactalonemaymeantheapplicationshouldproceednofurtherasSOC2clearlystatesthatforaffordablehousingtobeallowedonaruralexceptionsitethedevelopermustproveaneedforaffordablehousingforlocalneed,buttheyhaven’tprovedthisatall.

§ Twopreviousdevelopers(MuirHousingandPlusDane)consultedwithresidentspriortosubmittingplanningapplicationsforthisparceloflandandbothwithdrewtheirinterest.§ MuirHousingdidn’tconductaHousingNeedsSurveyandwithdrewbefore

formallyapplying.§ However,PlusDanedidandreceivedNOresponsesatallthenwithdrewagain

beforeapplying.§ UtkintonandCotebrookParishCouncilhaveundertakenHousingNeedsSurveyson

threeoccasions(2006,2012and2016)andtheresultsshowadegreeofconsistencyintermsoftheimmediateneeds§ 2006(86responses=36%return)§ 2012(156responses=48.1%return)§ 2016(68responses=22.8%return+1receivedafterthedeadline)

§ Theresponsesinthe2016surveyindicatedthat3people(1individualand1couplei.e.twohouseholds)wouldrequireaffordablehousingoverthenext3years.

§ TheParishCouncilsurveysconductedin2012and2016weredistributedbyhandtoeveryhouseholdintheparish(c.308households)andanonymitywasanoptionforallrespondents.

§ Therearealreadysocialrentedhouses(22)inthevillageandtheaverage‘churn’oftenantsaverages1.75ayearsomostoftheimmediateneedidentifiedinthesurveysmaybemetthroughWeaverValeHousingTrust.

§ Inadditiontothelackofcredibilitysurroundingthedatafromarc4’ssurvey,therewereissueswithitbeingattributedtoadeveloperinCotebrookanditwasn’tuntilthesurveywaspublishedontheCWaCwebsitethatitbecameknownitwascommissionedbytheapplicants.

§ ItshouldbenotedthatineachofthethreeHousingSurveysconductedbytheParishCounciltherewasanacceptancebyvillagersthatsomedevelopmentofaffordablehousingmightberequired(butitshouldbenotedthatsuchexpressionofacceptancedoesnotinferthatvillagershaveaneedforaffordablehousing),butinnoneofthesurveyswasittothelevelsindicatedbythisPlanningApplication,orindeedanyofthethreepreviousproposals.

§ Theapplicantproposesthatthiswouldbearuralexceptionsite.InfactitisnotadjacenttotheexistingVillageSettlementBoundary(CWaCLocalPlan1)anditis,therefore,theParishCouncil’sopinionthatitisnotaruralexceptionsiteasdefinedinSOC2.TheplotoflandiswithinanASCV(AreaofSpecialCountyValue).

§ ThemixofhousesproposedfallsoutsideofSOC2Policyof30%formarkethousing(8/22=36.4%).

§ Itshould,also,benotedthatthelevelofconsultationbetweentheapplicant’sarchitect/agent(Vivio/RAMD)wasdeemedlessthanadequatewithitbeing,initially,byinternetinvitationonlyandthenwith12‘slots/appointments’of10minuteseachhavingtobebookedonly4householdsattended(7individuals).

Othersignificantfactorswithintheapplication§ Therevisedlayoutshowsatotalof22dwellings–anincreaseofalmost40%onthe

previousapplication.§ ThelandscapevalueofthesiteanditscontextwithinanASCVandproximitytothe

