Housing planning news, September 2018

• helping local authorities to build, by allowing them to borrow, possibly introducing new flexibilities for spending Right to Buy receipts, and by not requiring a payment for vacant, higher value council homes. These and other possible measures exemplify how the Government is seeking to address local authorities not building enough Right to Buy replacements to match sales - nationally, each home sold is not being replaced on a one-for-one basis;
• achieving additional supply through community land trusts and local housing companies;
• investigating how to provide longer term certainty to help housing associations build more; and
• helping those in affordable home ownership schemes to progress more easily to owning outright.

• Secured by Design;
• Encouraging healthy and active communities;
• Designing new affordable homes to the same quality as other tenures, and to be well-integrated within developments; and
• Reflecting changing needs (such as an ageing population, or higher density family housing).

In Hallam Land Management Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Eastleigh Borough Council, heard in the Court of Appeal, Lindblom LJ stated the central question as being:

‘In deciding an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for housing development, how far does the decision-maker have to go in calculating the extent of any shortfall in the five-year supply of housing land?’

The Secretary of State (SoS) for Communities and Local Government (CLG) had, in line with his Inspector in a decision letter dated 9 November 2016, dismissed a s78 appeal for various types of new homes in Hamble. The decision had been challenged unsuccessfully in the High Court by the appellant, where the judge had rejected all four of the appellant’s grounds of appeal.

With different housing land supply figures being put forward by the various appeal parties at different times, it was not clear from the SoS’ decision whether he had fixed on a precise figure for the housing land supply. Nor was it clear whether he had reached any concluded view on the scale of the ‘acknowledged shortfall’ – he referred to ‘the limited shortfall in housing land supply’, while the Inspector had written of a ‘material shortfall’. This approach did not err in law of itself, as the Communities Secretary was entitled to conclude that no more precision was required in the knowledge that the level of housing land supply fell within a range below five years. But other inspectors' conclusions on housing land supply in two very recent decisions - and their consequences for the weight to be given to local plan policies - ‘clearly were material considerations in this appeal’. Both decisions had characterised the shortfall as ‘significant’, more in line with ‘material’, than ‘limited’.

Lindblom LJ concluded:

‘[The] SoS did not come to grips with the inspectors' conclusions on housing land supply in those two very recent appeal decisions.’

The SoS will now re-determine the s78 appeal.

On 15 August, Communities Secretary James Brokenshire announced a new programme for assisting with progressing garden communities.

Parties having the support of local authorities for ‘new garden communities at scale’ can apply for a place on the Programme.

According to the accompanying Prospectus, proposals for new Garden Towns (with more than 10,000 homes) will be prioritised but MHCLG will also consider proposals for Garden Villages (having 1,500-10,000 homes) ‘which are particularly strong in other aspects’.

Winning bids can choose to receive/ benefit from: resource funding; delivery advice (e.g. on creating development corporations) and support; cross-government brokerage; and peer learning and networking opportunities.

The period for submitting proposals ends on 9 November.