Preferred Options 2

**WARNING**
This webpage has been converted from Classic Google Sites to the new version of Google Sites.
All the data should be here but the layout has not been tidied up.
Links are underlined but the text is black rather than blue.

Core Strategy - Preferred Options 2 - Housing, Employment and Green Belt

All estimated numbers have now been replaced by official numbers

Preferred strategy bullet points:
10.3% population growth - 32,723 extra people
24,310 extra houses
421.5 hectares of land for economic development
Green Belt extension stops at Heighley Gate
areas in Hexham, Prudhoe, & Ponteland deleted from Green Belt

Return to the top level Core Strategy page

Summary of Comments - Final

This is the fourteenth summary of comments made at the Preferred Options for Housing, Employment and Green Belt consultation.

NCC Planners say they have processed all the comments that were received on time.

The main reason this has taken so long is that only 14% of the comments were made online - 86% had to be entered manually.

We now have 12,138 comments from about 1,922 people with about 34% of the comments being specifically about the Green Belt.

We are now certain of the exact number of responders because all now appear on the list of all consultees.

A lot more people have commented on this Preferred Options consultation than commented on the Issues & Options or PO1 consultations.

(In Issues & Options there were 11,737 answers from 1,100 responders and the original Preferred Options had 4,348 answers from 608 responders.)

This data has been extracted by The Editors from  northumberland.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning

While every attempt has been made to ensure these numbers are as accurate as possible, we would be astonished if all the counting was absolutely spot on.

We can, however, guarantee the accuracy of the number of responses to each question.

We have noticed four groups of pro forma to answers.

An average of 830 people used the Ponteland Green Belt's pro forma response to answer up to 10 specific questions objecting to the proposed plans for Ponteland.

Some of these comments were classified as "General Comment" but these have been changed to "Objection".

About 120 people have registered their support for one element of the proposed plans for Ponteland - "that there should be no changes to the Green Belt to the east of Darras Hall Estate and in particular the land between Callerton Lane and the gardens of Edge Hill, Willow Way, Willow Place and Callerton Court."

There have also been about 210 people using a pro forma to answer question 31 objecting to the proposed plans for Hexham.

About 62 people have used a pro forma to answer four questions objecting to the proposed plans for the area around Morpeth.

The Hexham and Morpeth comments have all been classified as "Objection".

Once the correction have been made, we expect there to be 440 comments of support, 1,169 general comments and 10,529 objections.

120 of these 440 comments of support have come from Ponteland residents (see above)

Of the remaining 320 comments of support, 133 are from members of the public, 102 are from 68 property development groups, 47 are from 57 councils and 38 are from 39 other groups.

This Profile of Answers table shows the numbers after the expected corrections.

This graph shows the numbers after the expected corrections.

Note that the comments coloured green are "Support" and all other pro forma comments are "Objection"

You can view and download a PDF of the Longhorsley Parish Council comments in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.

What is Happening

The NCC has now completed the work needed to identify draft policies for Housing, Employment and Green Belt and has produced a second “Preferred Options” document.

That work included a Housing Needs Survey (based on 4.4% of households) and an update of SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) - both available in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.

The PDF version of the PO2 document that was presented to the NCC Policy Board at their October 21st meeting and the PO2 Summary for the Policy Board is also available there.

You will be able to comment online from Thursday 31st October 2013 to Thursday 2nd January 2014 through the Consultation Portal

This is the recommended route.

If you commented during the "Issues and Options" or original “Preferred Options” consultation, use the same log in details you used then.

If not, you will need to register - Click on [Login / Register] at the top of the Consultation Portal page.

You also can submit comments by email to PlanningStrategy@northumberland.gov.uk

If you want to comment on any aspect of the original “Preferred Options” document, you can do so by email.

Longhorsley Parish Council have produced a new leaflet which summarises PO2 for the same key issues that were covered in their previous leaflets.

This leaflet is available to view and download in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.

