The methodology behind the 10,800 total figure (8,300 on allocated sites) is at-best highly subjective and at worst flawed. It is presented in a very definitive and matter-of-fact way, but is not wholly reliable for the following reasons:

* It is one interpretation of evidence that could be interpreted in many ways and give many possible results.
* It uses base data from the 2001 Census which is then extrapolated using very generic 'trends' that loses accuracy and reliability. The available 2011 data does not support this level of population growth or housing demand.
* There are errors in the calculations.

This level of growth is between the medium and high scenarios set out in the 'Helping Shape the District' consultation. This is despite 58% of respondents preferring a 'low' level of growth of 250 units per annum as seen in Scenario 1.

The average of 555 homes per year on allocated sites (8,300 in the plan period) includes approximately 1,300 that exist on already-consented schemes. Therefore assuming this level of growth is required only 7,000 homes actually need to be built on the as-yet unidentified sites (that forms the basis of the preferred options). Therefore 1,300 homes would be proposed on more marginal / sensitive sites unnecessarily.