.The significant uplift is intended to allow additional people to live in the
Borough to ensure a sufficient working population to take account of the
number of additional jobs that the Plan aims to accommodate. This is based
on reasonable assumptions about economic activity rates, unemployment,
double-jobbing and commuting. If all those assumptions are correct, and the
1% job growth were to be achieved every year of the Plan period, the
evidence indicates that nearly 1,100 new homes could be needed every year.
Such household growth would be broadly in line with the number of new
homes built in recent years, although significantly higher than the longer term
average level of completions,
Predicting household growth is not an exact science, and I am satisfied that
the uplift of over 60% from the standard local housing need figure is based on
proportionate evidence and can be regarded as aspirational but deliverable
given the number of homes built in recent years
This is exactly the same pretty much as Darlington – the chancellors poster child for levelling up – so why is the inspector such a different anti-jobs conclusion?