Gateshead Unitary Development Plan

Housing

Topic Paper

CD/TOP/04

CONTENTS

Page

1.  INTRODUCTION 3

2.  GENERAL APPROACH 3

3.  POLICY BACKGROUND 8

National Policy Context:

a) PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development 8

b) PPG3: Housing 8

c) Supporting the Delivery of New Housing 9

d) Planning for Sustainable Communities in Rural Areas 10

e) Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement 3 10

f) PPG13 Transport 10

4. THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 11

i) Regional Planning Guidance for the North East 11

ii) The Current Gateshead Unitary Development Plan 13

5. THE EMERGING DEVELOPMENT PLAN 15

i) The Emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East 15

ii) The Emerging Gateshead Unitary Development Plan 16

6.  BRIDGING NEWCASTLEGATESHEAD: THE HOUSING

MARKET RENEWAL AREA 17

Appendices 21

Core Documents List 29

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1  The purpose of this topic paper is to explain the approach adopted in bringing the housing chapter of the replacement UDP forward and to provide general background information, forming the context for the plan’s policies. The Council will refer to the paper where appropriate in support of rebuttals to specific objections.

1.2 Prior to being placed on deposit in September 2004, the plan’s policies have been the subject of a number of consultations with stakeholders and interested persons. These are described in detail in the Council’s Statement of Consultation, published in July 2004 (CD/GEN/10).

1.3 The objections received to the Deposit Plan were the subject of a report to the Council’s Cabinet in January 2006, together with a brief summary of each individual objection and officers’ recommended response to it (CD/GEN/11). A similar process was followed in the wake of the Re-deposit stage, with a parallel Cabinet Report and summary document (CD/GEN/12) in July 2006. It is the Re-deposit version of the plan which is now most relevant, as this contains the Council’s revised policies and proposals.

1.4 The next section summarises the thinking behind the policies and the way that they combine to provide an overall strategy. The most significant links with policies in other chapters are also noted and relevant national policy is identified.

2. GENERAL APPROACH

2.1 Gateshead has suffered from long-term population loss for many years. Much of this has arisen from the movement of people into surrounding areas, attracted by the range and price of housing available. The continuation of past trends is not acceptable and the Council wishes to eliminate that movement in order to retain a more balanced population structure and to restrain the growth of commuting into and through the Borough.

2.2  The UDP’s approach to housing policy is critical to its spatial strategy and the settlement structure. Decisions on housing sites affect demand for public transport and other infrastructure and influence the location of other land uses such as shops and community facilities. New development also impacts on policies to protect the countryside and other environmental assets. The plan has been prepared in this context to ensure that its policies are sustainable. It is not the Council’s intention to respond to housing demand wherever it arises, and several sites, proposed for development by objectors, will be opposed by the Borough Council through the Public Inquiry process.

2.3  The housing policies are integral to the regeneration of Gateshead, particularly when taken in concert with the strategic policies in Part 1 of the plan and policies for jobs, employment and economy and for mixed use sites. They are broadly consistent with emerging RSS, seeking employment growth in the Tyneside conurbation and in focussing housing development sustainably within the same areas.

2.4  The emerging UDP’s Policy STR3 focuses on recycling previously developed land and maintaining adequate supply throughout the plan period. To this end, the Council has identified sites which are likely to be developed beyond 2016.

2.5  Policy STR4 balances the concentration of housing regeneration within the Bridging NewcastleGateshead Housing Market Renewal Area with areas in other parts of the Borough where affordable housing needs should be addressed.

2.6  STR5 seeks to maintain housing clearance in order to assist sustainable development in line with the Government’s Communities Plan (CD/GOV/54)

2.7  STR6 looks to the provision of affordable housing on eligible sites, noting that the opportunity to introduce a requirement to do so on larger sites in the past had been lost.

