Throughout the new draft Local Plan, the District Council refer to all housing numbers as "minimums". This is new; the existing approved Local Plan does not do this.

The way we use the concept of a minimum (without setting a maximum) is invariably to suggest that as high a figure as possible is desirable: for example, when companies set minimum sales targets or the NHS sets a minimum % target for A&E. It is difficult to think of any exceptions to the rule that exceeding the target is always a good thing.

Therefore, we would strongly urge that the District Council drop the use of the word minimum or, if the Council really feels it has to use the word, then somewhere in the plan it should say what it understands by a minimum.

One possibility:

Throughout the Plan, references to minimum housing allocations are intended to mean that the authority may accept, under certain conditions, a modest increase of up to (10% or 15%??) or an absolute figure of between (50 or 75 units??), whichever is the smaller. However, this would importantly depend upon local conditions and the progress of the Plan as a whole.

In other words, if the Council uses the concept of a minimum in a non-standard way, i.e. it doesn't want as high a figure as possible, then it is incumbent upon it to set an indicative maximum figure. The truth of the matter is that the housing allocation numbers are neither minimums nor maximums.

In his decision letter on the Clappers Lane appeal (APP/L3815/14/2219554, page 10, para 30), the Planning Inspector stated that "... the allocations set out in the Plan were stated (at the EiP) not to be 'minimums' partly because a 'minimum' might imply an open ended acceptance of anything greater. But, by the same token, they are not 'maximums' either. Hence, modest additions would not necessarily contravene the housing requirements or lead to unsustainable and unforeseen patterns of travel not catered for by the Plan." (our underlining). At the appeal the appellant claimed that the housing allocations were minimums and that therefore there was good reason to well exceed the then allocation, in fact just over double. The inspector ruled that, on this basis, "... the appeal proposal might reasonably be held to be 'unsustainable' if it were to significantly breach the scale of development envisaged as appropriate in the Plan" (para 29)

Without some kind of clarification, the Council risks being exposed to developers' clever lawyers. In effect you create a loophole. For example, the housing allocation for East Wittering of 350 could well end up being 500 or more.

It is true the Inspector who examined the current Local Plan encouraged the Council to consider the housing targets or allocations as minimums in an effort to increase overall numbers. However, she approved the Plan without the allocations being described as minimums.

It is important that the Council is clear and confident about its housing targets and not create loopholes for developers to exploit. The words matter.