Additional Information from the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) – South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment and PUSH Spatial Strategy Update
April 2014
Report to the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Joint Committee 28 January 2014
Appendix 1: South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Final Report Version 1: January 2014
Appendix 2: South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Final Report: Appendices Version 1: January 2014
Report to the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Joint Committee 25 March 2014
Minutes of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Joint Committee 25 March 2014
Item 9
Report to the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Joint Committee
Date: 28 January 2014
Report of: Paul Nichols, Head of Planning Transport and Sustainability Southampton City Council
Subject: Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) – Final Report
SUMMARY One of the actions in the PUSH Business Plan 2013 – 2014 was the preparation of a strategic housing market assessment (SHMA) for the PUSH area. This work is now complete and a final SHMA report, with appendices, is attached . The study provides an up-to-date and objective assessment of the housing market in south Hampshire in 2013, setting out the current context and projections of the need for affordable and market housing to 2036. It sets out the different factors affecting the individual authorities within PUSH and considers the need and demand for housing of different type, size and tenure. The report also looks at the impact of demographic change, the state of the economy and the changing benefits system. The consultants’ final report provides essential background information for those authorities preparing local plans and provides evidence of our fulfilment of the ‘duty to cooperate’. The SHMA report forms the starting point for the review of the South Hampshire Strategy to 2036. The SHMA is an assessment of housing need, rather than a housing allocation strategy. The report will inform the housing allocations in the new PUSH Spatial Strategy, alongside evidence on land availability, urban capacity, accessibility to jobs and services, infrastructure capacity, environmental impact and many other factors and constraints. These points are emphasised in the foreword attached to the SHMA report. The SHMA report takes into account the new draft Government guidance on Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs , issued in August 2013.
1 of 5 RECOMMENDATIONS A) That the PUSH Joint Committee NOTES the Final Report of the SHMA, and its publication on the Housing and Planning section of the PUSH website by 31 January 2014. B) That the PUSH Joint Committee AUTHORISES officers to prepare a specification, budget and timetable for the PUSH Spatial Strategy review during February and March 2014. C) That officers report back to the Joint Committee in March 2014, with a recommendation to appoint a consultant to undertake the initial phase of work. This work will take place over the period April 2014 to March 2015 and will lead to the preparation of a draft document for public consultation to include other interested parties in collaboration with PUSH Leaders, Chief Executives and Planning Officers Group (POG).
INTRODUCTION
1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that local planning authorities should ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, ‘objectively assessed needs’ for market and affordable housing in their housing market area. It also emphasises the role of a strategic housing market assessment (SHMA) in assessing these needs. The PUSH Joint Committee resolved in March 2013 to press on with a new strategic housing market assessment for south Hampshire to support current and future plan making up to 2036. GL Hearn was appointed in early May to undertake the study. 2. The SHMA is an independent and objective study of the housing market. It provides an understanding of the current housing market of the area and an assessment of future needs for both market and affordable housing. The report presents a range of scenarios for housing need based on different assumptions. The consultant’s report explains in detail the assumptions underpinning each of these scenarios. 3. The study is not a plan or strategy. It provides a range of projections of housing need, based on past trends and expectations of future change. It makes no specific assumptions about future planning, housing or economic policies across the PUSH area, each of which may have implications for the level of housing need, or of potential constraints on the location, pace or quantum of development. However, the study does provide an essential basis for the PUSH authorities to review the South Hampshire Strategy and a factual assessment of likely future needs against which current plans can be examined.
THE SHMA REPORT
4. The consultants produced a draft SHMA in mid-August following which officers provided detailed and extensive comments on various aspects of the report. A draft report was considered by PUSH Leaders in early September and a revised version issued in early October 2013. Further consultations with the respective PUSH local planning authorities was undertaken and final comments fed into the final iteration of the SHMA report due to be presented at this Committee meeting.
2 of 5 5. During the course of the study, Government issued draft guidance on Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs in August 2013 which was taken into account in the SHMA report. The new guidance introduces a number of additional tests to be considered when estimating housing need: • Is there evidence that household formation has been constrained? • Do market signals suggest a need to increase housing supply to improve affordability? • Will the projected numbers be capable of meeting affordable housing needs? • Will the housing numbers supported expected growth in jobs? 6. In the light of this new Government guidance, the consultants have recommended an estimate of housing need for the PUSH area (excluding the Isle of Wight) of 4,160 homes per year. This estimate is significantly higher than the SNPP 1-based projection of 3,780 per year. The main reason for this is that there is a degree of suppressed housing demand in the current market. This is in part linked to the recession, the weakness of the housing market and difficulties in obtaining mortgage finance over recent years. As the economy continues to recover it is anticipated that this suppressed demand will be progressively released. The requirement for some additional capacity to absorb this need is reflected in the recommended figure. 7. In parallel with the SHMA work, the LEP has commissioned Oxford Economics to model both jobs and housing growth, linked to its preferred economic growth strategy. An approach has been agreed with the LEP to ensure that the Oxford Economics work is undertaken in collaboration with GL Hearn, to produce a set of housing need projections which derive from the LEP’s preferred economic growth strategy. This work will be complete in March 2014.
REVIEW OF THE SPATIAL STRATEGY 8. It is recommended that work commence as soon as possible on the review of the PUSH Spatial Strategy. The SHMA report emphasises that need estimates at district level cannot be interpreted as housing allocations. It is therefore important that PUSH progress with the next phase of the work as rapidly as possible to develop allocations, in line with the SHMA’s estimates of need at Housing Market Area level. 9. The updated strategy will not be a statutory planning document, but will inform developers and Planning Inspectors of the agreed PUSH thinking on the preferred spatial strategy to deliver the economic priorities for South Hampshire. The updated spatial strategy will work to a 2036 planning horizon. The end product will be an updated, non-statutory strategy document, similar in scope to the updated South Hampshire Spatial Strategy (2012), demonstrating fulfilment of the duty to cooperate. 10. A consultant will be appointed to lead this work, in close co-operation with both PUSH staff and the PUSH Planning Officers Group, which comprises staff from all the component local planning authorities.
1 Sub National Population Projection – produced by the Office of National Statistics
3 of 5 11. It will be important to ensure that the updated strategy, once it has been taken through appropriate due process, will add value as supporting evidence in the future examination of conforming local plans within the PUSH area and will have status as a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. It should include full consideration of the findings of any required strategic environmental assessment, sustainability appraisal or appropriate assessment as part of the update work. It should also address all feedback from stakeholder and public consultations undertaken as part of the plan preparation process. 12. The successful consultant will be required to take account of the current PUSH Business Plan, as well as the LEP’s emerging Strategic Economic Plan to 2020. Relevant evidence compiled by Solent Transport and individual local authorities should also be incorporated. 13. Within the constraints of the updated evidence base that is now available, the updated spatial strategy should provide an appropriate policy document to replace the current South Hampshire Strategy. The updated document should include: • a revised statement of key priorities of PUSH, which take account of the emerging Solent Strategic Economic Plan
• an updated core policy setting out the development strategy for the enlarged PUSH area
• policy material relating to the strategic development and regeneration programmes in the two cities and other major urban areas
• a policy on the scale and location of housing development, incorporating a review of policy for the Strategic Development Areas
• an updated policy on the scale, location and type of employment and commercial development, including the role of regional and town centres and the requirements of the maritime and logistics sectors
• an updated affordable housing policy, taking account of recent developments in national policy and funding arrangements, as well as new and emerging polices within each local authority area
• an infrastructure strategy for the enlarged PUSH area, incorporating a revised transport strategy which is fully consistent with the shared Solent transport strategy. This should also incorporate the adopted PUSH Green Infrastructure Strategy alongside evidence on other infrastructure requirements (including flood risk management).
