Supplementary Planning Guidance on Shoreline Character Areas, Affordable Housing and Parking

AGENDA ITEM 7

BOROUGH OF POOLE

CABINET

10th FEBRUARY 2004

REPORT OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY PORTFOLIO HOLDER

ON SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON SHORELINE CHARACTER AREAS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARKING

1.PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To consider the recommendations of the Local Economy Overview Group.

2.DECISIONS REQUIRED

2.1To endorse the recommendations of Local Economy Overview Group to agree to the recommended changes to the Draft Guidelines on Affordable Housing and Parking that have arisen from public consultation and adopt both documents as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2.2To endorse the recommendations of Local Economy Overview Group to issue the attached draft ‘Shoreline Character Areas’ Supplementary Planning Guidance for public consultation.

2.3 [NB – the LEOG meeting is scheduled for 9th February and hence any changes regarding the above recommendations will be verbally reported to Cabinet.]

3BACKGROUND/INFORMATION

3.1Between 30th October and 10th December 2003 the Council re-issued its draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing and Parking for consultation. 5 representations were received to each draft SPG. These are summarised and responded to in the attached documents. These documents include all the changes that will be made to the draft SPGs as a result of consultation.

3.2The attached Shoreline character SPG formerly formed Appendix 3 of the Local Plan. At the Public Local Inquiry into the Local Plan, the Inspector considered this formed unnecessary detail in the Local Plan and recommended that the Appendix was deleted and kept as a background document to the Local Plan. The Council accepted the Inspector’s Decision (Full Council – 21st October 2003). It is therefore proposed that it is issued as SPG to Policy NE21 of the Local Plan. It is intended that the draft is issued for a six week public consultation period between February and April and, following any changes as a result of consultation, is adopted as SPG.

Councillor Ron Parker

Local Economy Portfolio Holder

APPENDIX A

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:

Summary of Public Consultation Responses – Parking SPG, February 2004
Summary of Public Consultation Responses – Affordable Housing SPG, February 2004

Draft Shoreline Character Areas SPG – This Appendix is not available electronically – please contact Democratic Services should a copy be required.

1

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE OCTOBER 2003

2

RESPONSES TO REPRESENTATIONS FOLLOWING PUBLIC CONSULTATION

FEBRUARY 2004

Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance

Responses to Representations

INTRODUCTION

The Affordable Housing Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (October 2003) was published for public consultation on 30 October 2003 for 6 weeks in tandem with the consultation on the Proposed Modifications to Poole Local Plan First Alteration.

This document summarises the representations received by the Council to the Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance from:

Tetlow King Planning representing South West RSL Planning Consortium

Levvel Consulting Ltd on behalf of McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd

Gallagher Estates

Sunseeker International

FPD Savills Limited for a number of clients with interests in Poole

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners for Talbot Village Trust

The House Builders Federation – Midlands, South West & South Wales Regions.

Each summary of representation is followed by the Council’s response and proposed changes to the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

RESPONSES TO REPRESENTATIONS

Tetlow King Planning

Objection

Tetlow King Planning generally welcomes and supports the SPG on Affordable Housing and considers it to be concise, well written and containing very sound guidance.

They consider Sections 1 and 3 should be combined to set the planning background through government policy in PPG3 and Circular 6/98.

Section 4 is supported in summarising the findings of the Housing Needs Survey. This section would be strengthened by reference to the Joseph Rountree foundation report on Affordability Differences by Area for Working Households Buying their Homes. Poole is ranked 28th highest English Local Authority in relation to house price/income ratio. Poole is 40th in relation to households unable to purchase a home in the lowest price quartile. 76.6% of households are unable to purchase a property valued at £121,500. These statistics could be included in Section 6. There should be reference to housing needs being updated via the housing strategy statement and a summary of the strategy should be included. The SPG should refer to housing register figures including households waiting for accommodation and in priority need, numbers in temporary accommodation and homelessness statistics. Paragraph 4.8 should include progress in improving the quality of housing, progress in waiting lists, progress in reducing vacant dwellings and net change in numbers of social housing.

