Flawed Forecasts underpin a very poor plan process

We understand that some form of standard methodology is required BUT that standard methodology needs to be underpinned by sound forecasts and sensible conclusions. The current forecasts are based on old data and unrealistic principles like fertility rates of 2.1 when we are actually experiencing 1.6. this means that instead of the population growing by 5% it will fall by 20%. Life expectancy is also overstated and this also drives up housing need. the standard method also suggests addressing an affordability problem by simply building houses more than you need. When the affordability ratio is great than 8 (ie house prices are 8 x average income) when the target is 4 x average income, building more 4 bedroom houses will not address the problem.

Finally the high forecasting depends on more Governmnet jobs when the plan is to reduce costs and drive up productivity. Talking of productivity, sectors like high precision engineering and cyber security are driving up productivity fast and its entirely probably that increased growth in these sectors will occur with no increase in job numbers.

The summary of the forecast says it all. "We have chosen the highest forecast because its the closes to the previous forecast need" what sort of a forecasting system is that.

Local government needs to propose a targeted plan based on delivering genuinely affordable houses that are owned and managed by housing associations over the long term to meet the needs of the key workers the area needs to employ.