2.8  STR7 seeks to limit greenfield development, but to accept some greenfield sites in sustainable locations. Unfortunately, the policy omits urban locations and Birtley could not be judged to be a rural settlement. Were the Inspector minded to recommend the alteration of the wording of the policy to include “sustainable rural and urban locations” and “an increase in rural and urban housing choice”, the Council would correct the current error.

2.9  Policy H1 provides a context for the scale and rate of housing growth envisaged as 560 net additions to the housing stock per annum, in aspiring to recover the population level to a figure above 190,000. This policy is broadly consistent with the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy housing figure for Gateshead (averaging 506 per annum), allowing for the replacement of up to 200 demolished dwellings per year, and an approximate tolerance of 10%, allowing for slippage through site development difficulties, changes in density assumptions, market variations, etc. H1 is modified slightly from the Deposit version in the interests of clarity. Policy H2 provides a more specific breakdown of housing supply in the period up to the end of 2010 and between 2011 and 2016. It can be seen that the Council has already identified an adequate 10-year supply, especially if demolition rates were to fall significantly.

2.10  Policy H3 gives priority to house building on previously developed land, with some 80% of allocations in this category. The exceptional development of greenfield land in outlying settlements only arises where there is no practical alternative and the Council is seeking to build and maintain sustainable communities, consistent with national and emerging regional policy, in both urban and rural centres. An appendix to the policy identifies individual sites, their expected capacity, broad phasing details and their characteristics as brownfield or greenfield. Appendix 1 to this paper also demonstrates that the sites have been subject to sustainability and sequential testing.

2.11  Policies H5 and H6 deal with housing choice in new and converted developments. The Council is concerned that too many recent completions and conversions offer no choice of mix or size of unit, with a predominance of small flats and apartments. As part of its wider strategy, the Council is keen to see more family housing in communities which maximise the use of local services and facilities. H6 was introduced at Re-deposit stage to extend policy coverage to a significant element of new housing in the Borough derived from the conversion of existing buildings.

2.12  Policies H7 and H8 deal with the delivery of affordable housing and its retention into the future. H7 requires the provision of affordable housing (normally 25%) on sites above a specified size or dwelling number threshold. The Council intends to support this policy and assist developers in understanding its requirements in the future publication of an interim policy advice note. This will also cover the longer- term retention of units supplied to those who cannot afford to pay market rates.

2.13  The January 2005 update to PPG3 (CD/GOV/03a) requires local planning authorities to consider the need for affordable housing in rural settlements in their areas to include a rural exception sites policy in their development plans, and, if necessary, to allocate sites.

2.14  The draft PPS 3 (CD/GOV/03b) published in December 2005 included a proposed requirement that local authorities should include a rural exception sites policy to enable them to release land if a need for affordable housing in rural areas arises, as well as allocating sites to meet any need already recognised.

2.16 At the time of preparation of the re-deposit draft UDP no information was available to suggest that a need for allocation of a site or sites for rural exceptions housing existed in Gateshead. No such need was identified by the previous (2002) Housing Needs Survey (CD/HO/01). Most of the settlements in the more rural parts of Gateshead include housing sites developed in recent years in which affordable housing has been provided, and at Kibblesworth and Chopwell there are substantial allocations in the draft replacement UDP which could include affordable housing provided under section 106 agreements if required. The importance which the Council places on addressing rural housing needs sustainably and the significance of Chopwell and Kibblesworth to this are shown by their inclusion in policy STR7. In the case of Kibblesworth affordable housing is specifically mentioned in the policy.

2.17 At Chopwell the allocation will help to improve the viability and attractiveness of a settlement which provides relatively inexpensive housing already. In these circumstances, no policy on rural exceptions housing was included in either the deposit or re-deposit draft replacement UDPs but para. 8.18 is included to show that the Council had considered the issue.

2.18 An objection has been received that despite the lack of identified need at the present time, a policy should have been included in case it arises or is identified in the future. However the Council considers that bearing in mind the small geographical extent of Gateshead’s countryside and the accessibility of each settlement to others, the identification of Kibblesworth and Chopwell for development under the Council’s sustainable communities policy is sufficient to meet any such needs and achieve the aims of the Government’s policy in this respect (The Secretary of State has not objected to the Council’s approach to a rural exceptions policy at this time).

