Kent Housing Group

‘The Voice of Housing in Kent’

Planning Policy Consultation Team
Department for Communities and Local Government
3rd floor Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF / Eileen Martin, Chair,
Kent Housing Group
c/o Rebecca Smith, KHG Partnership Manager
Community and Housing,
Ashford Borough Council
Civic Centre
Tannery Lane
Ashford, Kent
TN23 1PL


Date: 12thFebruary 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find below the Kent Housing Group response to the NPPF Consultation.

Question 1: comments or suggestions about the proposal to amend the definition of affordable housing in national planning policy to include a wider range of low cost home ownership options?

The Kent Housing Group considers that the current definition of affordable housing within the NPPF is already broad and includes genuinely affordable housing models. The inclusion of starter homes within the definition may require revision or amendment to local plans and other policies. It will also be necessary to identify the housing needs of those who aspire to homeownership, through the revision of market assessments, and this is costly and may impact on already approved applications; some developers may decide to withdraw and resubmit plans to take advantage of an expanded definition. We would have concerns that inward migration might be an outcome of meeting the new requirements for starter homes on qualifying sites, alongside losing the ability to negotiate for affordable housing models that meet identified need. Removing the requirement to retain affordability or the ability to recycle subsidy is concerning as this form of affordable housing will only be temporary, starter homes for example at five years.

Placing a statutory duty on local authorities to promote starter homes may impact on the number or requirement for other homeownership models to be developed. This proposed statutory duty will be alongside the statutory duty to house homeless people and to run a housing register, placing additional resource and financial burden upon local authorities. We support a proposal that will ensure promotion of all products that support homeownership; the policy should not promote some products by excluding others. There will need to be the right balance of tenures and dwelling types in an area, determined by the local authority, if the promotion of one product over another could diminish the provision of other products. Whilst there is noted concern about the widening of the current definition it is accepted that this could be helpful and could provide flexibility for the wording of a s106 agreement. A suggestion from our membership is that we need to ensure that discounted sale products, including starter homes are given their own separate definition to affordable housing as the target customers that will be housed via such products are quite different. In perpetuity requirements should as a minimum be retained for rural exception sites as these developments are predicated on meeting a locally identified need

Question 2 – Do you have any views on the implications of the proposed change to the definition of affordable housing on people with protected characteristics as defined in the Equalities Act 2010? What evidence do you have on this matter?

As identified in the EIA both age and disability may be adversely effected by the proposed changes, first time buyers over 40 years cannot access the proposed starter home product and those who rely on benefits and potentially have a lower income may find themselves unable to afford the low cost homeownership housing that the changes propose to promote. KHG recognise that although the EIA statement does acknowledge the afore mentioned impacts, it does not however have suggestions about how to mitigate these potential adverse impacts and this does need to be addressed.

Question 3 – Do you agree with the Governments definition of commuter hub? If not, what changes do you consider are required?

KHG broadly agree that the definition is reasonable, but critical to this will be the policy that determines in what circumstances higher densities will be acceptable and the level of flexibility within this policy. There is perhaps need for further guidance as there is potential for almost any area being designated as a commuter hub. Another point to raise is that defining an area in relation to frequency of public transport services is likely to become out of date quickly and change over the lifetime of a plan. KHG members suggest defining the limit of an area around a designated commuter hub, for example a one mile perimeter.

Question Four – Do you have any further suggestions for proposals to support higher density development around commuter hubs through the planning system?

KHG members feel that there can only be a positive benefit from the addition of more criteria to determine which hubs can sustain higher densities of development, addressing issues such as adequate parking, air quality management and sensitive design for hubs in historic centres, these are just some examples. Master planning together with delivery plan working in tandem is key with all higher density developments. KHG feel that additional funding would assist local housing and planning authorities in adapting to changes within local markets and reflecting this in designating commuter hubs. There should be a statutory duty on public bodies, public franchise holders and others to release unused land in commuter hub areas to enable housing development. Our membership questions whether there is there a need to limit higher densities to commuter hubs? There are other sites that could support such an increase; there should also be support for redevelopment on land where existing densities may fall short of requirements/need.

