This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Draft London Plan EiP, Affordable Housing: 3D snakes and ladders

Draft London Plan EiP, Affordable Housing: 3D snakes and ladders

Jennie Baker 28 Feb 2019

Lichfields is currently monitoring the draft London Plan Examination in Public (EiP), which is scheduled to last until May 2019, and will report on relevant updates as part of a blog series. The third blog of the series focuses on the hearing session for draft policies H5-H8 on Affordable Housing, which took place on 26 February 2019.

The Big Picture is the target for all housing being increased from 45,000 dwellings per annum up to 65,000 dwellings per annum in the draft new London Plan in the face of a 13% undershoot against even the previous target according to GLA (or 31% according to MHCLG).  Accordingly, the new target could be missed by as much as 40%-50% if delivery solutions do not change.  Moreover, the Deputy Mayor for Housing, James Murray, has said that 80% of new homes in London are affordable to only 8% of the population.
In terms of tenure, it was suggested at the EiP hearing session that market housing delivery has recently been running at over 30% above target, whilst affordable housing is sliding even further behind.  And the draft new London Plan seeks to deliver only 33,000 affordable homes per annum against its SHMA-identified target of 43,500 homes per annum.
The more detailed ‘small picture’ includes the differences in delivery across London Boroughs, following former Mayor Boris Johnson’s earlier local relaxations against centralised targets.  At the EiP session, it was said that 19 of the 32 London Boroughs delivered no social rent housing at all last year – and that, from 2010 to 2017, the average delivery of all types of affordable housing was only 18% of all housing completions, with no borough averaging up to the mayoral target of 35%.  The subtlety in these figures is the recent rise in the proportion of delivery of intermediate products rather than social rent.  This is in part due to the recent first tranche of Government grants with, for example, Waltham Forest described as achieving 49% affordable housing delivery but with only 1% social rent.
The Home Builders Federation (HBF) indicated that the reality of negotiations is that other policy priorities, including through s106 contributions, such as space standards, cycle provisions, CIL and affordable workspaces, come before affordable housing provision – with the resulting affordable housing percentage outcome being established after an appraisal has taken into account of all these factors (‘in accordance with other policies of the plan’).
With the strategic affordable housing target proposed at 50%, the acknowledged reality is that this will generally be ‘dumbed down’ to 35%, as arising from the new threshold approach to affordable housing; however, the GLA said that the threshold approach is already proving successful by dragging those schemes proposing truly lower affordable housing percentages back up to 35% just to avoid full viability assessment and thereby saving precious months. 
But Sian Berry (Green Party, London Assembly Member) noted that this approach effectively reduces the strategic affordable housing target down to 35%, with those schemes delivering lower levels balanced out by others, such as those delivered by Registered Providers and which provide higher levels of affordable housing (typically 70-80%).  The outcome thereby appears to be that the strategic target could never be met in practice and that the Plan would fail in its duty.  She therefore argued for a steady increase in the 35% threshold through proposed 5-yearly reviews to increase pressure – all with the impact of embedding lower land values generally.
The GLA pleaded that central government funding approaches have changed since the first draft Plan (November 2017), with the lifting of the local authorities’ borrowing cap and the release of direct housing funding, and that the outcome of these changes is not yet clear, particularly with the relatively low level of subsidy per delivered unit– which is more useful in supporting intermediate housing rather than social rent.  It also noted that grant negotiations with central government are limited to only one week of discussions but that the consequences are long term, meaning that revisions from 35% for the threshold target every 5 years is in the nature of star-gazing in the face of general elections, Brexit, etc., even though the GLA is required to produce a sound and deliverable Plan.
So, what are the pressures that affect affordable housing delivery in London?
  1. The current government is reluctantly engaging in social housing delivery, both through grant and allowing local authorities to borrow again, after its demise in the Thatcher era – although limiting the types of tenure by inherent support for intermediate products. Hence the arrival of London Living Rent as a new intermediate product (see Lichfields’ Insight Focus for more details).  National political changes (i.e. not controlled by the Mayor) mean continued uncertainty of this means of bridging the gap between what is needed and what can be delivered – up or down.  However, central government still also pressurises the Mayor to review the Plan, suggesting even higher overall targets (as per Standard Method figures).

