• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Buckinghamshire Council’s response to the Inspector’s MIQs for Stage 2 of the examination of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan 2013 ‐ 2033 Author: John Cheston, Planning Policy Manager, Planning, Growth and Sustainability Directorate Date: 7 August 2020 1 MATTER 3: HOUSING Issue 1: Is the housing requirement of 14,250 for the Plan period 1 Apr 2013 to 1 Apr 2033 based on a robust assessment of the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing within the Housing Market Area (HMA)? Is it otherwise justified? The OAN for Housing - Is it justified to continue to rely upon the findings of the SHMA 2016, which utilises the 2012-based household projections, for the purpose of deriving the OAN? - Notwithstanding the above, was the OAN (of 2,015dpa for the HMA and 712dpa for RBWM) robustly calculated having regard to the methodology set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG - archived version)? 1. From Buckinghamshire Council’s perspective, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) Borough Local Plan must deliver a sufficient number and quality of homes capable of responding to any identified needs within the plan area. Failure to do so would have a ripple effect across the wider sub-region, including the Buckinghamshire Council area. 2. We are surprised that the SHMA has not been updated to take account of the 2014-based household projections as the starting point for calculating the OAN, given the timing of their publication relative to publication and submission of the Plan. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to update further to take account of the 2016 or the most recent 2018-based projections. The Government’s Technical Consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance (October 2018) and the subsequent amendments to the PPG expressed significant concern about the use of the 2016-based projections for plan-making. Albeit in the context of the standard methodology rather than for the calculation of the OAN for transitional plans, the Government indicated that the 2016-based projections should not be used to calculate the local housing need as, essentially, they did not support the Government’s wider policy aspirations for housing delivery, including the objective of delivering 300,000 homes a year nationally by the mid-2020s. Whilst that technical consultation was silent on the issue of transitional plans, we believe that the concerns expressed within it are an important material consideration. The Housing Requirement - Table 3.5 in the Housing Topic Paper 2019 shows a total housing supply of 16,435 dwellings for the period 2013-33 compared to a requirement of 14,240 reflecting the OAN. Having regard to paragraph 47 (bullet 1) of the NPPF, should the housing requirement be raised to 16,435 to contribute towards addressing Slough’s likely unmet need of 6,000 – 11,000 dwellings? What would be the consequences of such an increase? 3. Although the RBWM Local Plan is being examined under the 2012 NPPF, increasing the housing requirement by 2,200 homes would help to improve the Local Plan’s overall consistency with the current version of the NPPF and PPG and, at the same time, allow it to contribute towards meeting some of Slough unmet housing needs. 2 - What progress has there been with the Wider Area Growth Study (WAGS) discussed at Stage 1, and what does this say in relation to unmet needs in the HMA? 4. The two-part WAGS was commissioned in an attempt to provide some clarity on the scale of Slough BC’s unmet need. Both RBWM and the former CSB councils needed this information for plan-making purposes in the absence of evidence from Slough BC on their unmet need, given the lack of progress on Slough’s local plan. 5. WAGS Part 1 was completed in June 2019 and delineates Inner and Outer Areas of search for Part 2 to consider. Part 2 has been commissioned and looks at supply, capacity and constraints within the areas of search. It will identify locations to accommodate the future housing need growth of the Slough and Windsor and Maidenhead core, in line with the NPPF position on strategic matters. WAGS Part 2 is currently expected to be completed by the end of 2020. Issue 2: Will the Plan provide a land supply sufficient to deliver the housing requirement of at least 14,250 dwellings from 2013-2033? - Is it justified for the total predicted supply of 16,435 dwellings to exceed the requirement of 14,240 dwellings in the context of the proposal to release Green Belt land? 6. Within their housing topic paper 20191, RBWM comment that “the supply from non-Green Belt locations only was estimated to only provide around 60% of the OAN requirement”. It is apparent that the release of land from Green Belt is needed to identify sufficient capacity to meet the OAN figure. 