Section 8 should expand on the roles of the housing and planning authority and a list of officer contacts should be appended.

Section 9 should summarise By Design, Circular 6/94 and Secured by Design or include this in the Glossary.

The Council should include in an appendix model planning obligation clauses to cover affordable housing to give greater certainty and speed up negotiations.

At section 13 it would be helpful to include the Council’s preferred partners and paragraph 13.2 should be amended to be more flexible to other RSLs.

Paragraphs 16.1 and 12.3 should not preclude entirely low cost market housing as part of affordable housing.

Other general comments include:

There should be reference to the integration of affordable housing in schemes suggesting a maximum group size or range
There should be positive guidance on housing/special needs schemes including on lifetime homes.
It should include the need for information from developers regarding site development costs
The interface with the housing strategy, community strategy and local strategic partnerships should be explained
There should be positive guidance on high density development and re-use of vacant properties including over shops
Changes to TCI should be acknowledged
Affordable housing should be encouraged on vacant employment sites
Affordable housing should be exempt from onerous planning obligations such as for education
There should be cross reference to the Council’s SPG on car parking emphasising reduced car parking for affordable housing

Response

Tetlow King Planning welcome the concise nature of the SPG but are recommending a major addition to it in the way of factual information.

It is agreed that the background to the SPG is government guidance but the current format is clear.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report provides valuable information for comparative purposes which could support Poole’s stance in seeking strong policy for the delivery of affordable housing. That case has been made and the Inspector has largely agreed the policy. Further support will extend the SPG and 2002 data is already becoming dated. Again reference to the housing register and further indicators would lengthen the SPG. This monitoring data is crucial in formulating policy but it is not the function of SPG to justify policy but rather to supplement it with delivery mechanisms. Updated information on house prices and the best available information on incomes will be included in the SPG and Housing Strategy as these are reviewed.

The Council will provide housing and planning expertise for affordable housing negotiations and contacts can be provided.

The Glossary can explain By Design, Circular 6/94 and Secured by Design.

The Council has been considering preparing model clauses for Section 106 Agreements. This work is not in place at present. The SPG is reviewed regularly and this could be added at the next review.

It is accepted that Circular 6/98 advises against preferred partners. The Council’s preferred partners will undertake 75% on average of the annual development programme. Other RSLs will be supported for specialist provision or may manage specialist provision built by preferred partners. The ability of RSLs to undertake development will be further complicated by the Housing Corporation moving to a position whereby a select number of RSLs will be able to receive social housing grant.

The Affordable Housing policy and the SPG depend on the Housing Needs Survey 2001 for the identification of housing need. The Survey found that low cost market housing would not meet the identified need in Poole. Essentially new built market housing is more costly than the equivalent existing housing stock and will not meet the needs of those who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market. Housing for sale below market price would meet the need but this cannot be termed market housing.

Regarding the suggested omissions:

the distribution of affordable housing cannot be prescribed although it is generally preferred that the affordable housing is spread across development sites rather than concentrated as set out at paragraph 12.1in the draft SPG.
Special needs housing may be part of the affordable housing and this provision will be determined according to need.
Developers may have to provide site development costs to demonstrate the viability of a scheme. This is part of the negotiation process.
It is accepted that the housing strategy and community strategy set the strategy for the delivery of affordable housing but it is not the role of SPG to set the strategy.
The Local Plan explains the role of higher densities and vacant properties as sources of affordable housing.
The review of SPG will incorporate changes to the TCI regime when this is relevant.
The use of employment land for affordable housing will not be encouraged in Poole where employment land is not surplus and is protected for that use.
Housing schemes which include affordable housing should make provision for the needs of the development whether open space, infrastructure, education or community needs.
The Council’s draft SPG on parking guidelines includes maximum parking levels and the reduction of parking is therefore not an issue.