• An updated strategy for environmental sustainability, informed by new policies and programmes at national level and evidence prepared for individual local plans.
14. A phased approach to the preparation of the update is proposed. During the initial phase (April 2014 to March 2015), options for the draft strategy will be developed and evaluated and will be subject to technical appraisal. The intention is to take an options appraisal and initial draft Strategy to wider public
4 of 5 consultation to include other interested parties in 2015, once it has been approved by PUSH for this purpose. 15. During February and March 2014, more detailed work will be undertaken to prepare a specification, budget and timetable for the review. This will include work on an Invitation to Quote for a consultant to undertake the initial phase of the update work. Recommendations will be brought to the Joint Committee in March to approve the procurement of a suitable consultant, enabling technical work to commence in April 2014. The consultant will report to Gloria Ighodaro, PUSH Programme and Information Manager, and the Project Sponsor will be Paul Nichols, PUSH Planning Theme Lead.
NEXT STEPS 16. Subject to the views of Members, it is intended that the SHMA report is published as soon as possible after this Joint Committee meeting (by January 31 st ). 17. Following publication, some of the PUSH authorities will wish to make immediate use of the study to assist in the preparation or examination of their plans. 18. The PUSH SHMA is an assessment of housing need, rather than a housing allocation – as outlined in the foreword to the document. Although district level figures will be published within the SHMA, these do not represent or imply district level housing allocations. The review of the PUSH Spatial Strategy will take the SHMA as core evidence of the level of housing need across the two housing market areas of south Hampshire. This will inform the housing allocations in the new Spatial Strategy, alongside evidence on land availability, urban capacity, accessibility to jobs and services, infrastructure capacity, environmental impact and other factors and constraints. 19. The SHMA will form part of the evidence base for the review of local plans, as well for the review of the South Hampshire Strategy. 20. A more detailed specification, programme and budget for the Spatial Strategy review will be brought to the Joint Committee in March 2014.
5 of 5
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Partnership for Urban South Hampshire
Final Report
Version 1: January 2014
Prepared by
GL Hearn Limited 20 Soho Square London W1D 3QW
T +44 (0)20 7851 4900 F +44 (0)20 7851 4910 glhearn.com
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 2 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Contents
Section Page
FOREWORD TO THE PUSH STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT 11
1 SUMMARY 13
2 INTRODUCTION 19
3 HOUSING MARKET AREAS 23
4 POLICY CONTEXT 37
5 STOCK AND SUPPLY TRENDS 55
6 HOUSING MARKET DYNAMICS AND MARKET SIGNALS 67
7 ASSESSING FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS 97
8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS 109
9 REQUIREMENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMES 135
10 REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC GROUPS 149
11 CONCLUSIONS 175
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: CLG-DEFINED STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET AREAS 24
FIGURE 2: SPATIAL BOUNDARIES IN PUSH 26
FIGURE 3: EAST AND WEST EXTENT OF PUSH HMA 27
FIGURE 4: PUBLIC HOUSING SECTOR TENURE, 2011 – CORE PUSH AUTHORITIES 56
FIGURE 5: DETAILED TENURE PROFILE FOR HMAS, CENSUS 2011 57
FIGURE 6: DETAILED TENURE PROFILE AT LOCAL AUTHORITY LEVEL, CENSUS 2011 58
FIGURE 7: CHANGE IN TENURE PROFILE CORE PUSH HMA, 2001 – 2011 59
FIGURE 8: PROFILE OF DWELLING STOCK BY TYPE - PUSH HMA, 2011 60
FIGURE 9: PROFILE OF DWELLINGS STOCK BY TYPE – PUSH AUTHORITIES, 2011 61
GL Hearn Page 3 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
FIGURE 10: NUMBER OF BEDROOMS –PUSH HMA 2011 62
FIGURE 11: NUMBER OF BEDROOMS – LOCAL AUTHORITIES, 2011 63
FIGURE 12: DWELLINGS BY COUNCIL TAX BAND, 2011 – CORE AUTHORITIES 64
FIGURE 13: COMPLETIONS BY PROPERTY SIZE (PUSH AREA), 2002-12 65
FIGURE 14: PROPORTIONS OF COMPLETIONS BY BROAD PROPERTY SIZE (PUSH AREA), 65
FIGURE 15: UNDERSTANDING HOUSING DEMAND 67
FIGURE 16: UK ECONOMIC GROWTH, 2007-2013 69
FIGURE 17: TRENDS IN GROSS MORTGAGE LENDING, UK 70
FIGURE 18: INTEREST RATES 71
FIGURE 19: MORTGAGE PAYMENTS AS A % OF MONTHLY INCOME 72
FIGURE 20: MEDIAN HOUSE PRICE TRENDS, 1998 – 2007, CORE PUSH AUTHORITIES 74
FIGURE 21: MEDIAN HOUSE PRICE TRENDS, 2007-2012 (Q3), CORE PUSH AUTHORITIES 74
FIGURE 22: MEDIAN HOUSE PRICES BY TYPE – LOCAL AUTHORITIES (AUG 2012-FEB 2013) 76
FIGURE 23: SALES TRENDS – PUSH OVERALL (CORE AUTHORITIES), 1998-2011 77
FIGURE 24: SALES INDEX (INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS), 1998 – 2012 78
FIGURE 25: PERCENTAGE OF SALES BY TYPE – LA LEVEL, APRIL 2012 – MARCH 2013 79
FIGURE 26: MEDIAN MONTHLY RENTAL LEVELS – 2011 - 2013 80
FIGURE 27: LOWER QUARTILE AFFORDABILITY (PRICE/INCOME) – CORE AUTHORITIES (1997 - 2012) 81
FIGURE 28: GROWTH IN DWELLING STOCK, 2001-12 (CORE AUTHORITIES) 93
FIGURE 29: NET COMPLETIONS 2001-2013 (PUSH AREA) 94
FIGURE 30: NET COMPLETIONS 2003/04 TO 2012/13 107
FIGURE 31: OVERVIEW OF BASIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT MODEL 109
FIGURE 32: ENTRY-LEVEL PURCHASE PRICE 112
FIGURE 33: PROFILE OF PROPERTIES ADVERTISED FOR SALE 113
FIGURE 34: ENTRY-LEVEL PRIVATE RENTS 113
GL Hearn Page 4 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
FIGURE 35: PROFILE OF PROPERTIES ADVERTISED TO RENT 114
FIGURE 36: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PUSH SUB-REGION (GROSS INCLUDING BENEFITS) 118
FIGURE 37: SUMMARY OF HOUSING MARKET MODEL 136
FIGURE 38: AVERAGE BEDROOMS BY AGE, SEX AND TENURE - PUSH 137
FIGURE 39: IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED BY HOUSE SIZE, 2011 TO 2036 - PUSH 140
FIGURE 40: IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ON MARKET HOUSING REQUIREMENTS BY HOUSE SIZE, 2011 TO 2036 142
FIGURE 41: SIZE OF HOUSING NEEDED 2011 TO 2036 143
FIGURE 42: TENURE OF OLDER PERSON HOUSEHOLDS - PUSH 153
FIGURE 43: POPULATION WITH LTHPD IN EACH AGE BAND 157
FIGURE 44: POPULATION AGE PROFILE BY ETHNIC GROUP, PUSH AREA (2011) 160
FIGURE 45: TENURE BY ETHNIC GROUP IN PUSH 161
FIGURE 46: OCCUPANCY RATING BY ETHNIC GROUP IN PUSH 162
FIGURE 47: TENURE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN - PUSH 163
FIGURE 48: TENURE BY AGE OF HRP - PUSH 165