2.19 Policies H9 and H10 address problems associated with both ageing and disability in terms of design and adaptability of dwellings. Lifetime homes are not intended to meet the immediate needs of people with disabilities. Rather, they build in flexibility beyond the requirements of part M of the building regulations to make homes more adaptable. The incidence of mobility problems among households in the Borough is high and the Council is seeking 5% of new dwellings built to wheelchair standard. This is in addition to the lifetime homes standard.

2.20 Circular 22/91indicates that local authorities should assess the need for sites for travelling showpeople in their areas, and indicates the considerations which make sites suitable or otherwise. Circular 1/94, which was superseded in February 2006, required local authorities to consider the needs of gypsies residing in or resorting to the Borough. The Council had already provided a site and it still has one. Circular 1/06: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites was issued in February 2006, after the re-deposit plan had been finalised and placed on deposit, but a draft was available in January 2005. It replaces Circular 1/94. It was recognised that the provisions of Circular 1/94 were inadequate to meet the needs of gypsies and the Circular was issued partly in response to the problem of unauthorised encampments. The new Circular requires local authorities to provide sites when need has been identified through the Local Housing Needs Assessment, and to devise criteria-based policies to judge any planning application arising later from unexpected further need or demand. The Housing Act 2004 places a duty on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers and include a strategy for such accommodation within their Local Housing Needs Assessments.

2.21 H11 replaces H11 and H12 in the deposit draft Plan, because although Gypsy and traveller sites need to be separate, as indicated in the supporting text, the same criteria can be used to judge the appropriateness of potential sites. The criteria have been amended in the re-deposit draft to take account of an objection received (now withdrawn). Although the Council has provided a site for gypsies which is generally occupied by permanent residents, there appears to be a greater demand and the Council has also been examining possible transit sites in the context of the ODPM’s Gypsy and Traveller Policy Review. No specific sites had been firmly identified at the time of the preparation of the re-deposit UDP, and the requirement to include any such sites arose in the replacement circular which just post-dated the re-deposit period. A criteria-based policy is therefore adequate to conform to Government guidance.

2.22 Policy H12 remains unaltered from the Draft Deposit Plan and provides guidance on the range of densities which would be permitted in sustainable locations. The figures (between 20 and 50 dwellings per hectare net) are intended as a general guideline and the Council could foresee circumstances where higher and lower densities could occur, in line with the text justifying the policy.

2.23 Infill housing is considered under policy H13, in cases where development under the threshold figure for affordable housing provision (less than 1 hectare or fewer than 25 dwellings) could still make a contribution to the provision of family housing in the Borough, as opposed to increasing the stock of small flats and apartments.

2.24 Policies H14, H15 and H16 apply, to new housing development, the standards set out in the Community Facilities and Recreation chapter for public open space and children’s play areas, the achievement of which is to be sought in relation to all residential areas (Policies CFR 20 and CFR21, and CFR28, CFR29, and CFR30). Whilst Local Open Space, and in the case of very large housing developments Neighbourhood Open Spaces also, might be required, there is no policy in the housing chapter applying the requirement for Area Parks (CFR22) to new housing developments because it is not envisaged that there could be any circumstances in the Borough where new housing development could be on a large enough scale, especially in relation to existing residential areas within the 1.5 kilometre radius, for such a requirement to be reasonable.

2.25 These policies have been amended from the deposit draft in response to objections. In particular, the deposit draft seems to have given rise to some confusion about the level of provision required, whether provision will be required regardless of the level of existing provision in the area (no), and whether the various open space and play area requirements are cumulative (not if each function can be fulfilled by the same area of open space). Improvements and additions to the wording of both the policies and the supporting text have been made to try to clarify these points.