Proposed Changes

Include contacts in the SPG for Strategic Planning Services and Housing and Community Services:

Sue Thurley, Planning Policy and Implementation Manager 01202 633329

Simon Hendey, Head of Housing and Community Services 01202 633440

The Glossary will explain By Design, DoE Circular 5/94 and Secured by Design:

By Design: DTLR Guidance published in 2000 as good practice in Urban Design in the Planning System

Circular 5/94 Planning out Crime: A government Circular providing advice on planning considerations on crime prevention particularly through urban design measures

Secured By Design: A scheme promoted by the police providing guidance for developers and planning authorities on best practice for designing to reduce crime

Levvel Consulting Ltd

Objection

Levvels comment that it is premature to issue this SPG before the Local Plan is adopted.

Levvels have objected to every section of the SPG except the first, fifth and ninth as follows:

Section: 2

Levvels recommends;

The Council’s definition of affordable housing is restrictive and does not allow for the consideration of a range of low cost home ownership/intermediate housing options;
The definition should contain an affordability test which compares rental or sale values to a households income;
In order to comply with good practice and government guidance, we would recommend that affordable housing should be defined as follows:

“ Affordable housing is accommodation for households who are unable to access suitable housing adequate for their needs in the open market because of a lack of housing supply or because their household income, inclusive of eligible benefits, is insufficient to enable them to purchase or rent at prevailing property prices in the open market, located within a reasonable travel to work distance”.

Section 3:

They recommend;

Reference should be made to the involvement of RSLs and “other housing providers” in paragraph 3.4.

Section 4:

They recommend;

The Council should undertake a full and robust assessment of the full range of housing needs in order to make a balanced policy judgement.
The Council should accept the recommendations of the LPI Inspector who recommended that the 40% target be regarded at a maximum and that supporting text should acknowledge the importance of the availability and adequacy of Social Housing Grant in attaining it.

Section 6:

They recommend;

The affordability test that the Council should use should compare the potential rental or sale value of the units to the household’s income using multipliers.

Section 7:

They recommend;

Include “proximity to local services and facilities and access to public transport” in Policy H2a.

Section 8:

They recommend;

Any reference to a “minimum of 40%” being sought on suitable sites should be deleted. Instead, reference should be made to “up to 40%” in line with the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendation;
If an off site contribution is negotiated this should reflect that which would have ordinarily been provided on the application site;
Reference should be made to “other housing providers” as well as housing associations as there are a range of organisations that can deliver and manage the affordable units, especially if Social Housing Grant is not available;
In the absence of public subsidy, the occupancy of the dwellings will be determined through negotiations between the Council and the developer to ensure that they are occupied by households in need of affordable housing.

Section 10:

They recommend;

The Council should be aware that planning conditions or obligations should, “fulfil a proper planning objective” and that they “should not normally be used to control matters such as tenure, the rent or purchase price payable by prospective occupiers, or ownership.
The content of any Section 106 agreement should be a matter for negotiation on a site-by-site basis. It is not appropriate for the SPG to stipulate, for instance, that “at least 50% of the housing on site should not be occupied until the affordable housing element has been built and transferred to a registered social landlord”.
Bullet point “ii” should be amended to read, “the control and management of the housing which will usually be by the transfer of the affordable houses to a registered social landlord or other housing provider”.
Bullet point “iii” should be amended to read, “the housing will be offered at below market prices or rents to initial and subsequent occupiers for as long as the need exists”.
Bullet point “iv” should be amended to state that the occupancy of the affordable housing, in cases where no public subsidy is being provided, will be a matter of negotiation between the developer and the Council;
Bullet point “vi” should be amended to read, “receipts not spent within a period of 52 years will be returned with interest, to the developer”.

Section 11:

They recommend;

Proposals should indicate the intention to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of affordable housing on suitable sites;
Reference to the 40% as a “minimum” should be deleted and replaced with, the words “up to 40%”. This would accord with the recommendations in the Local Plan Inspector’s Report;
The Council should be flexible when deciding on the mix of types and sizes of affordable units on qualifying sites;
It is not for the developer alone to “demonstrate that there are good reasons for a financial contribution” in lieu of on-site provision. Instead, it is a matter of consideration for both the developer and the Council.

Section 12:

They recommend;

The stipulation that “no more than 12% of the affordable housing should be shared ownership housing” is not based on a robust housing needs assessment and therefore should be deleted;
Instead of the prescriptive approach to the mix of affordable housing, the Council should be flexible as any tenure mix sought on specific sites will depend on a number of considerations, including the availability and adequacy of grant funding.

