Stirling LDP Main Issues Report – Paper for ECS Committee - September 2015
Stirling Council is consulting on the main issues report (MIR) for the second Stirling local development plan (LDP). The Council propose to maintain the spatial strategy and policy provisions of the existing LDP in the most part, making amendments only where there are significant challenges or where national policy has changed.The MIR also seeks to address the recognised housing supply shortage.
The housing land requirement is identified as one of the two main issues to be addressed by the next LDP. The second is the spatial framework for windfarms.In terms of planning for housing, the MIR considers the following issues arising from changes to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP):
- The need for plans to be up to date
- The presumption in favour of development that contributes towards sustainable development (where there is a shortfall in the 5-year housing land supply)
- The needfor a generous housing land supply (10-20% above the supply target)
- The need to be able to react to any shortfall that may arise.
Housing Land Requirement
Proposals on Generosity Margin
The Council have considered the 70 sites submitted through the call for sites, as well as considering other land options, and have identified 18 sites which they consider could become new housing land allocations. These are packaged into three options. The Council believe each package would result in a SPP-compliant housing land requirement. The degree of generosity ranges from 10.3% under option 1 to 13.2% under option 2 to 14.6% under option 3. Option 1 is the council’s preferred option.
The table at the end of this papershows how sites are packaged in each option.
Proposed Homes for Scotland Response on Generosity Margin
The generosity margin should not be limited by the pool of known potential housing land that the council would be content to allocate. Homes for Scotland’s reading of SPP is that a generosity margin and resulting housing land requirement should be decided upon before land is sought to fulfil that requirement. From the information provided in the MIR and the housing land background report it appears the Council’s approach is to determine the generosity margin on the basis of what land is available and considered by the Council to be suitable for allocation.
Homes for Scotland considers that the generosity margin added to the LDP housing supply target should reflect the degree of certainty as to the deliverability of the housing land supply that has been identified to date. If an area has a strong track record of achieving its housing supply target there is an argument for a generosity margin towards the lower end of the 10-20% range. If an area has a track record of under-achieving its housing supply target by 20% or more, there is a strong argument for employing a 20% generosity margin.
The completion figure for 2014/15 is not yet available. However, the housing land background report shows the completions levels achieved in the previous four years:
HFS Table 1: Total Completions for Stirling Local Development Plan Area 2009-2014
2010/11 / 2011/12 / 2012/13 / 2013/14 / Total / Average344 / 306 / 247 / 321 / 1218 / 305
These completions should be considered against the development plan which was in place at the time. That was the Stirling Local Plan of 1999 and the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan of 2002. The housing land requirement deriving from the latter was 453 homes per year.
HFS Table 2: Completions 2009-2014 Compared to Structure Plan Target
Year / 2010/11 / 2011/12 / 2012/13 / 2013/14 / Total / AverageCompletions / 344 / 306 / 247 / 321 / 1218 / 305
Target / 453 / 453 / 453 / 453 / 1812 / 453
Percentage / 76% / 68% / 55% / 71% / - / 68%
On average only68% of the annual structure plan requirement was delivered between 2010/11 to 2011/12 – and this does not factor in previously undersupply.
The average completion rate for the previous four years is also 27% below the housing supply target of 416 homes per year that is set out in the adopted Stirling LDP and proposed for continuation through the next LDP.
Of the three options presented, option 3 would best ensure the housing supply target is me. Furthermore, we believe the Council should reconsider the sites rejected through its sites analysis and identify further sites to provide a generosity margin of 20%. This equates to land for 383 units, over and above those included in option 3.