7. National planning policy has always been clear that housing targets are a minimum to be exceeded, and are not a ‘cap’ on development levels. With this in mind, the level of identified housing supply could exceed the housing requirement in a Plan and be fully justified. In this case, the Council would support an increase in the housing requirement to 16,435 in order to meet some of Slough’s needs which might otherwise be unmet. Issue 4: Will Policy HO2 Housing Mix and Type be effective in securing an appropriate mix of housing? - Does the policy, and the Plan generally, do enough to support the needs of older people and those with disabilities? Should specific allocations be made to meet the identified needs for specialist accommodation? 8. Nationally, the proportion of over 65s is expected to increase significantly during the local plan period. The issue of unmet specialist housing need, whilst not a key strategic requirement in the current NPPF, may grow in importance in future years. The Council considers that the Plan does not do enough to support these needs and that site allocations should specifically be considered for elderly person’s housing. 1 Para 3.33, page 20 3 9. In a statement to this examination dated 15/06/2018, the Council set out its reasons for disagreeing with the inclusion of South Bucks in an “Eastern Berkshire HMA”. The presence of South Bucks in an “East Berkshire and South Bucks HMA” (Table 9.1 of the housing topic paper) is disappointing to see. The continuation of this approach by Berkshire authorities risks overestimating needs and future double-counting. This practice should therefore cease. Planning policy solutions for addressing the needs of South Bucks are the responsibility of Buckinghamshire Council, and specialist housing needs will be identified and solutions found through documents which the Council either commissions or produces. Issue 5: Will Policy H03 Affordable Housing be effective in securing the delivery of sufficient affordable housing of an appropriate type and size? Are the requirements for affordable housing from market sites justified by reference to evidence of development viability? 1. The submitted version of the Plan requires developments of 10+ dwellings/1000sqm gross internal floor area to provide affordable housing at a rate of 30%. The proposed changes seek to increase the rate to 40% for developments on greenfield sites or sites previously in B-Class employment use up to 500 dwellings. The proposed changes also seek to introduce a requirement for developments in rural areas of between 5-9 dwellings to provide affordable housing at a rate of 40%. The preferred tenure mix is also proposed to be changed (20% intermediate, 35% affordable rent and 45% social rent). ‹ Are these changes required to address issues of soundness? ‹ Are the proposed changes justified by the viability evidence in the Viability Update Note of 2019? In particular, are the model inputs in respect of developer contributions (£2,500 per unit), developer return (17.5%) and CIL indexing robust? ‹ Does the viability evidence justify a lower threshold, below 10 dwellings, in urban areas? (See reps Wokingham BC). 10. The Council notes the comments from Wokingham BC, stating that RBWM’s Viability Report does not show that a lower affordable housing threshold was ever tested or shown to be undeliverable. If it is viable for the Plan to set lower thresholds, and to deliver a greater number of affordable homes, then the Council would agree with Wokingham BC that RBWM should go further. Any under-provision of affordable housing from the RBWM area will increase pressure on neighbouring authorities - including Buckinghamshire - to find solutions. RBWM does not have Statements of Common Ground with the former Wycombe District Council or Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils. As the successor body, Buckinghamshire Council does not anticipate meeting any of RBWM’s housing or affordable housing needs, and would not expect to do so at this stage. 11. The Council notes that the references to the 10 units/1,000sqm floorspace threshold in Policy HO3 will be immediately rendered out of date upon adoption of the RBWM Local Plan. This is because paragraph 63 of the 2019 NPPF contains an identical definition of ‘major development’ to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, which amended the 10 units/1000sqm floorspace threshold (below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought), to 10 units and a site area of 0.5 hectares respectively. 4 12. The threshold change has implications for affordable housing delivery in highly constrained areas with high residual land values and prices. NPPF paragraph 63 also means that, without a local authority making a case that circumstances exist to justify exemption from the national thresholds in their area, highly viable and profitable developments of small numbers of expensive, executive homes providing fewer than 10 units on sites under 0.5ha.

Load more

  5

Copy Link