FIGURE 49: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY AGE OF HRP - PUSH 166
FIGURE 50: PART TIME AND FULL TIME STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON 167
FIGURE 51: UK AND NON UK STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON 168
FIGURE 52: PART TIME AND FULL TIME STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH 171
FIGURE 53: UK AND NON UK STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH 172
List of Tables
TABLE 1: STRATEGIC AND LOCAL HOUSING MARKET AREAS 25
TABLE 2: COMMUTING FLOWS, 2011 (WORKPLACE-BASED) 30
TABLE 3: MEDIAN HOUSE PRICES, AND CHANGE SINCE Q3 2007 32
TABLE 4: GEOGRAPHY OF THE TWO HOUSING MARKET AREAS 34
GL Hearn Page 5 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
TABLE 5: PROVISION FOR NET ADDITIONAL HOMES 2011-2026 44
TABLE 6: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN EAST HAMPSHIRE 45
TABLE 7: DWELLINGS PROPOSED ON STRATEGIC SITES IN EASTLEIGH (REVISED DRAFT EASTLEIGH BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2011 - 2029) 46
TABLE 8: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN FAREHAM BOROUGH 47
TABLE 9: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN GOSPORT 48
TABLE 10: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN HAVANT 48
TABLE 11: PROPOSED HOUSING PROVISION IN NEW FOREST LOCAL PLAN PART 1 49
TABLE 12: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN PORTSMOUTH 50
TABLE 13: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN TEST VALLEY 52
TABLE 14: DWELLINGS PROPOSED IN WINCHESTER 52
TABLE 15: OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED HOUSING WHOLE AUTHORITY) 54
TABLE 16: PUSH – NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, 2011 55
TABLE 17: BROAD TENURE PROFILE, 2011 56
TABLE 18: COMPARISON OF MEDIAN AND LOWER QUARTILE AFFORDABILITY, 2012 82
TABLE 19: OVERCROWDING, 2011 90
TABLE 20: CHANGES IN OVERCROWDING (2001-2011) – BASED ON ROOM STANDARD 91
TABLE 21: VACANT AND SECOND HOMES, 2011 92
TABLE 22: PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2011-36 – PROJ 1 2011 INTERIM SNPP/CLG 2011-BASED HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS 98
TABLE 23: PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2011-36 – PROJ 2 ADJUSTED SNPP-BASED HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS 100
TABLE 24: PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2011-36 – PROJ 2A ADJUSTED SNPP-BASED HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS WITH 2008 HEADSHIP ASSUMPTIONS 101
TABLE 25: PAST TRENDS IN NET IN-MIGRATION 102
TABLE 26: PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2011-36 – PROJ 3 (10 YR MIGRATION TREND) AND PROJ 4 (5 YR MIGRATION TREND) 103
TABLE 27: EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS USED IN MODELLING 105
TABLE 28: PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH 2011-36 – PROJ A (JOBS BASELINE) AND PROJ B (RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT) 106
GL Hearn Page 6 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
TABLE 29: MAXIMUM LHA PAYMENTS BY SIZE AND BROAD HOUSING MARKET AREA 115
TABLE 30: MONTHLY AVERAGE SOCIAL RENT LEVELS 115
TABLE 31: COST OF AFFORDABLE RENTED HOUSING BY SIZE AND HMA (PER MONTH) 116
TABLE 32: INDICATIVE INCOME REQUIRED TO PURCHASE/RENT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY 117
TABLE 33: INCOME LEVELS BY HMA 118
TABLE 34: ESTIMATED PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLD UNABLE TO AFFORD MARKET HOUSING WITHOUT SUBSIDY 119
TABLE 35: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN UNSUITABLE HOUSING 120
TABLE 36: ESTIMATED BACKLOG NEED BY SUB-AREA 121
TABLE 37: ESTIMATED LEVEL OF HOUSING NEED FROM NEWLY FORMING HOUSEHOLDS (2013-2036) 122
TABLE 38: ESTIMATED LEVEL OF HOUSING NEED FROM EXISTING HOUSEHOLDS (2013-36) 123
TABLE 39: ESTIMATED FUTURE HOUSING NEED (2013-36) 123
TABLE 40: ANALYSIS OF PAST SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING SUPPLY (PAST 5 YEARS) 124
TABLE 41: SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE EXISTING STOCK BY HMA 125
TABLE 42: ESTIMATED LEVEL OF HOUSING NEED (2013-36) EXCLUDING PIPELINE 125
TABLE 43: NUMBER OF PEOPLE CLAIMING LHA IN PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR (FEBRUARY 2011 AND FEBRUARY 2013) 127
TABLE 44: PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR LHA CLAIMANTS BY HMA 128
TABLE 45: CATEGORIES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING USED FOR ANALYSIS 131
TABLE 46: % NET NEED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (2013-18) 131
TABLE 47: ESTIMATED PROFILE OF DWELLINGS IN 2011 BY SIZE 138
TABLE 48: ESTIMATED SIZE OF DWELLINGS NEEDED 2011 TO 2036 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING 139
TABLE 49: ESTIMATED SIZE OF DWELLINGS REQUIRED 2011 TO 2036 – MARKET HOUSING 141
TABLE 50: ESTIMATED DWELLING REQUIREMENT BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (2011 TO 2036) 143
GL Hearn Page 7 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
TABLE 51: ESTIMATED DWELLING REQUIREMENT BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (2011 TO 2036) – MARKET SECTOR 146
TABLE 52: ESTIMATED DWELLING REQUIREMENT BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (2011 TO 2036) – AFFORDABLE SECTOR 146
TABLE 53: SUMMARY OF STRATEGIC CONCLUSIONS ON HOUSING MIX – SOUTHAMPTON AND PORTSMOUTH HMAS 147
TABLE 54: OLDER PERSON POPULATION (2011) 150
TABLE 55: PROJECTED CHANGE IN POPULATION OF OLDER PERSONS (2011 TO 2021) 151
TABLE 56: PENSIONER HOUSEHOLDS (CENSUS 2011) 152
TABLE 57: ESTIMATED POPULATION CHANGE FOR RANGE OF HEALTH ISSUES (2011 TO 2031) 154
TABLE 58: ESTIMATED NEED FOR SPECIALIST HOUSING 155
TABLE 59: HOUSEHOLDS AND PEOPLE WITH LONG-TERM HEALTH PROBLEM OR DISABILITY (2011) 156
TABLE 60: BLACK AND MINORITY ETHNIC POPULATION (2011) 158
TABLE 61: CHANGE IN BME GROUPS 2001 TO 2011 (PUSH) 159
TABLE 62: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY ETHNIC GROUP (2011) AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE 160
TABLE 63: HOUSEHOLDS WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (2011) 163
TABLE 64: HOUSEHOLDS WITH NON-DEPENDENT CHILDREN (2011) 164
TABLE 65: STUDENT ACCOMMODATION - UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON 168
TABLE 66: STUDENT ACCOMMODATION – UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH 170
GL Hearn Page 8 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Quality Standards Control
The signatories below verify that this document has been prepared in accordance with our quality control requirements. These procedures do not affect the content and views expressed by the originator.