If the Council wishes to promote a generosity margin at the lower end of the 10-20% range it should demonstrate, through further background information on housing land supply, that in recent years it has been 90% (or more) accurate in programming the delivery of homes on sites identified as being part of the effective supply in the their housing land audits.Looking at Durieshill in isolation:
HFS Table 3: HLA Programmed Output for Durieshill 2010-14
Audit / 10/11 / 11/12 / 12/13 / 13/14 / 14/15 / 15/16 / 16/17 / 17/18 / 18/19 / 19/20 / Balance2010 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 50 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 2350 post 16/17
2011 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 50 / 50 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 2250 post 17/18
2012 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 50 / 75 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 2175 post 18/19
2013 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 100 / 150 / 150 / 100 / 2000 post 19/20
2014 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 35 / 70 / 70 / 645 19-24
1720
post 24
2015 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 12 / 2488 post 19/20
Since 2010 the number of homes programmed by the Council for delivery at Durieshill for the 5-year period 2015/16 to 19/20 has fluctuated as follows:
HLA 2010 – 450 homes
HLA 2011 – 400 homes
HLA 2012 – 425 homes
HLA 2013 – 500 homes
HLA 2014 – 70 homes
HLA 2015 – 12 homes
This is only a single snapshot of wider programming over time. But, if the 2015 audit is borne out, Durieshill will have delivered only 3% of the homes predicted in 2010 – and only 17% of those predicted most recently in 2014. The council will have information available to give a broader overview of programming accuracy over time.
Proposals on Housing Policy Changes
The council propose to make additional policy provisions for addressing any shortfall that may arise in the 5-year housing land supply during the plan period. The adopted LDP only allows for the early release of sites allocated for a later phase of the plan, or identified for longer term development. In light of the SPP presumption, the council consider additional provision is needed to enable approval of additional sites.
The council’s preferred option is the introduction of a new criteria-based policy which utilises the policy principles set out in SPP (paragraphs 28 and 29 and 32 to 25) to determine whether a proposed development is appropriate.
The MIR indicates this policy would include the following criteria:
- Be consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy;
- Be immediately effective and deliverable in the 5 year timescale under consideration;
- Be of a scale able to contribute to the overall shortfall; and
- Not compromise the delivery of necessary infrastructure supported by the LDP strategy or jeopardise the delivery of allocated sites.
The MIR suggest that any applications coming forward under this policy should be applications for full planning permission (rather than planning permission in principle). Also that any permissions granted under this policy may be subject to conditions limiting the time period for the permission granted.
Proposed Homes for Scotland Response on Housing Policy Changes
The council is right to make more flexible policy provision for the release of additional housing sites in the event of a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply. It must though be careful not to word such a policy in a way that overly restricts its use and frustrates its ability to address any undersupply that arises or is foreseen. The council must also avoid trying to limit normal development management procedures.
The table below sets out Homes for Scotland’s comments on the criteria suggested for the new policy.
Suggested Criteria / Homes for Scotland Comments / Suggested WordingBe consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy / This is reasonable but should be carefully worded to ensure flexibility on how much consistency is meant. This will be particularly important if more sites are not allocated to provide for a 20% generosity margin. / Be broadly consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy
Be immediately effective and deliverable in the 5-year timescale in question. / It is more realistic to plan for a pipeline of effective sites that to expect sites gaining permission to deliver fully within 5 years. The council should use the HLA to anticipate risks of future shortfall and permit more sites before that happens. This is more practical that waiting for a shortfall and seeking hurried delivery. / Be demonstrably effective and capable of beginning to deliver homes within three years (so as to be capable of helping restore the 5-year housing land supply within the plan period).
Be of a scale able to contribute to the overall shortfall / Smaller sites should not be viewed as makinginsufficient inroads on any substantial shortfall. Any scheme can help reduce that shortfall. It is also important to consider the cumulative benefit of smaller schemes– as this could be a more speedily deliverable option than relying on one large site. Favouring large sites rubs up against the previous criterionas these require longer lead-in times. They also benefit from seeking planning permission in principle. The MIR suggests the council does not favour these. / Exclude this criterion
Not compromise the delivery of necessary infrastructure supported by the LDP strategy or jeopardise the delivery of an allocated site / The infrastructure point here is likely to be covered by the first criterion (that on the vision and strategy). Flexibility should be retained for any sites coming forward that have fewer infrastructure requirements than those allocated, or that can be delivered ahead of allocated but stalled sites and which are otherwise acceptable. / Exclude this criterion
The MIR states that the council will require applications for full planning permission (rather than planning permission in principle) for any sites put forward as potential solutions to a shortfall. It is understood the purpose behind this is that it would allow quicker delivery. This requirement may, though, deter landowners and developers from bringing sites forward as, without an allocation or planning permission in principle, they may have insufficient certainty to risk the time and cost of preparing a full allocation. The council will, in any case, be aware that it does not have the power to refuse to accept applications for planning permission in principle for any subset of development types. Any decision to refuse planning permission in principle would need to be reasonable in the context of development plan policies and other material considerations. The council may want to state, in narrative, that its preference would be to see full applications for any windfall sites being brought forward under this policy. This should, though, be accompanied by encouragement to potential windfall developers to engage with the council at an early stage before bringing sites forward. As stated above, the best way to ensure windfall sites make timely contributions to addressing any shortfall is to react early rather than waiting for the shortfall to arise.