CheshireSandstoneRidge.§ Thehighwaysstatementisoutofdateandcontainswronginformation,particularly

withregardtotheingressandegressfromthesite,boundarywallsandraisedtable.§ Thedevelopercharacterisesthedevelopmentasinfillwhen,infact,itisastand-

alonedevelopment.Unsustainabilityofthevillage§ Itsitsapproximately1.6milesbyroadtoitsnearestKeyServiceCentre–Tarporley.§ Thevillagedoesnotenjoyaregularbusservice,only‘dial-a-ride’servicesprovided

by‘TarporleyShuttle’(bookablebetween09:30and14:30MondaytoFriday)and

‘RuralRider’BookableforservicesbetweenUtkintonandNorthwich(WednesdayandFridaymorningsandWinsfordWednesdayandFridayAfternoons).TheseservicesarenotsuitableforanyresidentwishingtoconnectwithfullandregularbusservicesfromTarporleytoChesterandCreweforthepurposeofemploymentorforvisitingahospitalorotherappointments.Thislackofconnectivitythereforecreatesademandforanincreaseduseofprivatecarsortaxis.

§ UtkintonresidentshavenoaccesstoHealthServices(Doctors,DentistsorPharmacies)exceptbyprivatecar.

§ ThereisnosafefootwayorcyclewaybetweenUtkintonandTarporley,it’sKeyServiceCentre,puttingfurtherpressureontheuseofprivatecars.

§ TheonlyemploymentopportunitiesinthevillagearelocatedatRoseFarmShopandanyoneseekingemploymentintheimmediateareawouldrequiretheirowntransportortaxi.

§ Conversationswiththeemployeesattheshopsuggestadegreeofuneasewiththesitingofsuchalargedevelopmentsoclosetothefacilityanditsfutureasavillagehub.

§ Thevillagehasfewamenities:§ Avillagehallwithparkingfor4vehiclesandatenniscourt§ Ashop§ AChurchofEnglandPrimarySchool.

§ Theapplicanthassuggestedfactorsthatareeithermisleadingorsimplywrong;§ ThevillageisNOTaLocalServiceCentrewithintheCWaCLocalPlan2§ ThevillagedoesNOThaveachurch(theCofEchurchwasconvertedtoaschool

manyyearsagoandtheMethodistChapelconvertedtoaprivatedwellinginoraround2009).

Impactonthevillageanditsruralenvironment§ Ifeach‘affordableunit’hadaccesstoasinglecarandthe‘marketaccommodation’an

averageoftwocars,thatwouldmean30moreprivatecarsinthevillageandPart1andtheNPPFactivelydiscouragedevelopmentwhichnecessitateanincreaseincarusage,preferringdevelopmenttobelocatedinmoresustainableplaceswherethereispublictransport–whichthereisplainlynotinUtkinton.

§ Similarlytheproposeddevelopmentwouldsitsignificantlymoreelevatedthanitsclosest‘neighbours’includingthefarmshopcomplex–whichwasrestrictedtosinglestoreyinitsplanningapplications.ThattheproposedandreviseddevelopmentisattwostoreysandwillsitimmediatelyabuttingtoRoseFarmShopanditsbusinesses(Café,GardenCentreandShop)maydetercustomersfromvisiting

andcausingeconomichardshipandthiscouldhaveanimpactonthefutureofthefocalpointforvillagelife–theshopandpostoffice.

§ Therehavebeenanumberofenvironmentalandecologicalstudiesdonetosupportthisapplicationbuttherealimpactwillbeontheoverallenvironmentofthevillagebydeprivinganumberofspeciesofhabitatthatisvitaltotheirwellbeing–bats,owls,birdsandotheranimals.

Location§ Theproposeddevelopmentsitsoutsidethe‘VillageSettlementBoundary’setby

CWaCwhohavealreadyrefusedapplicationsfortwosingleresidentialpropertiesthatfelloutsidetheVillageSettlementBoundary–Inoneofthesecases(RowleyHillFarm)Utkintonwasdescribedasa‘hamlet’and‘unsustainable’bytheCWaCPlanningCommittee.

§ Recentplanningapplicationsforjustsinglehousesin/adjacenttothevillagehavebeenturneddownonthebasisthatthevillageisunsustainable,soifsinglehouseshavebeenrefusedonthisbasis,howcould22housesbeallowedastheywouldresultinsomanymorepeoplelivinginanunsustainableplacewhichgoesdirectlyagainstthesustainabilitypoliciesofboththeNPPFandPart1oftheLocalPlan.