This document must only be treated as a draft unless it is has been signed by the Originators and approved by a Business or Associate Director.
DATE ORIGINATORS APPROVED January 2014 Emma Powell, Assistant Planner Nick Ireland Justin Gardner, Director, JGC Planning Director
Limitations This document has been prepared for the stated objective and should not be used for any other purpose without the prior written authority of GL Hearn; we accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than for which it was commissioned.
GL Hearn Page 9 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 10 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
FOREWORD TO THE PUSH STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
National planning policies have been changing over the last few years and in March 2013 the Government revoked the South East Plan. The National Planning Policy Framework, published in March 2012, requires local planning authorities to collaborate with one another in planning to meet future development needs. The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) has a long history and strong track record of joint working and this study will assist all eleven of the Hampshire local authorities to facilitate joint decision making in taking forward strategic planning in a sustainable manner.
To support on-going work on local plans, the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) commissioned the preparation of this new Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). It will also provide an input to the review of the South Hampshire Strategy that will provide an agreed framework for development to 2036.
The review of the Spatial Strategy will also take into account the Solent LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan, which will be completed in March 2014. In preparing this Plan, the LEP have commissioned modelling of their preferred scenario for economic growth in the Solent area. When completed, the intention is that this will inform an assessment of the implications for housing need across the Solent of the LEP’s preferred rate of economic growth. When this modelling work is complete, it is intended to publish an Annex to this document which will update relevant findings to take into account the LEP’s preferred economic growth scenario. The Partnership intends to update elements of the assessment as appropriate to take into account new evidence.
The PUSH SHMA provides projections of housing need to 2036 in two housing market areas, focused on Portsmouth and Southampton respectively. It responds to Government policy that local planning authorities should work together to undertake such assessments of their housing needs, and should plan to meet them in full across each housing market area where this is consistent with achieving sustainable development.
Government has set the bar high. Every local planning authority is required to demonstrate how it will meet an appropriate share of the need identified and to plan positively for the delivery of sufficient new homes to support future prosperity in its area.
The SHMA is, however, not policy in itself and does not set targets for how much or what types of homes each of the eleven partner authorities should plan for. The SHMA is just part of the evidence base that will help the PUSH local planning authorities in their review of the spatial strategy for the area to 2036. The SHMA acts as a building block for further work which will necessarily take into account housing demand and deliverability, land availability and supply considerations as well as the feasibility of delivering infrastructure to support housing development. The review of the PUSH Spatial Strategy will take account of the capacity
GL Hearn Page 11 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
of different areas to accommodate development and the most sustainable locations for new homes in each of the two housing market areas. There is much work to do yet to consider these issues further.
The partner authorities will now seek to bring together the evidence in the SHMA with a range of other factors to consider what level of development should be planned for across the PUSH area and in its different parts. This will involve detailed joint work to assess the availability of land that can sustainably accommodate development, environmental constraints and impacts, economic development and employment analysis, along with infrastructure capacity and consideration of what new infrastructure might be needed. Public consultation will also be undertaken to consider the level of development that can be accommodated in different areas. Inevitably, the local planning authorities are at different stages of this process in looking at these issues in preparing new plans for development in their areas. This work will be brought together through the review of the South Hampshire Strategy to determine the joint strategy for future development – for homes, jobs and infrastructure – to 2036.
GL Hearn Page 12 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
1 SUMMARY
1.1 This Strategic Housing Market Assessment has defined the extent of the relevant housing market areas (HMAs) covering the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) area; and then considered the objectively-assessed need for housing within them. The report has considered the overall need for housing, the need for different types of homes, and the housing needs of different groups within the community in line with the requirements of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Housing Market Areas
1.2 The SHMA defines two housing market areas (HMAs) which cover the majority of the PUSH Sub- Region, with the Isle of Wight functioning as its own separate housing market area. The report defines a Southampton-focused (PUSH West) Housing Market Area; and a Portsmouth-focused (PUSH East) Housing Market Area.
1.3 There is a degree of overlap between these two Housing Market Areas, particularly within Fareham Borough and the southern parts of Winchester City Council’s area; but also some interactions with surrounding areas around the boundaries of the PUSH area. This includes with Lymington in the west; Chichester and Bognor Regis to the east and towards Winchester and Petersfield to the north. The implications of this are that major housing growth (or shortfall in housing provision) in these areas will impact on the housing market within the PUSH area (and vice-versa).
1.4 However the analysis undertaken in this SHMA concludes that the PUSH area remains a sensible basis for strategic planning for housing provision based on the information currently available. This is also recognised by Government through its designation of the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area.
Housing Needs
1.5 The NPPF sets out that plans should be prepared on the basis of meeting full needs for market and affordable housing. It sets out that SHMAs should consider housing needs, taking account of relevant market signals and economic evidence.
1.6 The Government issued draft Planning Practice Guidance on Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs in August 2013. The SHMA has taken this into account in considering objectively-assessed needs for housing.
1.7 The SHMA does not set policy targets for housing provision. It provides an evidence base regarding the need for housing which provides an input into the plan-making process.
GL Hearn Page 13 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
1.8 Government’s draft Planning Practice Guidance sets out that the starting point for considering housing needs is the demographic projections. It then identifies a number of tests which need to be considered:
Is there evidence that household formation has been constrained? Do market signals suggest a need to increase housing supply to improve affordability? Will the projected housing need be capable of meeting affordable housing needs? Should higher housing numbers be considered to increase delivery of affordable housing? Will the housing numbers support expected growth in jobs, or is there a need to consider increasing housing supply to support economic growth?
1.9 These three tests effectively provide a basis for considering whether it would be appropriate to make an upward adjustment to housing need derived from trend-based demographic projections.
1.10 The SHMA has considered these issues for the PUSH area and for the two housing market areas within it in order to derive conclusions regarding the need for housing.