Summary of the Preferred Options 2 Strategy

NCC says that allowing the population to grow at the natural rate predicted by the Office of National Statistics would impede sustainable economic growth.

NCC also says that we won't have a big enough working age population - the proportion of people over 65 will be too high.

The proposed strategy is to intervene through the Core Strategy to grow the population at two and a half times the natural rate by attracting people of working age into the county.

The consultation document defines the increases in jobs, population and housing for both natural growth and artificially high growth.

It also defines the land to be made available for economic development and the extent of the Green Belt - but only for the intervention strategy of artificially high growth.

With natural growth we would lose 10,000 jobs, increase population by 13,300 and that would need an extra 16,240 houses.

With artificially high growth we would gain up to 3,000 jobs, increase population by about 32,600 and that would need an extra 24,310 houses.

Areas would be deleted from the existing Green Belt and the extension to the Green Belt would be about a quarter of what was proposed in the Issue & Options consultation.

The consultation document points out that the total of houses in the SHLAA is exactly that required by the artificially high growth option, but these sites are not all in the correct places.

About 2,000 houses in the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) say “Delivery subject to the definition of Green Belt”.

About 1,700 houses are planned for areas deleted from the existing Green Belt.

The consultation document gives no explanation of how the job numbers were determined, how the artificially high population increase was arrived at or how the housing numbers were calculated from the population numbers.

The consultation document does not give the key information needed to try to understand how all the numbers fit together.

The key numbers for jobs, population, houses, population over 65 and occupancy levels are missing or have to be calculated from other numbers in the document.

Looking just at the increases, the numbers make no sense whatsoever.

The numbers only make any sense if you look at the totals and split the totals into age groups.

Job and Population

The artificially high population growth seems to be aimed at maintaining the 2031 working age population at 2011 levels.

Even if intervention only attracts people under 65, the impacts on the proportion of over 65s and the employment percentages are minimal.

With North Tyneside and Newcastle not planning enough houses for their predicted population increase and 60,000 people already commuting in or out of the county, the relationship between jobs and population must be tenuous.

Population and Housing

If you divide the 2031 projections of total population under 65 and the total population over 65 by the two historic people-per-house numbers, you get fairly close to the projected total housing figures for both the natural growth and artificially high growth options.

The apparently high number of houses required is because the proportion of over 65s increases from 20% to 31% and over 65s have fewer people per house than under 65s.

You can view and download a PDF of this "Summary of PO2" in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.

The Missing Numbers and the Missing Explanations

Of the 21 numbers needed to understand the Preferred Options 2 document, only 2 are directly available in the Preferred Options 2 document.

On January 14th the NCC Planners gave us the numbers we couldn't find and an explanation of how the housing numbers relate to the population numbers.

These are available as "Summary of PO2 Missing Numbers" in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.

"Summary of PO2 Missing Numbers" also contains the notes in this section.

The Approach

The two options were approached in different ways.

The natural growth option (SNPP) uses the Office for National Statistics' 2010 sub national population projections adjusted to take account of the 2011 Census.

The SNPP option is top down based with figures applied across the county.

The number of new houses needed is calculated from the projected population.

The artificially high growth option (PO2) is derived from a bottom up approach with decisions being made for each small planning area.

For each planning area several scenarios were considered, normally including natural growth (SNPP) and “Dwelling Led” - where the number of new houses was defined rather than calculated.

A scenario was selected for each planning area.

6% of the 24,310 new houses are as a result of selecting the natural growth scenario.

74% of the new houses proposed are as a result of selecting “Targeted growth” or “Dwelling Led” scenarios.

In these areas it seems that the 2031 population was calculated from the projected housing.

The detailed “Population and dwelling projection scenarios” report and our "Summary of Planning Scenarios" are available in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.