  2. London Boroughs have different political agendas and differing approaches to delivery, including within negotiations with developers. It is often a matter of balance between quantum delivered (good news) and a revised tenure mix (mostly bad news) away from the historic 70/30 or 60/40.  Furthermore, there is the possible need to introduce a tariff-based contribution for affordable housing in relation to the small sites needed to deliver roughly 40% of London’s overall housing target.

  3. Tenants groups rightly complain that we are never going to meet real need with current or even proposed policies, noting that developers aim to maximise profits by going along with the rules and maximising the value of affordable housing in each case. However, central government is said to need to invest four times as much into affordable housing in London to allow Councils and Registered Providers to step up delivery to the plate and allow the London Plan to meet either the objectively assessed need or even the (lower) current target.

  4. Furthermore, developers try to maximise profits and turn sites around as quickly as possible, delivering just as much affordable housing as is required and no more. This builds in the lower 35% target as one to reach to avoid time-wasting or to avoid if nowhere near achievable.

  5. For public land owners, the higher 50% affordable housing threshold target is criticised as undermining a revenue stream that can fund improved services provision – why should NHS or TfL money be used for affordable housing in a particular local authority area? The high threshold will encourage public bodies to consider commercial alternatives rather than housing delivery.  There is also the ongoing question as to whether those bodies with a portfolio approach to such delivery levels across a ‘bundle’ of their sites would manipulate this to get lower levels of affordable housing in higher value areas yet still meet their target.

  6. For formerly-industrial land, the higher 50% affordable housing threshold also reduces the propensity to go for residential or residential-led mixed-use development – undermining yet another source for brownfield housing delivery.

So, the EiP Panel needs to address and resolve these pressures as far as possible, deciding whether the GLA is right in adopting what it often described as ‘challenging yet deliverable’ policies to paper over the cracks.  To agree a target whilst not meeting identified needs.  To hope that political pressure on central government will continue the recent increases in support for Registered Providers and for Councils. 
The urgent need for an updated London Plan will probably override indecision at this stage – an adopted Plan is better than no Plan – but that will lead to numerous unknowns.  Other than that, it is clear that the full need for affordable housing delivery to meet London requirements is beyond the control of the London Plan.
Lichfields will publish further analysis on the draft London Plan Examination in Public in due course. Click here to subscribe for updates.

This blog has been written in general terms and cannot be relied on to cover specific situations. We recommend that you obtain professional advice before acting or refrain from acting on any of the contents of this blog. Lichfields accepts no duty of care or liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this blog. © Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2019, trading as Lichfields. All Rights Reserved. Registered in England, no 2778116. 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL. Designed by Lichfields 2019

CONTINUE READING

Planning for growth in the North East

Planning for growth in the North East

Robert Dibden 28 Feb 2019
Article originally featured in North East England Chamber of Commerce. 
As a profession, town planning plays a crucial role in identifying what development is needed and where, to meet the needs of both local communities and the economy. Key to this is a Local Plan, which should set out a framework for the future development of an area. At a time of increasing economic uncertainty, Local Plans offer an opportunity to establish a strong and long-term vision for new jobs and housing in regions like the North East. A Local Plan should provide certainty for communities, businesses and investors.
Despite these obvious benefits, the latest research undertaken by Lichfields shows that, since the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012, only half of all local planning authorities have adopted a Local Plan. From its outset, the NPPF 2012 was expected to entail a ‘simpler, swifter’ planning system, with clear guidance on plan-making, a strong focus on the plan-led system, and a commitment to meeting the nation’s housing need. And yet after six years, and the publication of an updated NPPF in 2018, just half of all authorities benefit from a post-NPPF 2012 strategic plan. Indeed, as at 31 December 2018 almost a quarter of authorities we studied still have plans under examination, and 22% of authorities are yet to even submit a post-NPPF 2012 Local Plan.
This is reflective of the picture in the North East – a region which stands to benefit more than most from a strategic and planned approach to development. Of the 12 North Eastern local planning authorities (encompassing those Council areas from Teesside to Northumberland), seven (58%) currently benefit from a post-NPPF 2012 local plan. Of the five authorities yet to adopt an up-to-date plan, Durham and Northumberland cover a significant proportion of the overall region and, to some extent, have been hampered by the complexity of their transition to unitary authorities in 2009. With the exception of Darlington, the other four authorities also all incorporate Green Belt designations which can act to constrain development.
To meet its manifesto ambition of building 300,000 homes annually by the mid 2020s, the Government is committed to increasing the supply of housing through a plan-led system.
Alongside other recent changes to national planning policy, the Government has also now introduced a statutory requirement to review, and if necessary update, the strategic policies of Local Plans every five years – or sooner subject to changes in local circumstances. This leaves over half of all authorities nationally needing to review their plans within the next two years. Again this has potential implications for the North East. Of the seven authorities which currently have up-to-date Local Plans, both Newcastle and Gateshead are required to review their plans in 1-2 years, and Middlesbrough within the next 12 months.
Given the inconsistent plan progress under the NPPF 2012, the Government’s new reforms are clearly much needed to meet its housebuilding and plan-making goals. However, these increased expectations that plans will be kept up-to-date also brings challenges and higher workloads for local planning authorities.
Whilst the preparation of a Local Plan must be led by a local planning authority, the process should ultimately be a joint endeavour in collaboration with local communities, developers, landowners and businesses. As the pressure mounts, let’s hope the North East can rise to the challenge and help to secure the investment our region needs.
If you have any queries about Local Plan progress in your area, or wish to explore opportunities to promote your development through the plan-preparation process, please contact Robert Dibden.
Durham’s Local Plan is currently subject to consultation until 08 March 2019, and Northumberland’s until 13 March 2019.