1.11 The latest (2011-based) Government household projections identify a need for around 3,600 homes per year across the PUSH area. However more recent evidence taking into account the 2011 Census indicates that net in-migration to the area has been stronger than previously estimated. This increases the projected need to around 3,800 homes per year.
1.12 There is however evidence that because of the housing market conditions over the last few years these projections build in a degree of constrained household formation. Taking this into account, the SHMA identifies that 4,160 homes per year would be needed to meet past demographic trends in full.
1.13 The SHMA concludes that provision of 4,160 homes per annum across the PUSH area would represent a robust basis for forward planning based on the demographic evidence and market signals. This is split between the two housing market areas with an assessed need for:
2,115 homes per annum across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) Housing Market Area to 2036; and 2,045 homes per annum in the Southampton (PUSH West) Housing Market Area.
1.14 It should be recognised that this is an objective, policy-off analysis and takes no account of land supply or development constraints within the PUSH area; or ‘Policy-On’ aspirations for economic growth. The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that SHMAs should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need such as issues related to land supply, infrastructure or environmental constraints.
1.15 The authorities in working together to review the South Hampshire Strategy and developing their respective local plans will need to consider what scale of development can be sustainably accommodated, the interaction between the strategy for housing provision and economic growth
GL Hearn Page 14 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
and potential levels of affordable housing delivery. Economic forecasts have been commissioned by the LEP to support this. In considering how affordable housing needs can be met, it will be important to take account of available funding, what level can viably be delivered through mixed tenure schemes and the degree to which needs can be met in part through private rented sector lettings. The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that these may provide a basis for adjusting upwards the assessment of housing need.
1.16 How housing provision is ultimately distributed and met across the two housing market areas and the PUSH area as a whole should reasonably be decided at the local level and through dialogue between the authorities within the PUSH Partnership, taking account of constraints and land availability, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and other policy aspirations (such as regeneration). The SHMA analysis is thus intended to provide a ‘starting point’ and input to this which is to be taken forward through the development and review of the South Hampshire Strategy and authorities’ development plans.
Housing Mix
1.17 The various constituent parts of the two PUSH HMAs play a somewhat complementary relationship to one another in respect of housing mix. In the two cores of Portsmouth and Southampton (and to a lesser extent Gosport), the housing offer is focussed towards smaller properties, serving professional, small family and student markets. The more suburban and rural areas provide the “family” offer within the PUSH area, in particular parts of East Hampshire, Test Valley and Winchester, all of which have high representations of properties with three or more bedrooms.
1.18 The SHMA indicates that 28% of affordable housing need in the Portsmouth HMA and 29% in the Southampton HMA could be met through provision of intermediate housing, with 72% of the need for social or affordable rented homes in the Portsmouth HMA and 71% in the Southampton HMA. Within the rented element, the assessment favours social rented provision; however, this will clearly need to be balanced against development viability and the realities of funding for affordable housing.
1.19 The analysis points to a higher potential need for intermediate housing in those parts of Winchester and Test Valley in the PUSH area, as well as Fareham Borough and Southampton. However in the short-term it should be recognised that need for shared ownership and equity housing is likely to be influenced by access to mortgage finance.
1.20 In terms of mix, the SHMA indicates that across both the Portsmouth and Southampton HMAs over two thirds of the net affordable housing need is for homes with one or two bedrooms:
1-bedroom properties: 35-40% 2-bedroom properties: 30-35%
GL Hearn Page 15 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3-bedroom properties: 20-25% 4-bedroom properties: 5-10%
1.21 This analysis is based on a longer-term view of requirements for affordable housing: it does not reflect any specific priorities such as family households in need or the impacts in the short-term of benefit reforms.
1.22 In the market sector, the SHMA indicates that the demand profile can be expected to be focussed on two and three bedroom properties. It considers that the following size mix for market housing could be appropriate in both the Portsmouth and Southampton HMAs as a whole:
1-bedroom properties: 5-10% 2-bedroom properties: 30-35% 3-bedroom properties: 40-45% 4-bedroom properties: 15-20%
1.23 The projections for housing mix are driven by long-term demographic factors, namely ageing population. Over the last decade the analysis points towards a modest shift in the housing mix towards smaller properties, but also a growth in private renting in particular. In Portsmouth and Southampton owner-occupation has fallen; and there is potentially some case for seeking to diversify the housing mix to offer a greater supply of family homes subject to the availability of suitable sites.
1.24 Whilst the above assessment of need for different sizes of properties is considered to provide a sound basis for planning across the PUSH area, decisions on local mix policy should be made by individual authorities in conjunction with PUSH neighbours. These should take into account:
Balance in the existing housing mix, including recognition of the role and function which different parts of the PUSH area play as part of the sub-regional housing market; The findings of the affordable housing needs analysis, local evidence regarding pressures within the affordable needs sector and the impact of benefit reforms; The needs of specific groups within the population, as considered within this report, and any other local research; The nature of the land supply available in different areas and its suitability to deliver different types of homes; and Local policy objectives, including aspirations to focus on meeting the needs of particular groups within the population or to support economic growth.
Meeting the Needs of Particular Groups
1.25 The SHMA indicates that a particular driver of housing need over the period to 2036 will be a growing population of older persons. The number of people aged 65 and above expected to increase by 63,000 (21%) from 2011 to 2021 along with further strong increases post-2021.
GL Hearn Page 16 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Demographic change is likely to see a requirement for additional levels of care/support along with provision of some specialist accommodation in both the market and affordable sectors.
1.26 Many older persons will however seek to remain living in mainstream housing. Some may require support to do so, including adaptions to properties to meet their changing needs. We can also expect some older households to consider downsizing, particularly in the market sector to release equity within their homes and potentially reduce the costs associated with maintaining a home. Planning for and accommodating this will be important, such as through provision of smaller homes (albeit often with more than 1 bedroom) in accessible locations to meet localised needs.
1.27 Linked partly to the growing older population, the SHMA estimates that we can expect to see an increase in the number of people with disabilities. Demographic projections suggest a 45% increase in the population aged over 85 from 2011 to 2021 with Census data suggesting that 81% of this age group have some level of disability. Housing support services, including provision of adaptations to properties, will need to be adequately resourced to take account of this.
1.28 The SHMA has also considered the needs of Black and Minority Ethnic Groups. The BME population of the PUSH Area is relatively small but has grown significantly over the past decade. Characteristics of BME groups (including tenure profiles and occupancy patterns) suggest that such households may be disadvantaged in the housing market. Accommodation quality (particularly in the Private Rented Sector) is a relevant issue for these groups.
1.29 Analysis of the needs of family households suggests that lone parents are particularly disadvantaged with a high reliance on rented housing. Projections suggest an increase in the number of children in the area over the next few years and if past trends are repeated this will also see a notable increase in the number of lone parents. Advice about housing options and maintaining a good quality of accommodation will be critical to ensure that such households’ needs are best met and that children are provided with a full range of opportunities (e.g. education) as they grow up.