The MIR also states that sites approved under this policy may be subject to conditions limiting the time period of the permission granted. It is not clear whether this would mean (a) stating the time period within which development must commence or (b) raising the bar for what level of development must take place to avoid planning permission lapsing or (c) stating the time period by which the development must have been completed. On (a) - there are already provisions within Scottish planning legislation which impose a time period for commencing development. Local authorities already have the power to impose bespoke commencement time limits for a particular permission where this is necessary – but like any other conditions, any variations to statutory time limits would need to meet the tests in the planning conditions circular. On (b) – councils do not have powers to vary the legal definition of commencement. It may in certain circumstances be reasonable to phase development or require certain provisions to be in place before some / all of a development takes place – but there isn’t scope for this sort of provision to be used to lapse a planning permission that has been lawfully commenced. If the council wanted to revoke a planning permission it would need to go through the formal revocation procedures. On (c) – it is clearly stated in the planning conditions circular that it would be unacceptable to impose a condition requiring a development to be completed within a time limit.
In short, there does not seem to be a lawful way for a council to impose stricter time limits on a grant of planning permission than those already provided for. Any variation to standard time limits needs to be justified and any use of conditions to require completion by a particular date would need to overcome the presumption set out in the planning conditions circular that such a condition would be unreasonable.
Homes for Scotland’s advice is that the council should concentrate on a reasonable and flexible criteria-based policy that allows for additional sites to be granted permission in instances where allocated sites or other sites in the established supply do not come forward as anticipated. It would be unreasonable to put stricter restriction on these sites than on those that have been allocated or in the established land supply for some time.
Homes for Scotland’s suggested criteria for the new policy are as follows:
- Be broadly consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy; and
- Be demonstrably effective and capable of beginning to deliver homes within three years(so as to be capable of helping restore the 5-year housing land supply within the plan period).
Summary of Suggested Homes for Scotland Representations
Housing Land Requirement:
- Homes for Scotland prefers Option 3, which provide a 14.3% generosity margin
- However, there is a case for a generosity margin of 20%, requiring the allocation of additional sites over and above those identified in the MIR
- If the council promotes a lower generosity margin (e.g. the 10.3% of its preferred option 1) it should demonstrate that it has consistently achieved a 90% accuracy record in anticipating completions on sites in the established land supply.
Housing Policy:
The suggested criteria for the policy on releasing additional housing land in the event of a supply shortfall should be amended to:
- Be broadly consistent with the LDP Vision and Spatial Strategy; and
- Be demonstrably effective and capable of beginning to deliver homes within three years
And in narrative text:
Applications for sites promoted by or in association with a recognised home builder will be preferred as this will eliminate the lead-in times associated with marketing a site to a developer once any speculative planning permission has been granted.
Approach to Development Management:
The Council should not deter applications for planning permission in principle and should determine each application on its merits in line with legislation.
The Council should not use planning conditions to require implementation of a planning permission within a given timeframe as this is contrary to established practice as articulated in the planning conditions circular. Any conditions imposing shorter timescales for commencement should be fully justified in terms of the planning tests set out in the planning conditions circular.
The Council should anticipate future supply shortfalls through the housing and audit and should act early by releasing additional sites which will prevent that shortfall from occurring in practice.
Appendix 1
Options for additional housing allocations
What these options would provide in terms of a generous housing land supply
Housing Supply Target @ 416 homes per annum / Total Completions 2010 – 2014 / Programmed Supply (minus deleted sites) / Small Sites Allowance 2014 – 2027 / Additonal Allocations / Total Housing Land Supply / Generosity Above Housing Supply Target7072 / 1218 / 5577 / 520 / 488
option 1 / 7803 / 10.3%
688
option 2 / 8003 / 13.2%
788
option 3 / 8103 / 14.6%
1/7