§ However,thissiteisbeingconsidered(byCWaC)asaRuralExceptionSiteforaffordablehousingwhichisdifferent,butthereisthequestionofwhetherthesitecanbeconsideredtobeadjacenttothevillageornot…its’boundarytouchestheVillageSettlementBoundaryalongaverysmallpercentageofitsperimeteradjacenttothegardenofNo16Northgate(seeplanbelow):

ExtractfromPart1LocalPlan-DevelopmentPlanProposalsMapoftheproposalsite-villageboundaryshowninblackrunningdownthewestsideofJohnStreetandthenorthsideofNorthgate.ThesiteboundaryshowninredisconsequentlyNOTadjacenttothevillagesettlementforthevastmajorityofitslength.

§ Manyvillagershavesaidthattheywouldliketoseethefieldasanamenityforallto

enjoy–Northgatefieldistheonlyremaininggreenspaceinthevillageandsomehaveaskedwhyitcouldnotbeusedforcommunitypurposes.

Potentialimpactoncommunications§ Whilstnotcoveredaspartof‘sustainability’thelevelofremoteworkinginthe

villagewasevidencedinthe2012researchfortheParishPlan.Broadbandwasinstalledinthevillagetwoyearslater.However,theexistingBTGreenBoxandtheoneforBTFibreBroadbandweredesignedtoaccommodatethenumberofpremiseswhenthe‘Phase1roll-outwasplanned–approx.2011’(From‘ConnectingCheshire’).

§ Thismayhaveasignificantimpactontheabilityforremote/homeworkers.

APPENDIXA–EMAILBETWEENAPOWNALLANDDRDWARNE

From:DavidW.WARNE(BW)]Sent:Thursday,July28,20161:44PMTo:'AnnPownall'Subject:RE:StatisticalCredibilityofHousingNeedsSurveysDearMrs.Pownall,

Attachedpleasefindmycomments.

Bestregards,

DavidW.WARNE,BSc,MSc,PhD,CStat

From:AnnPownall

Sent:28July201609:55

To:'DavidW.WARNE(BW)'

Subject:StatisticalCredibilityofHousingNeedsSurveys

DearDr.Warne,

Iwritefurthertoourrecentdiscussion,andIwouldbeobligedifyoucouldgivemeyourprofessionalopinion inyourcapacityasaprofessionalstatisticianabout the followingmatter.Background

Asdiscussed,ahousingdeveloperhasrecentlysubmittedaplanningapplicationtobuild22 houses on a field near to the village where I live. The local planning regulationsstipulate that where development is proposed on such as site that is outside asettlementboundary,only“affordable“houseswillbepermitted(i.e.oneswhichwillbeownedandletbya“sociallandlord”atarentlessthanopenmarketrents),andthatthedevelopermustprovideevidencethat there isarealneed for theproposedaffordablehouses,throughahousingneedssurveytobesubmittedwiththeirplanningapplication.This being the case the prospective developer commissioned a housing needs surveyfromacompany(ARC4)whocompileandprovidehousingdata.

Having readARC4’s survey report I am concerned that themethodologywhichARC4usedtocompiletheirdataisnotnecessarilycorrect,andthatsomeoftheassumptionsthatARC4madewhencalculatingtheirhousingneedsfiguresarenotappropriate.Iftheresultinghousingneedsfiguresareaccepteditwillhaveastronginfluenceonwhethertheplanningapplication isapprovedornot, and if thehousesarebuiltornot, so it isobviously essential that the data which the developers are using to support theirapplicationiscorrectandstatisticallycredible.AtpresentIamconcernedthattheARC4figuresmaynotberight,asthescenariowhichtheyindicateisthecaseinthevillage(i.e.lotsofyoungpeopleonlowincomes,allwantingtostayinthevillageandthereforeinneedofaffordablehousing)isverydifferentfromthepatternofwhatweknowactually