1.30 The SHMA provides evidence that young persons under 35 within the PUSH Area have some difficulty in accessing home ownership; with a reliance on rented accommodation and high levels of unemployment. Given that the housing options for young people may be more limited than for other groups it will be important to monitor the accommodation quality. Increasing housing supply may also help to improve affordability and access to home ownership over the longer-term.
1.31 Finally, both Portsmouth and Southampton contain notable student populations. Both the City Councils have implemented Article 4 Directions seeking to manage the impact of student lettings on the sustainability of local neighbourhoods. In managing growth in student populations moving
GL Hearn Page 17 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
forward, it will be important that growth in student numbers and delivery of new student bedspaces are monitored, as any imbalance between these will influence the impact on the wider housing market.
GL Hearn Page 18 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
2 INTRODUCTION
Context
2.1 GL Hearn (GLH) and Justin Gardner Consulting (JGC) have been commissioned by the local authorities in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) sub-region to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The purpose of the SHMA is to develop a robust understanding of housing market dynamics, to provide an assessment of future needs for both market and affordable housing and the housing requirements of different groups within the population.
2.2 The SHMA responds to and is compliant with the requirements of both the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) and the CLG’s SHMA Practice Guidance (the Guidance) published in August 2007. It has also taken into account the draft Planning Practice Guidance on Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs which was published by Government in August 2013.
2.3 It provides a ‘policy-off’ assessment of future housing requirements, with the intention that this will inform future development of planning policies across the sub-region and within its constituent local authority areas. It is intended that the SHMA will in due course inform a review of the PUSH South Hampshire Strategy.
2.4 This SHMA focuses on providing an assessment of need for housing. It does not set policy targets. In considering overall housing requirements, the SHMA findings will needs to be brought together with a range of other considerations in informing policy decisions regarding future housing supply. The SHMA provides specific evidence and analysis of need and demand for different sizes of homes, to inform policies on the mix of homes (both market and affordable). It does not consider land availability, development constraints or the sustainability of accommodating different levels of housing provision. These are all however relevant considerations in the development of local plans and form part of the wider plan-making process.
Geographies
2.5 The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) is a voluntary partnership of ten local authorities. It covers the entire local authority areas of the following:
Portsmouth City Council Southampton City Council, Havant Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Fareham Borough Council Eastleigh Borough Council
GL Hearn Page 19 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
2.6 It also includes parts of the local authority areas of:
East Hampshire District Council Test Valley Borough Council Winchester City Council New Forest District Council
2.7 In addition, Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight Council are members of the Partnership.
2.8 When work began on the PUSH SHMA, New Forest District Council was not formally part of PUSH. However, the Council has since rejoined PUSH and the ‘Waterside’ (eastern) part of the district is within the PUSH area. The Isle of Wight has recently become a member of PUSH although evidence confirms that the Isle of Wight forms a separate housing market area to South Hampshire. The Island will be producing its own SHMA and is not considered in detail in this report.
Overview of SHMA Process
2.9 The SHMA has been prepared by a consultant’s team comprising GL Hearn and Justin Gardner Consulting. It has been overseen by a Project Steering Group of PUSH authority officers.
2.10 A programme of stakeholder engagement has informed the development of the SHMA. This included a workshop with housebuilders, registered providers and other key stakeholders on 5th June 2013. In addition to this, a programme of consultation and engagement with estate and letting agents, and local authority officers from across the PUSH area has informed the SHMA.
Report Structure
2.11 The remainder of the report is structured in the following way:
Chapter 3: Defining the Housing Market Area; Chapter 4: Policy Context; Chapter 5: Housing Stock and Supply Trends; Chapter 6: Housing Market Dynamics and Market Signals; Chapter 7: Assessing Future Housing Requirements; Chapter 8: Assessing Affordable Housing Needs; Chapter 9: Requirements for Different Types of Homes; Chapter 10: Requirements of Specific Groups; and Chapter 11: Conclusions.
2.12 This main report document is accompanied by a number of appendices (which are included within a separate document). These include:
the ward-based definition of the PUSH Housing Market Areas;
GL Hearn Page 20 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
the detailed demographic projections methodology and outputs at a local authority level; analysis of housing costs, particularly entry-level costs for different tenures of housing; and detailed local-level outputs on affordable housing need.
2.13 This main report focuses on providing outputs for the two defined housing market areas based on Portsmouth and Southampton. The definition of the housing market areas is considered further in the next section.
GL Hearn Page 21 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 22 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3 HOUSING MARKET AREAS
3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes clear that in planning for housing provision, local authorities should work together at a ‘housing market area’ level. The starting point in planning for housing is that objectively assessed needs for the housing market area should be met within it. The first question is therefore, what are the appropriate housing market areas which cover the PUSH area?
Approach to Defining Housing Market Areas
3.2 Over the last decade, a considerable body of technical work and analysis has been undertaken to define HMAs across the country. A range of different technical approaches have been used, which to some extent have reflected the different spatial characteristics of housing markets in different areas; but more probably reflect the weight which is attached to different factors such as migration and travel to work patterns, and variations in house prices.
3.3 The Government produced guidance in March 2007 on defining sub-regional housing markets which clarifies that sub-regional housing market areas are geographical areas defined by household demand and preferences for housing. It identifies three primary sources of information which can be used to define these:
House prices and rates of change in house prices, which reflect household demand and preferences for different sizes and types of housing in different locations; Household migration and search patterns, reflecting preferences and the trade-offs made when choosing housing with different characteristics; and Contextual data, such as travel to work areas, which reflects the functional relationships between places where people work and live.
3.4 The draft Planning Practice Guidance reaffirms the use of these information sources. The Government Guidance made it clear that these sources of information can reflect different aspects of household behaviour and that there is therefore no ‘right or wrong’ set to use in identifying housing markets; the focus is on considering what is appropriate in a local context.
National Research on Defining Housing Market Areas
3.5 CLG published research in 2010 which sought to consider the geographies of housing markets across England. This academic-driven project considered commuting and migration dynamics, and house prices (standardised for differences in housing mix and neighbourhood characteristics).
GL Hearn Page 23 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.6 This was brought together to define a three tiered structure of housing markets, as follows:
Strategic (Framework) Housing Markets – based on 77.5% commuting self-containment; Local Housing Market Areas – based on 50% migration self-containment; and Sub-Markets – which would be defined based on neighbourhood factors and house types.
3.7 The strategic and local housing markets defined in and around the PUSH HMA by the CLG Research have been mapped in Figure 1 below. It should be noted that these are based on 2001 Census analysis (which is now somewhat dated) however 2011 Census origin/ destination statistics are unlikely to be available until 2014 to allow this local-level analysis to be updated.
Figure 1: CLG-defined Strategic Housing Market Areas
GL Hearn Page 24 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.8 The CLG research defines two strategic housing market areas, one focused on Southampton and one on Portsmouth. The Portsmouth Strategic Housing Market Area extends to include Chichester and Bognor Regis in West Sussex; whilst the Southampton Strategic Housing Market Area extends beyond the PUSH area to the west to include Lymington, Brockenhurst and Lyndhurst as defined by the CLG research.