Question Five – Do you agree that the Government should not introduce a minimum level of residential densities in national policy areas around commuter hubs? If not, why not?

KHG strongly agree with this statement, it should be local planning authorities to consider, through their local plans and with community engagement on the appropriate levels of residential densities. Local character and circumstance needs to be considered for all sites and areas, especially in areas of historic or protected nature. There should also be assurance around transport node and density issues for these proposed sites.

Question Six – Do you consider that national planning policy should provide greater policy support for new settlements in meeting development needs? If not, why not?

KHG members are unclear why there is a need to introduce a more supportive approach for new settlements, the current policy already provides the facility for local planning authorities to consider planning applications for new settlements or an extension to an urban area as part of their local plans or as part of an Area Plan. The key point is to ensure a range of sites in respect of size for the land allocation within a local plan; this will help ensure that housing targets are met consistently and not rely solely on one or a few large sites or new settlement so to meet agreed targets. Would there be implications on the maintenance of Brown Field lists? If introduced it must be linked to the provision of appropriate infrastructure. Any change must not hamper or increase the time for assessment and cost of planning applications.

Question Seven – Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of brownfield land for housing? If not, why not and are there any unintended impacts that we should take into account?

The current policy already allows local planning authorities to prioritise previously developed land for new development over green field and the SHLAA process should identify those brownfield sites suitable for housing. Strengthening the policy may be that the ‘hope value’ of sites is increased and the potential to develop such sites for other uses might be diminished, an unintended consequence.

Question Eight – Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of small sites for housing? If not, why not? How could the change impact on the calculation of local planning authorities’ five-year land supply?

For the majority of our members it would depend upon the wording of a revised policy and that it would need to ensure that sustainable communities are created and local characteristics remain. It would be wrong to equate small sites as easy to develop sites. There are often complexities in bringing forward small sites which are located within close proximity to other uses and in some cases require innovative thinking about site massing, layout and design.

Question Nine – Do you agree with the Government proposal to define a small site as a site of less than 10 units? If not, what other definition do you consider is appropriate, and why?

Currently sites under 5 units are not included in the SHLAA so it would be more consistent to use this threshold. However, thresholds do mask other factors and potential impacts in an area, for example 10 units in an urban area is perhaps more appropriate, if this is flatted accommodation then a larger threshold of 15 units may be a suitable threshold. In a rural setting ten is a large number of units and will have a big impact on the local area, so it may be necessary to reduce the minimum threshold for rural areas. In rural areas or for smaller communities there could be the option to introduce local definitions, perhaps to be incorporated within in neighbourhood plan, ensuring that local communities are empowered to make decisions as they will be most affected by new development.

Question Ten –Do you consider that national planning policy should set out that local planning authorities should put in place a specific positive local policy for assessing applications for development on small sites not allocated in the Local Plan?

KHG members broadly support this proposal but there has to consistency in all approaches.

Question Eleven – We would welcome views on how best to implement the housing delivery test, and in particular; what do you consider should be the baseline against which to monitor delivery of new housing? What should constitute significant under-delivery, and over what time period? What steps should be taken in response to significant under-delivery? How do you see this approach working when the housing policies in the Local Plan are not up to date?

KHG feel that annual monitoring reports already include the information necessary to compare historically what the local planning authority expected to be delivered and what was actually delivered, so the proposal for a housing delivery test is seen as an unnecessary burden. Could there be a simple amendment to guidance for preparing AMR’s to include the

suggested test questions?

Should the housing delivery test be implemented KHG members suggest that the time frame should be extended beyond the proposed two years, this will enable a better reflection of economic and development cycles, for example a five year period. In areas where there is a sustained pipeline of housing planning permissions and local plan allocations Government should look to the housebuilding sector for support or response with regards to the availability of sites going forward.

If implemented any baseline for the test should be measured against the number of units that have been granted planning permission versus the numbers expected in a five year plan. If it is to be measured on starts and completions then KHG consider that both developers and landowners should also be part of this scheme.