happens in the village regarding people moving in and out, housing needs etc., aswitnessedduringthe24yearsthatwehavelivedhere.Iwouldthereforebegratefulifyoucouldgivemeyouropinionregardingwhetheryouthink the figures that ARC4 are now quoting to justify the developers statement thataffordable houses are needed in the village are statistical credible, and I would begratefulifyoucouldanswerthequestionsshownbelow,withexplanation/justificationforyouranswerswherenecessary.ExplanationanddiscussionabouthowARC4surveywasconductedandhowthedataintheirreportwascompiled

1. ARC4 obtained the telephone numbers for 173 of the 296 households in thevillage.

2. Out of those 173 households that ARC4 contacted via telephone ARC4, got 69householdstoanswertheirsurvey.This indicates that the remaining 104 households out of the 176 that ARC 4contactedrefusedtoanswerthesurvey,andIamassumingthatthiswasbecausetheyweren’tinterestedinaffordablehousing.Question1:Wouldyouagreethatthisisareasonableassumptiontomakeonmypart?

Answer1:Yes.Alsonothingisknownabouttheother123householdswithoutaphonenumber,sotheycan’tbeusedinthecalculations.

3.Fromthe69cold-calltelephonesurveysthatARC4didcomplete,only5householdsexpressedaninterestinthepossibilityofneedinganaffordablehouseinthevillagewithinthenext3years.

4.Fromthis“rawdata”of5interestedhouseholds,ARC4thenmultipliedupthisnumber(tousetheirexpression“weight”thefigures”)asfollows:

5householdsx296(totalnumberofhouseholdsinthevillage)69(numberofhouseholdssurveyed)

=21.4affordablehouseswouldberequiredforthewholevillage,whichtheyroundedupto22

houses.

Thisappearstobesomethingofalargeassumption,particularlysince104ofthe176householdsthattheyevencontacteddidn’twanttoanswertheirsurvey,and,asnotedabove,thereforeprobablyweren’tinterestedatall.

Question2:Doyouconsiderthatthisisanappropriatewaytocalculatethepossiblenumberofhousesthatwouldberequiredforthewholevillage?

Answer2:No.

5.Arc4thenwentontosaythatbycomparingthefinancialdatacollectedfromthe5 households that showed an interest against recent data about open marketfreeholdandprivaterentalhousepricesinthearea,itwasapparentthatnoneofthe22assumedhouseholdswouldbeabletoaffordmarketvaluehousinginthevillage (either freehold or rented) and would all therefore need affordablehousing.

Iwas concerned that if the financial data obtained from the 5 households thatexpressed an interest was incomplete or lacking in any way that the averageincome figureused tomake theaboveanalysisof the5households, andwhichwasthenusedfortheassumed22housesmightbeartificiallylow,andthereforenotreliable.

Obviously if all 5 households had given their details, the average incomecalculatedforthisgroupof5householdswouldbeaccurate,butifonly1or2ofthe5householdshadsubmittedtheir financialdatatheaveragecalculatedmaywell not be representative of even the 5 households, and would be even lesslikely to be accurate for the assumed 22 houses i.e. an errorwould have beenmadeabouttheassumedincomeforthe5houses,andthiserrorwouldthenhavebeencompoundedbyassumingthatall22oftheassumedhouseswouldhavethesamelowincome.