Population and Housing

Houses can be calculated from population as follows:

1. Subtract the population in “communal establishment” to give population in households.

(NB The number of people in communal establishment has not been declared)

2. Divide population in households by the household size to give number of households.

(NB The household size depends on the age of the head of the household and over 65s have fewer people per house than under 65s)

3. Apply a “dwelling conversion rate” to take account of vacant and seconds homes.

(NB Overall rate is 5.3% but split between vacant and second homes has not been declared)

Population Profile

The natural growth option (SNPP) predicts a 4.2% increase in population with 31.0% of the population being over 65.

The Labour Force would fall from 150,048 (47.4% of the population) to 136,371 (41.4%)

NCC predict that the number of jobs would fall by 10,270 to 102,395.

The ratio of jobs to Labour Force would remain constant - 75.1% in 2011 and 2031.

The artificially high growth option (PO2) proposes a 10.3% increase in population with 29.2% of the population being over 65.

The PO2 option has 19,374 more people than the SNPP option.

This is made up by an increase in under 65s of 19,693 and a decrease in over 65s of 319.

Section 5.5 says “without positive policy intervention there is likely to be an accelerating ageing of Northumberland’s population resulting in a shrinking labour force.”

The PO2 document does not explain what that intervention will be.

Section 5.6 says "intervention will therefore be required through the Core Strategy to ensure that the available labour supply does not impede economic sustainable growth."

Despite it's importance, the Labour Force has not been calculated for the PO2 option.

NCC Planners say "Labour force numbers are not produced for the small areas. Therefore they cannot be totalled at the Northumberland level for 2031 using the the PO2 scenario."

Green Belt

The original “Issues & Options” consultation identified two options for the proposed extension to the Morpeth Green Belt.

69% of responders said they were happy with that approach

82% said they preferred option 2, which defined the biggest extension

This new “Preferred Options” consultation shows a very much smaller extension to the Green Belt - about a quarter of the size of Issue & Options option 1.

“The work undertaken to identify the preferred level of economic and housing development required has identified the following Main Towns and Service Centres do not currently have suitable development land available: Hexham, Prudhoe, and Ponteland. They will require land to be deleted from the Green Belt in order to deliver the overarching strategy of the Plan.” (see 8.14)

About 2,000 houses in the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) say “Delivery subject to the definition of Green Belt”.

About 1,700 houses are planned for areas deleted from the existing Green Belt.

This shows the map of the Green Belt in the new Preferred Options overlaid on the original Issues & Options map.

It also shows the two areas around Ponteland that the proposed strategy will delete from the Green Belt.

Sub National Option versus Preferred Option

The base option is to use the Office for National Statistics' 2010 sub national population projections.

This would be the natural growth - it's what would happen without intervention.

The preferred option is policy intervention through the Core Strategy to ensure that the available labour supply does not impede economic sustainable growth.

Only the highlighted numbers are directly available in the Preferred Options document - all the others have been provided by NCC Planner or calculated without rounding error.

● With intervention the population would grow by 32,700 instead of 13,300

● More than all the extra population from intervention are under 65, the % of over 65s would reduce by 1.8% - from 31.0% to 29.2%

● More than all the extra population from intervention are to be under 65, the % of Working Age would increase by 1.3% - from 53.3% to 54.6%

● With intervention the number of jobs should increase by 2,500 instead of reducing by 10,000

● More than all the extra population from intervention are to be under 65, the number of jobs as % of Working Age population would increase by 2.2% - from 58.3% to 60.5%

● We know that, under the SNPP option the ratio of jobs to Labour Force remains constant at 75.1% but the Labour Force was not calculated for the PO2 option.

● With intervention 421.5 hectares of land is needed for economic development.

We don't know what land might be needed for economic development under the sub national projections.

● With intervention the number of houses would increase by 24,310 instead of by 16,240

● That compares to the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) housing availability of 24,407 - 100% with intervention and 67% without

● With intervention we know the Green Belt extension will be about a quarter of the original Issues & Options option 1

We don't know what the Green Belt extension would be under the sub national projections.

Full details "Summary of PO2 Missing Numbers" available in Preferred Options 2 documents at the bottom of this page.