3.9 Broadly, the Portsmouth Strategic Housing Market Area identified by CLG covered the eastern part of the PUSH sub-region (Portsmouth, Havant, Gosport and parts of East Hampshire) and Southampton Strategic Housing Market Area covers the western part of the sub-region (Southampton, Eastleigh and parts Test Valley and New Forest). Wards in Fareham and Winchester are found in both the Southampton and Portsmouth Strategic Housing Market Area.
3.10 Within these two strategic housing market areas, the CLG research defines a number of more local housing market areas. These are set out below. The local housing market areas in the Portsmouth and Southampton Strategic HMAs in the CLG research include Chichester & Bognor Regis and Lymington & Totton areas.
Table 1: Strategic and Local Housing Market Areas Strategic Housing Market Areas Local Housing Market Areas Portsmouth Portsmouth Fareham & Gosport Chichester& Bognor Regis Southampton Southampton (West Centre) Southampton (East) Winchester & Eastleigh Lymington & Totton
Source: CLG
3.11 This research is based on national-level data analysis which whilst providing a useful basis for starting to look at housing market areas is undertaken at a high level and based on somewhat historic (principally 2000-1) based data. It is therefore appropriate to test and consider further the definition of housing market areas based on other research and more recent evidence.
Regional Research on Housing Market Areas
3.12 A regional study was undertaken by DTZ for the South East Regional Assembly and the Homes and Communities Agency in 2004 to define housing market areas across the South East. This concluded that a South Hampshire Sub-Regional Housing Market exists that embraces all of the South Hampshire urban areas and their rural hinterland.
GL Hearn Page 25 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.13 The definition of the housing market area was considered further within the South Hampshire Housing Market Assessment (2005). This concluded that:
A clear cluster of household movement is evident in South Hampshire centred on the Portsmouth urban area (Gosport, Havant, Fareham and Portsmouth) and the Southampton- Eastleigh-Winchester area; A clear spatial distinction begins to emerge within South Hampshire between a housing market centred on, and adjacent to, Portsmouth and a housing market based upon the urban nucleus of Southampton; The South Hampshire sub-region exhibits a high degree of self-containment in travel to work terms, with a demonstrable cluster of movement spanning into the New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester District and Havant, and which has Southampton and Portsmouth as its nuclei; Overall travel to work movements reveal a similar configuration to household movement patterns and suggest that smaller housing markets within the sub-region can be defined with: An eastern pole (Portsmouth HMA) comprising Portsmouth, Fareham, Havant, East Hampshire, and Gosport; A western pole (Southampton HMA) comprising Southampton, Eastleigh, the New Forest, Winchester and Test Valley.
3.14 The Portsmouth and Southampton Housing Market Areas in the DTZ research are less extensive than those in the CLG research. The spatial boundaries of the two housing market areas identified in the DTZ research are shown in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2: Spatial boundaries in PUSH
Source: DTZ
GL Hearn Page 26 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.15 The DTZ research placed most Winchester wards in the eastern part of the SHMA and all Fareham wards in the eastern part of the SHMA. However more up to date data analysis of migration flows, commuting dynamics and house types and socio-economic characteristics has been undertaken as part of this SHMA to test this further. This updated data analysis on migration flows and commuting dynamics is outlined later in this section.
3.16 In the 2005 SHMA, DTZ identified an eastern and western distinction in the PUSH area, which we have replicated in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: East and West Extent of PUSH HMA
Source: DTZ, 2005
Migration Flows
3.17 Migration flows reflect households’ movements between areas, and thus are a key factor in considering the geography of housing markets. GL Hearn has analysed migration flows between local authority areas based on information recorded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). We have considered both gross and net flows.
GL Hearn Page 27 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.18 In terms of gross migration flows1, the most significant inter-relationships (i.e. main flows of over 1000 persons per annum) between authorities are:
Southampton and Eastleigh (combined flow of 3390 persons per annum) Southampton and New Forest (1720 ppa) Southampton and Test Valley (1110 ppa) Eastleigh and Winchester (1250 ppa) Portsmouth and Havant (3130 persons per annum) Portsmouth and Fareham (1380 ppa) Fareham and Gosport (1600 ppa) Havant and East Hampshire (1100 ppa)
3.19 Flows to the Isle of Wight are much smaller, with a gross flow of 270 persons per year with Portsmouth and 340 persons a year with Southampton.
3.20 The migration analysis indicates a fairly modest flow (580 persons per annum gross) between Southampton and Portsmouth. It suggests that (based on district-level analysis) Fareham is more closely related to Gosport and Portsmouth than Southampton; and that Winchester is most closely related to Eastleigh. It suggests that different parts of East Hampshire relate to different adjoining authorities, including to Havant and Waverley (as well as Winchester and Chichester).
3.21 There is little level of migration between South Hampshire authorities and Arun, with the strongest registered flows being only 230 persons per annum (gross) between Arun and Portsmouth. Flows between Chichester and South Hampshire authorities are more apparent, particularly with Havant (720 persons per annum) and East Hampshire (620 persons per annum); indicating some overlap between markets in this area. However, the relationship between Chichester and Arun is particularly strong (1,750 flows per annum) suggesting that Chichester District is more closely related to other parts of West Sussex than South Hampshire.
3.22 Consistent up-to-date data on migration self-containment is not published. The ONS internal migration statistics do not include details of flows within local authority boundaries and it is thus not possible to provide specific figures for self-containment. What the analysis can however be used to illustrate is that of those flows within the South East Region (i.e. excluding long-distance flows) which cross authority boundaries, 67% of those which originate within in one of the PUSH Partnership authorities and to another location within one of the authorities; with 63% of those originating from elsewhere in the South East to a PUSH authority coming from another PUSH authority. It is highly likely that if more local flows are considered self-containment across the PUSH area would exceed 70%.
1 ONS Internal Migration Statistics, annual average 2006-11
GL Hearn Page 28 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.23 We have also analysed net migration flows using data on internal migration between authorities over the 2006-11 period. The most significant net migration flows are from the cities to surrounding authorities, specifically:
From Southampton to Eastleigh (710 persons per annum), Test Valley (250 ppa), New Forest (200 ppa) and Fareham (130 ppa); From Portsmouth to Fareham (280 ppa) and Havant (170 ppa).
3.24 While we see significant cross-border movements between other areas the net flows are generally less than 100 persons per annum. This includes flows from the PUSH authorities to the Isle of Wight.
3.25 The overall pattern of migration is one of student, international and economic migration into the two cities (Portsmouth and Southampton), and movement from the cities to adjoining areas. This pattern is similar to those associated with other cities across the UK.
Commuting Dynamics
3.26 ONS has defined travel to work areas across the UK based on areas in which generally “at least 75% of an area's resident workforce work in the area and at least 75% of the people who work in the area also live in the area.” The area must also have a working population of at least 3,500. The latest travel to work areas are defined based on commuting data from the 2001 Census.
3.27 The Southampton Travel to Work Area (TTWA) extends from the New Forest in the west to Romsey and Winchester and to Eastleigh. The Portsmouth TTWA includes Fareham and Gosport and extends north to Petersfield, Liphook and Alton. Chichester and Bognor Regis form part of a separate TTWA.