ConsequentlyIaskedtheauthorofthereporthowmanyofthe5householdshaddivulged their financial status during theARC4 telephone surveys, uponwhichARC4thenmadetheassumptionthatall22householdswouldhavealowincome.Howevertheauthorsteadfastlyrefusedtotellmehowmanyofthe5householdssupplied this data, claiming that to do so would be in breach of the DataProtectionAct,whichisnotcorrectasIwasnotaskingforthenames,addressesorfinancialdetailsofthehouseholdsconcerned,justthenumberofhouseholds.IftheauthorhadgivenmethisfigureIwouldofcoursehavebeennowiserthanIwasbeforeabouttheidentityofanyofthepartiesinvolved

[Reviewer’scomment:Thispointiswellmade,butthere’salsothequestionwhetherthedatafrom5householdscanbeextrapolatedtotheother291,and itprobablycan’tbeasit’saverybiasedsample]

6.FromthisIwasconcernedthatonlyaveryfew,orevennoneofthe5householdsprovidedARC4withanyfinancialdata,andthattheauthorhadbasedhisanalysisofaverageincomeandhousepricesonfinancialdatafromeitheronlyaveryfewofthe5households,orevennone.

7.Theaboveassumptiondoesn’tappeartomakesenseifyouknowwhatthepeopleinthevillagearelike,asthereisahugevariationintheincomelevelsofpeopleinthevillage, frompeople living in socialhousing to severalmillionaires, and theyoung people formingwhat ARC4 refer to as “newly-forming” households (i.e.youngpeopleleavingtheparentalhomeandneedingahomeoftheirown)wouldobviously come from this wide range of backgrounds,and will have a diverserangeofincomesi.e.somewillhavelowincomesandnofinancialsupportfromtheirparents,andmightneedaffordablehousing,whileotheryoungpeoplewillhavegood jobs and incomes, and financial support from theirwealthyparents,andwouldnotneedaffordablehousinginthevillage.

If this were not the case, it would mean that all young people in the villagegrowing up and leaving their parental homes would need affordable housing,which would have already produced a backlog of people needing affordablehousing, but there isn’t a backlog, as has been proved by several other recenthousingneedssurveysconducted inbyboth theParishCouncil,andadifferentdeveloper,DaneHousing,(whoobviouslyhadavestedinterestintryingtoprovethattherewasaneedforhousestobebuilt);allthesesurveyshaveshownaverylow number of people in need of affordable housing, and this number has notincreased significantly over several years i.e. there is no growing backlog. Seesection 11 below regarding Parish Council housing needs surveys, and DaneHousinghousingneedssurvey.

Furthermore if there was a backlog of people in newly-forming householdsneedingaffordablehousingitwouldresultinthemhavingtoeitherstayintheirparentalhomes,whichcouldleadtoovercrowding,orevenbecominghomeless,but theARC4survey itself says that therearenohouseholds in thevillage thatareconsideredtobeovercrowded(andfromwherepeoplewouldconsequentlywanttomove),andtherearenohomelesshouseholdsinthevillage.

Question3:Doyouthinkthattheauthorshouldbepreparedtodisclosehowmanyhouseholds’financialdatawasusedtocalculatetheaverageincomeinordertomakehisassumptionscredible?Answer3:Yes,thatwouldseemsensible

Question4:Doyouthinkitisjustifiablefortheauthortoassumethatall5householdswouldhavethesamelevelofincomebasedonthefinancialdataobtainedfromwhatmightbeonlyasmallproportionofthesehouseholds?Answer4:No,theconfidenceintervalfromevenall5wouldbeverylarge,andalsoitisprobablynotrepresentativeofanyhouseholdsotherthanthesefew

Question5:Doyouthinktheauthor’sassumptionthat,fromthedatagivenbysomeofthe5households,all22oftheassumedhouseholdswouldbeonsimilarlylowincomesandwouldallconsequentlyneedaffordablehousingiscorrectandcredible?Answer5:No,thatismakingfurtherunjustifiedassumptions

8.Whilstthereportitselfsaysthatonly4oftheassumed22householdsanticipatedstayinginthevillageduringthenext3years(whichwouldamounttoonly1ofthe 5 households that were actually surveyed, reversing the previous sum), itthenassumesthatifmoreaffordablehousingwereavailableinthevillagethatall22 households would want to stay in the village. However there is alreadyaffordablehousinginthevillage,ownedandletbyasocialhousinglandlord,whohave said that over the past 4 years an average of 1.75 houses have becomeavailable each year, and again, because there is no backlog in the number of

peopleneedingaffordablehousing, thiswould indicate that thecurrent levelofaffordable rentedhousing in thevillage is sufficient tomeet theneedsof thosewhoneedsuchhousing.