CONTINUE READING

Secretary of State insists on using the standard method to calculate housing land supply in Doncaster

Secretary of State insists on using the standard method to calculate housing land supply in Doncaster

Fiona Braithwaite 21 Feb 2019
Since the Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) last year there have been a trickle of appeal decisions which have grappled with the intricacies of interpreting the NPPF and PPG in respect of the implications of the standard methodology for calculating a local authority’s housing requirement[1].
The Government’s intention was that the standard methodology should be applied in respect of assessing 5 year housing land supply immediately and local housing needs assessments based on the standard method should be applied in respect of strategic policy making as of the 24th of January this year.
There are a few notable post revised NPPF appeal decisions regarding 5 year housing land supply including; Bamber Bridge in Preston[2] (August 2018) and Deerlands Road, Wingerworth in North East Derbyshire[3] (November 2018). However, the messages were ultimately confusing; the Inspector at Bamber Bridge suggested the standard method was subject still to a level of uncertainty, stating at paragraph 44 ‘Government guidance indicates the new methodology for assessing housing needs is incomplete and so it would be premature to make and rely upon such an assessment’ and the Inspector at Deerlands firmly stood behind the standard method in assessing 5 year housing land supply and noted the ‘clarity and consistency’ that the standard method provides. An all too common position of uncertainty has emerged in respect of the standard method which was ultimately introduced to simplify and expedite the process.
However, on the 5th of February Hallam Land Management learned that their appeal regarding the Land East of Mere Lane, Edenthorpe, Doncaster had been allowed by the Secretary of State (SoS), who accepted his Inspector’s recommendation[4]. When determining the call-in application, the Secretary of State (SoS) has concluded that the standard method is the approach which must be applied in respect of assessing 5-year housing land supply.
Ironically, the appeal (which started in September 2017 and concluded in January 2018) closed its September 2017 sitting on the day the Government published its consultation on the standard method, within ‘Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places’. There was a lot of evidence and examination of housing need in Doncaster at the Inquiry when it resumed in January 2018. Despite the Inspector’s report (1st November 2018) containing a detailed discussion of the debate, the SoS concluded in respect of the 5-year housing land supply position at paragraph 14 of his decision:
“While he notes that the applicant has used an alternative approach to calculate the figure, the Secretary of State considers that the standard methodology should be used, in line with the Framework. Using this, the Secretary of State considers that Doncaster Council’s annual requirement is circa 600 homes per year, and that based on forecast levels of supply, they can currently demonstrate over 10 years supply of housing land”
This decision clearly follows the transitional arrangements identified in the NPPF in respect of assessing 5-year housing land supply against the standard methodology and is clear how the Framework should be applied, in the current circumstances.
Despite the 5-year housing land supply argument being superseded by the Government’s new approach in respect of assessing local housing need during the Inquiry, the appeal for Hallam Land Management in Doncaster was allowed. This is because the Inspector and the SoS determining that key policies of the Unitary Development Plan are out of date and that the tilted balance in respect of sustainable development stated in paragraph 11 of the Framework applies; an extremely long-winded wait for a great result.
 

