Consensus is needed on Eastbourne housing targets

You reported my assertion that the current annual housing target of 675 units for Eastbourne is “absurd” in your edition of May 15.

I have suggested that an annual target of 200-250 units per year is reasonable and achievable, and I understand that there is a local consensus around this.

Urgent action is required to alleviate the current situation in which local democracy is neutered: Because of the current absurdly high and unachievable target, both officers and councillors fear the consequences of rejecting planning applications and the stick with which the Planning Inspectorate can, and does, beat us.

They are persuaded to accept applications that they would otherwise reject.

The Government recently issued two consultations: the first, proposing “changes to the current planning system”, and the second, a “White Paper: Planning for the Future”. Responses to the former were required by October 1 and for the latter, by October 29.

I have responded to the former, which covers numerical targets, in proposing “changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need.” The proposed changes in methodology are modest and both methods are flawed.

It has been described as a “mutant algorithm”.

To build houses at a faster rate as Government (and the wider population) wishes requires significantly more pressure and incentives for existing planning permissions to be used rather than pressuring local authorities to grant even more planning permissions which may or may not result in building.

Currently there extant planning permissions for over 1,000 housing units in Eastbourne.

If the Government nevertheless wishes to use its proposed, but flawed, standard methodology based on unreliable population projections, at the very least this needs to take account adequately of the physical constraints of a local authority such as Eastbourne, and the illogical “affordability” adjustment and arbitrary baseline (of 0.5 per cent growth pa) should be eliminated.

In Eastbourne the draft local plan states that “the greatest need in future is expected to be for three bedroom houses, with two bedroom flats also having a high level of need, along with one bedroom flats and two bedroom houses.”

Absurdly the current and proposed standard methodology make no distinction regarding mix.

All the incentives are for developers to create as many small one-bedroom flats as possible.

I have suggested that one possible solution would be for any numerical requirement to be based on number of bedrooms rather than housing units.

We can certainly work constructively together to produce a Local Plan that is based on our very high aspirations for Eastbourne.