Question 6: Do you think that the author’s assumption that all of the

assumed22householdswouldwanttostayinthevillageifmoreaffordableaccommodation was available, and would , based on the previouslyassumedincomelevels,needaffordablehousingisacredibleassumptiontomake,takingintoaccount

(a)TheARC4surveyitselfonlyfoundonehousehold(rawdata)thatactuallysaid

theyanticipatedwantingtostayinthevillage,(b)Thereisalreadysocialhousingavailableinthevillage,and(c)Giventhattheannualvacancyrateandthenumberofpeoplewhohavebeen

showntobeinneedofaffordablehousing(fromanumberofrecenthousingsurveys),correlatewell,toprovethattheexistingsocialhousingprovisioncaterswellfortheexistingneed,whichisprovedbythefactthatthereisnosignificantbacklog.

Answer6:Theexistingavailableaccommodationseemstohavebeen ignoredandtheassumptionthatif22houseswereavailablethenmorepeoplewouldwantthemdoesn’tseemtobejustified

9. The main reason that there is not a backlog of households needing affordablehousing in the village, or any overcrowded houses or homelessness(andthereforenoproofthattherewouldbeanysignificantincreaseinthesizeofthebacklog in the future) is that the young peoplewho form the “newly-forming”households,donotstayinthevillage,as,beingasunsustainableasitis,thereisnothingonoffer for youngpeople in the village and theymove away tobiggertownsorcities.I.e.therearenojobs,educationfacilities,medicalfacilities,publictransport, shops, pubs, or sports facilities etc. in the village, all of which areobviouslynecessaryfornewlyforminghouseholds.

Ifthiswerenotthecase,againtherewouldalreadybea largebacklogofnewlyforminghouseholdsneedinghousinginthevillage–butthereisn’t.

Question7:Doyouagreethatthefactthatthereisnobacklogofnewlyforming

householdswantingaffordablehousinginthevillageisproofthatmostnewlyforminghouseholdsmoveawayfromthevillagetoseekemploymentopportunitiesandthefacilitiesthattheyneedinlargersettlements,andthatconsequentlyARC4sassertionthatalloftheassumed22householdswouldwanttostayinthevillageisnotjustifiable?Answer7:Yes

10.Insummary,thisindicatestomethat,

(a)thesocialhousingprovision(i.e.affordablehousing)thatalreadyexistsinthe

villageissufficienttomeettheneedsofmostofthosewhocan’taffordmarkethousing,hencenobacklogforthisreason,and

(b)newlyforminghouseholdsmoveawayfromthevillage,hencenobacklogforthisreason,and

(c)the young people who form the newly-forming households cannot all beassumedtohavethelowlevelsofincome(ashasbeenassumedbyARC4)andconsequentlysomeatleastwouldbeabletobuyhousesontheopenmarket,hencenobacklogforthisreason.

Question8:Doyouagreewiththeabovesummary?

Answer8:Yes

11.The local Parish Council recently conducted their own housing needs survey,whichwasconductedinwritingwithall296householdsinthevillagereceivingahand-delivered survey. Residents then had 4 weeks to weigh and considerwhethertheywouldbeinterestedinanaffordablehouseornotbeforereplyingtotheParishCouncilonaconfidentialbasis.Thiswouldseemtobeamuchmorereliablewayof conductinga surveyandgatheringaccuratedataonan issueasfinanciallyimportantaswhethersomeonewouldwanttotakeonahouseornot,than, as ARC4 did, cold-calling people and expecting them to make such adecisionduringa10-15minutephonecall.