Section 13:

They recommend;

The Council should not prescribe the partners with whom developers should work;
Reference should be made to the delivery of affordable housing through a range of housing providers not just RSLs;
Decisions with regard to the occupancy of the affordable units will be the result of discussions between the developer and the Council. This is particularly the case on units developed without recourse to public subsidy;
The developer can only be expected to provide the land value subsidy for the affordable housing – if there is insufficient public subsidy available for a scheme then the Council will have to be flexible in its application of policy;
The rent level calculation would only apply to social rented housing schemes developed with public subsidy.

Section 14:

They recommend;

Remove any reference to Circular F2 42/98 and instead base any developer contribution on the difference between the open market housing land value less the affordable housing land value;
Commuted sums should be used to contribute to additional affordable units and should be spent within a two year frame after which the monies should be returned with interest, to the developer;
The methodology for calculating a combined on site and financial contribution is unreasonable and should be amended.

Section 15:

They recommend;

Delete this section in its entirety as it is an additional charge to cover costs which the Council should itself meet.

Section 16:

They recommend;

Circular 6/98 states that local planning authorities should “indicate in the plan the intention to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing” on suitable sites. Therefore, any request to “require” affordable housing should be amended and replaced with “sought”;
Amend as follows; “Affordable housing will be requirednegotiated on suitable housing sites of 15 or more dwellings or 0.5 ha or more”.
The Inspector’s Report recommends that “up to 40% affordable housing will be sought on qualifying sites. This should be adopted.
Amend as follows: The amount of affordable housing will normally be at least 40% of the range of housing sizes proposed. On suitable sites the Council will seek to achieve an affordable housing provision of up to 40%”.
The definition of affordable housing should be broad and include social rented housing and intermediate housing options (such as shared ownership, fixed equity, sub-market rent etc.) it should be flexible to allow for a range of needs to be met and to ensure mixed and balanced communities are achieved. The availability and adequacy of grant will be crucial in determining the mix of affordable housing types sought on suitable sites;
Delete bullet points and add: “Affordable housing encompasses social housing and intermediate housing tenures. Decisions about what affordable housing types to build will be a matter of negotiation between the parties involved and be based on the availability and adequacy of public subsidy, local housing need and the need to ensure the development of mixed and balanced sustainable communities”.
Off-site provision or a financial contribution should only be sought in cases where the application site is considered suitable for the provision of affordable housing. In such cases, up to 40% contribution will be sought and will be based on the land value subsidy which the developer would ordinarily provide;
Any commuted sum should be based on up to 40% affordable housing, which would have been provided on the application site and be based on the difference between the open market land value and the affordable housing land value.
Circular 6/98 states that when drafting planning conditions or obligations councils, “should be aware of the need both for secure arrangements to cover all eventualities and for flexibility to enable or encourage the scheme to proceed”.
To stipulate that “at least 50% of the housing on site should not be occupied until the affordable housing element has been built and transferred to a registered social landlord” is prescriptive and not in compliance with the advice in the Circular;
Also, to prescribe partners developers should use to deliver the affordable housing is not in compliance with Circular 6/98,paragraph 17;
Delete bullet point and ensure reference is made to “other housing providers” as there are a range of organisations which can deliver the affordable housing.
If public subsidy is not available, the Council cannot expect the developer to meet the shortfall. In such circumstances, the amount and type of affordable housing sought on suitable sites will be negotiated;
As the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector recommended, the Council should acknowledge that the 40% contribution is dependent on the availability and adequacy of social housing grant. This should be stated in the SPG.
The occupancy of the affordable housing is a matter for negotiation between the Council and the developer, particularly in cases where no public subsidy is being provided.
The formula to which this statement refers is that stated in the “Guide to Social Rent Reforms” (DETR, March 2001). Whilst this would apply to social rented housing schemes it would not be applicable to other forms of affordable rented housing, such as sub-market rented housing.
The Council should undertake a robust housing needs assessment which analyses the need both for the full range of affordable housing and the need for market housing.

Response