When considering under development this should be measured over a longer period of time, for example five years, to identify peaks and troughs in the market and measure the success of a five year land delivery plan. Housing association colleagues feel that local authorities are best placed to make a decision on this and feel that they should not be unduly penalised for under delivery where factors outside of their control may impact on the numbers.

Question Twelve – What would be the impact of a housing delivery test on development activity?

An adverse impact on development activity could be a slower delivery time as developers may be able to reduce their requirements for contributions should an authority be underperforming. Once again local authorities are best placed to understand what is in their control with regards to meeting delivery targets and there would have to be consideration of the reason behind a shortfall if the housing delivery test is introduced.

Question Thirteen – What evidence would you suggest could be used to justify retention of land for commercial or similar use? Should there be a fixed time limit on land retention for commercial use?

Employment Land Reviews and Economic Futures Assessments through Local Plans already identify objectively assessed needs for employment land and for sites that are reasonably expected to be developed for those uses in accordance with paragraph 22 of the NPPF. KHG feel that the changes proposed may have the unintended consequence of not being able to safeguard employment land in local plans, especially in areas where the differential between residential and employment land values are so high. The current practice for identification of land is rigorously tested as part of the Examination in Public Process by the Planning Inspectors, so it is adequate.

KHG also consider that the proposed three year time limit is too short, any time period introduced should reflect economic or development cycles and is a minimum of five years, which is when local plans should also be reviewed. Weakening a local authority’s ability to retain land for employment use may encourage the best quality land to be chosen for starter homes, leaving only the poorest land available to meet the requirements around job creation.

Housing Association colleagues feel that land owners seeking to re-develop commercial space should have to evidence they have marketed the premises or site at commercially viable rates. Before commercial land is considered for housing development there has to be analysis or understanding about why the current use of land is not successful, for example history shows that changes to working patterns, migration of works and the types of industries can all impact on why commercial sites either succeed or fail.

Question Fourteen – Do you consider that the starter homes exception site policy should be extended to unviable or underused retail, leisure and non-residential institutional brownfield land?

The extension for ‘underused’ or ‘unviable’ is a logical suggestion as the location of such sites is more likely to be in areas that are better suited to residential use. However, there is a danger that the number of sites coming forward for starter homes will exceed local demand, leading to the potential for inward migration and the potential to exacerbate local housing needs as a consequence. Any policy should recognise that with A1 retail would take away the provision for that land to yield CIL or s106 money as this will not be applicable to Starter Homes.

There is also some clarity required about the term ‘underused’ and also whether there a case for this policy to be for all affordable housing, not just starter homes? This can not be a one size fits all scenario, especially for leisure land; once this land is gone it’s unlikely to be replaced and must not be lost unnecessarily.

Question Fifteen – Do you support the proposal to strengthen the starter homes exception site policy? If not, why not?

KHG would like more clarity around how the policy would work in practice, and once again we reiterate that starter homes may not address or meet identified housing need in any area, especially when those eligible for a starter home do not have to have a local connection. Starter homes alone may not meet all local housing need requirements. KHG consider that there needs to be restrictions should the land not be designated for residential use or not within an urban area. KHG question whether this should this again be for all affordable housing? It is important that we do not loose sight of those who do not aspire to or cannot afford low cost shared ownership.

Question Sixteen – Should starter homes form a significant element of any housing component within mixed used developments and converted unlet commercial units?

Should there be an identified need for starter homes, identified through an SHMA for example then KHG consider this a reasonable expectation. However, if not there has to be the same caution taken as referred to in questions 14 and 16 about managing the impact upon demand if starter homes are delivered in high numbers. Local need and decision making on this is preferable as local authorities and indeed communities understand their local need and whether the starter home product is suitable.

Another critical point to reference is that rural landowners will often deliver or provide sites at less than the full residential development land values to enable the delivery of affordable housing for local people. Unless the discount on starter homes built on rural exception sites is recycled then the reduced land value of an exception site is passed to the first time buyer and not the local community. KHG members feel strongly that housing delivered on exception sites should be kept in perpetuity.