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs-assessment[2] APP/F2360/W/18/3198822[3] APP/R1038/W/17/3192255[4] APP/F4410/W/17/3169288

CONTINUE READING

Oxfordshire Vision 2050 under the spotlight

Oxfordshire Vision 2050 under the spotlight

Daniel Lampard 19 Feb 2019
Article originally featured in Thames Tap. 
This month I shall use the half term holiday to take my children to a roadshow on the Oxfordshire Plan 2050.
Whilst they may not appreciate it (in both senses of the word) as current, and I hope future, residents of Oxfordshire, they have as much an interest as I do in the development of the county over the next 30 years.
They will also be more at home than me in responding to the recognition that the plan ‘will need to provide some flexibility for adaptions to be made as technological advances occur and habits change’ – their proposals for personal cross boundary Lego hover machines may brighten up some of the drier responses that this consultation will elicit.
So as preparation for our fun filled family day out here is my summary of the embryonic draft plan and accompanying topic papers:

 

A good co-operative start

Despite the political differences and diversity of urban and rural landscape, the Oxfordshire authorities have led the way nationally with co-operative working through the Oxfordshire Growth Board and subsequent Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal (OHGD) (November 2017) as witnessed most recently at the Cherwell Local Plan examination last week where Oxford City and West Oxfordshire battled away to assist Cherwell. 

They have already agreed a Statement of Common Ground (March 2018) on this plan with minimal dispute and regard the OHGD funding as a direct response to their ‘track record of successful joint working in Oxfordshire’.  This means that there can be more optimism about the Oxfordshire 2050 process and progress than there would be in many other areas nationwide.

Much to do quickly 

The plan process begins tentatively with the intention of ‘starting a conversation and dissecting ‘issues’ and ‘options’ into two separate consultation processes. 

With so much to grapple with, and a slow start, the timetable seeking publication of a draft plan in October 2019  and submission of the plan in March 2020 (the latter required by the OHGD) is eye-wateringly tight – and this is at a time when the preceding local plans in Cherwell and South Oxfordshire are still unresolved.

Reasons to be cheerful – within reason

There is much optimism coursing through the documents reflecting the county’s ‘economic success’.  My children and their classmates are fortunate to be growing up in an area of above average quality of life and educational attainment, reflecting the fact that ‘Oxfordshire has one of the strongest economies in the UK’  being ‘one of only three net contributors to the Treasury’.  

This forms a hugely positive starting point for any plan – although as it acknowledges ‘high house prices threaten quality of life and well being’.

Furthermore the opportunity for readily available options for new developments is constrained as ‘many parts of the county are protected at national and international level for their nature conservation value’.  In a nutshell this is a clear challenge for all of us in the planning profession to seek to resolve this clear tension and help deliver the necessary solutions.  This process will begin with a novel ‘call for ideas’ rather than the more familiar ‘sites’ requiring fresh thinking from us all.

The nuts and bolts – TBC

Whilst recognising that it needs to deliver a solution that responds to ‘the number of new market and affordable homes and level of economic growth needed across Oxfordshire’ within a matter months the plan is remarkably coy about the extent of development aspirations. 

Housing need will ‘comprehensively test a range of options for growth, informed by the standard methodology, up to date evidence and ongoing engagement with stakeholders’. Similarly economic need ‘is for Oxfordshire to determine (in the light of evidence available)’.  My experience at the Cherwell examination last week suggests that this process could take months of examination time – let alone months of plan preparation time.

Not all of this uncertainty is within the control of the Oxfordshire authorities – with a perhaps the largest understatement being that ‘the route of the OxCam Expressway will have implications for . . . shaping the Spatial Strategy of the Oxfordshire Plan’.

Where? Where? Where? 

Given the uncertainty regarding the key housing and economic inputs, it is unsurprising that little detailed thought has gone into the potential spatial strategy – although the potential options identified would keep my children’s geometry class busy for hours.   

It is also unclear -  and I anticipate a source of future tension - that whilst the Oxfordshire Plan will determine the spatial strategy for broad development patterns it ‘will not allocate sites except at the request of the relevant local planning authority’.

Perhaps the clearest, and most controversial statement, is the recognition that the plan ‘offers an opportunity to assess the overall Oxford Green Belt strategy’.

  

CONTINUE READING

Load More

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…