Theresultsfromthissurveyshowedthatonly3people(in2households)inthevillageexpressedaninterestintakingonanaffordablehouseinthevillagewithinthe next 3 years. 68 out of 299households returned their survey forms to theParishCouncil,whichwasa23%returnrate,(i.e.extremelysimilartotheARC4survey’sreturnrateof69outof296households),butsinceeveryhouseholdinthevillagehadbeensurveyed,ithastobeassumedthatthosewhodidnotreplywere not interested in affordable housing, or they would have returned theirsurveyforms.

FurthermoreotherParishCouncilHousingNeedsSurveyscarriedout in recentyearshavereturnedsimilarfiguresasfollows:

2006Survey:86repliesreceivedfrom270householdsthatweresurveyed(=32%responserate)whichshowedaneedoverthenext5yearsof5households(NBnot3yearsasthecurrentARC4andParishCouncilsurveyshavebeen).

2012 Survey : 156 replied received from 296 households (=52% response rate)whichshowedaneedforthenext3yearsof4households.

Theaboveinformationthereforeshowsthatthelevelofpeopleexpressinganeedforaffordablehouseshasbeenataconsistentlylowleveloverthepast10years,andremainssonow.

As mentioned above, a development company, Dane Housing, (who wereinterested in building affordable houses on the same site, and therefore had a

vested interest in wanting to prove that there was a need for such houses)conductedawrittenhousingneedssurveyinNovember2013,whichwaspostedtoeveryhouseholdinthevillage,buttheyreceivednoreplieswhatsoever.

Question9:WouldyouagreethattherecentParishCouncilsurveywouldappeartobemorestatisticallycrediblethantheARC4survey,andthattheresultsthereofaremorestatisticallysignificantthantheresults/assumedfiguresfromtheARC4survey?Answer9:Yes

12.Since the author of the ARC4 survey said he could not give his client, thedeveloper,alistofthenamesandaddressesofthe5would-betenantstopresentto the planning authority, as to do sowould breach theData ProtectionAct, itwouldseemtomethatthedeveloperhasnocredibleevidencefromthesurveytosupport his assertion that there is a need for affordable housing in the village,evenfromthe5householdsthatexpressedaninterest.Obviouslytherewillnotbeanyevidencefromtheother17households,astheyareonlytheoreticalatthisstage.

SincethePlanningAuthorityneedstoseeproofthatthereisarealneedfortheproposedhousestobebuiltbeforegrantingplanningconsent,itseemstomethatthey would need a full list of the names and addresses of all the prospectivetenants who they could then check were genuinely interested, and financiallyable,totakeonsomethingasfinanciallybindingasahouse.However,theARC4report doesn’t deliver this information, and quotes figures which have beencalculated on unsubstantiated assumptions, and which are based on data thattheyarenotpreparedtodisclose(withnogoodreasonwhytheycan’tdoso),andconsequently I cannot see how their survey data could be deemed to besufficiently statistically credible for the Planning Authority to accept it asevidenceofahousingneed,andtograntplanningconsentaccordingly.

The recent Parish Council Survey, however, contains all the necessary data ofspecificrealhouseholds,whichtheParishCouncilcouldpassontothePlanningAuthority (obviously in confidence and with the householders’ consent) if theplanningAuthoritywantedtoinvestigatethehowgenuinethewould-betenants’interestwas.

Question10:Insummary,doyouthinktheARC4surveyiscompiledfromaccurateandcompletedata,andpresentsenoughstatisticallycredibleevidence,toenabletheplanningauthoritytoacceptthatthereisaneedfor22housestobebuilt?Answer10:No

Thankyouforyourassistanceinthismatter.Ilookforwardtohearingfromyouinduecourse.

Yourssincerely,

AnnPownall