THE INSPECTOR'S DECISION

TANDRIDGE DISTRICT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Public Examinations
Inspector: David Vickery DipTP MRTPI Programme Officer: Pauline Butcher
Council Offices, Station Road East Tel: 07766 473398
Oxted
Surrey, RH8 0BT Email: pbutcher@tandridge.gov.uk
___________________________________________________________________

Mr R W Evans BA DMS MRTPI 4 April 2008
Director of Planning
Planning Department
Tandridge District Council
Council Offices, Station Road East
Oxted, Surrey
RH8 0BT

Dear Mr Evans,

Exploratory Meeting - Examination into the Tandridge Core Strategy Development Plan Document

As you know, I held an Exploratory Meeting yesterday as part of my Examination of your Council's submitted Core Strategy. I am writing to let you know my recommendation as to the future progress of the Examination in the light of the information that I obtained at that Meeting.

But, firstly, please would you pass on my thanks to all your staff for their hard work and patience in dealing with the truly exceptional amount of public interest in the Meeting ' both before and, most particularly, during the Meeting itself. I am very grateful for their assistance to me and my Programme Officer, Pauline Butcher, in smoothly organising the Meeting and dealing with over 200 interested members of the public, respondents, councillors, and your local Member of Parliament.

Please would you also pass on my thanks to the local police who so efficiently guided and helped the people who were queuing to obtain seats in the Council Chamber.

I turn now to my recommendation, to which I have given careful thought and consideration having had regard to all the helpful information that I have been given by your officers and respondents, both before and during the Meeting.

I still have deep concerns and reservations about certain aspects of the Core Strategy, to which I will return below. Nevertheless, I consider that I should continue with the Examination for two reasons. Firstly, because there seems to me to be a reasonable likelihood that further evidence, or the use of existing evidence that I have not yet considered, might resolve some of those concerns. And, secondly, because I detect a positive approach by your Council to the possibility of minor changes to the Core Strategy which might clear up some of my reservations.

Even so, your Council should be aware that continuing with the Examination is not a guarantee that I will ultimately find the Core Strategy to be sound. Your Council should still seriously consider the risk of the Core Strategy being found unsound if the Examination proceeds, with the consequent waste of resources both in time and money.

I agree with GOSE's analysis at the end of the Meeting that the most credible threat to the Core Strategy is that too many changes might have to be made to make it sound. The danger is that cumulatively these changes would create a Plan so different from that submitted that its provisions would not have had the benefit of the public consultation and sustainability assessment that is required. I referred more colloquially to this possibility at the Meeting as 'death by a thousand cuts'.

The main concerns and reservations that I still have are:

1. Housing windfalls ' the lack of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment means that the Core Strategy is perceived as being too reliant upon windfalls to meet the last five year part of its ten year housing land supply, contrary to the advice at paragraph 59 of Planning Policy Statement 3. Clearly, I must bear in mind and consider the constraints (e.g. Green Belt), the low housing requirement, and the validity of your Council's argument in relation to windfall rates. In addition, there may also be evidence in the Housing Capacity Study on the prevalence of Large Sites which could be drawn out and brought to my attention.

2. Development management policies ' their style and their placing with the Core Strategy mixed up with more important strategic policies. I welcome your Council's positive approach to rethinking this aspect, perhaps in co-operation with GOSE.

3. Monitoring ' I understand the realistic aims of your Council on this point, but I would welcome further consideration as to whether account has been fully taken of the advice in the Government's LDF Monitoring: Good Practice Guide.

I therefore intend to proceed with the Pre-Examination Meeting as scheduled on Tuesday 22nd April 2008. I intend to finalise the necessary papers for that meeting during the week beginning 14th April.

Given the above concerns, it is likely that the Examination hearings will be a testing and challenging time for all concerned. Your Council should therefore make sure that it has adequate resources to cope, particularly in terms of expert and support staff.

My Programme Officer will be sending out a copy of this letter to all the respondents on the Core Strategy. Given the amount of public interest, I would be grateful if you would ensure that this letter is prominently displayed and easily found on your Council's web site.

Yours sincerely,

David Vickery

David Vickery
Inspector