3.28 These defined geographies are however based on somewhat dated analysis. We have therefore sought to assess more recent information from the 2011 Annual Population Survey on commuting dynamics. This is survey based data which is subject to an error margin, but provides an overall indication of trends.
3.29 The analysis looks at what proportion of the workforce in the PUSH authorities is drawn from other PUSH authorities. We see that over 90% of the workforce is drawn from the PUSH authorities in Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth and Southampton. These are all fully within the PUSH area.
3.30 In the other authorities which fall partly within the PUSH area, over three quarters of the workforce is either resident within the local authorities, or one of the PUSH authorities and the main commuting flow is from the PUSH authorities, with the strongest commuting flow into East
GL Hearn Page 29 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Hampshire from Havant; to New Forest from Southampton; to Test Valley from Eastleigh then Southampton; and to Winchester from Test Valley and Southampton.
3.31 The analysis points to those authorities falling partly within the PUSH area continuing to function as part of a South Hampshire-focused labour market.
Table 2: Commuting Flows, 2011 (Workplace-based)
East Hampshire
Containment in Containment
Southampton
Portsmouth
New Forest New Winchester
Authorities
Test Valley Test
Eastleigh
Fareham
Gosport
Havant
% PUSH Workforce resident in
…
Workplace East 59.46 0.92 10.79 2.67 0.35 2.21 76.4 Hampshire Eastleigh 50.62 1.76 2.99 1.27 4.91 4.11 20.46 7.13 5.35 98.6 Fareham 0.52 1.63 51.44 14.26 3.75 0.69 8.51 7.82 1.58 6.70 96.9 Gosport 13.69 72.33 2.08 2.34 0.68 3.81 94.9 Havant 8.20 1.36 2.16 60.91 0.86 15.38 0.88 1.00 90.8 New Forest 1.45 1.88 72.56 7.12 1.38 1.75 86.1 Portsmouth 1.65 0.57 7.41 4.78 8.51 63.90 1.38 0.34 3.91 92.5 Southampton 12.51 3.85 0.27 0.88 9.42 1.66 56.67 4.11 1.05 90.4 Test Valley 15.33 2.74 0.85 5.37 11.96 40.25 2.06 78.6 Winchester 3.68 6.7 4.35 1.22 2.61 6.77 11.59 48.33 85.3 Source: Annual Population Survey. NB: Data for whole districts has been used.
3.32 The Isle of Wight using this source has a very high level of self-containment (94%), with a modest 1.3% of residents in work commuting to Southampton and 0.9% to Portsmouth. This does suggest that it functions as a separate housing market area.
3.33 As with the migration analysis, the commuting data suggests an interaction between Fareham and both Southampton and Portsmouth, with significant commuting in both directions between Gosport and Fareham. It suggests the strongest commuting to Portsmouth is from Fareham and Havant. The strongest commuting to Southampton is from Eastleigh, followed by Test Valley.
3.34 We have also considered commuting relationships with Arun and Chichester. Arun has high levels of self-containment (81% of workers live in the district) and draws the next highest proportion of its labour from Chichester (8%). There are only very limited commuting flows between Arun and South Hampshire districts with only 0.8% and 0.6% of workers in Arun commuting from Fareham and Portsmouth respectively.
GL Hearn Page 30 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.35 Whilst interactions between Chichester and South Hampshire districts; particularly Portsmouth (4.3% of workforce) and Havant (3.5% of workforce), are stronger than those identified for Arun; Chichester also draws more than 17% of its workforce from Arun. This suggests its labour market faces more strongly towards Coastal West Sussex than it does towards South Hampshire.
House Prices
3.36 The geography of house prices is of higher housing costs in rural areas and particularly within the national parks (South Downs and New Forest), with lower housing costs within the urban area.
3.37 In relative terms, house prices for an average property are lowest in Portsmouth and Gosport (both in the eastern sub region). They are highest in attractive smaller settlements with a high quality of place but accessible from the A27/M27.
3.38 We can identify the following broad price zones2:
Prices under £170,000: Gosport; Prices £170,000 - £200,000: includes Portsmouth, Cosham, Havant and Cowplain; Prices £200,000 - £225,000: includes Southampton as well as surrounding areas such as Totton and Park Gate; as well as the Portchester and Southwick area; Prices around £230,000: includes accessible settlements along the M27 including Hedge End, Fareham and Waterlooville; Prices around £245,000: includes Eastleigh, Hythe and Hayling Island; Prices between £250,000 - £300,000: includes Chandler’s Ford and smaller settlements to the north of the M27; Prices over £300,000: includes Emsworth, Romsey and a number of higher value settlements to the north of the M27.
3.39 We have also sought to analyse house price changes. Table 3 analyses house price changes since the peak of the market in Q3 2007. The analysis suggests that over this period we have seen growth in house prices in Gosport, Fareham, Winchester and Test Valley; but that house prices remain below levels at the peak of the market in other areas (and particularly in Havant).
2 Based on data from Zoopla Zed-Index,2013
GL Hearn Page 31 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 3: Median House Prices, and Change since Q3 2007 House Price in Q3 2012 % Change from 2007 Q3 Southampton £163,500 -2.6% Eastleigh £210,000 -0.9% Fareham £216,000 2.9% Gosport £155,500 3.7% Portsmouth £152,000 -2.3% Havant £186,750 -5.7% New Forest (Whole) £250,000 0.4% Winchester (Whole) £308,000 2.7% Test Valley (Whole) £245,000 3.2% East Hampshire (Whole) £263,500 -2.8% England £190,001 3.3% Source: GLH Analysis of HM Land Registry Data
Housing Mix
3.40 We have also analysed differences in the housing mix. The overall pattern is one of a greater concentration of smaller and mid-market housing in the urban areas; and larger homes particularly within suburban areas and a rural hinterland within commuting distance of the larger urban centres.
3.41 Data regarding the predominant house type is mapped in Appendix E. Analysis of the most frequent house type on a ward basis in 2011 indicates that the balance of housing of different types differs across the sub-region, with a concentration of terraced and flatted properties in Portsmouth and Gosport. Southampton sees a high concentration of flatted properties, but has some suburban areas with higher levels of detached and semi-detached properties. In Eastleigh and Havant the housing mix is broader with areas where terraced, semi-detached and detached homes predominate. In more rural areas, the housing mix is focused more towards detached housing.
3.42 We see a similar broad pattern when assessing the proportion of homes in Council Tax Bands A and B (see Figure 13 and Appendix F). Portsmouth and Southampton in particular have a housing offer focused towards smaller and cheaper properties; whilst larger or higher value stock is more prevalent in Eastleigh and Fareham Boroughs. In East Hampshire, Winchester and Test Valley there are few wards with over 25% of properties in Bands A and B.
Socio-Economic Characteristics
3.43 Experian’s Mosaic Classification is useful in that it draws together a range of socio-economic characteristics to identify areas with common attributes. It is based on a range of data sources which collate information regarding:
Locational characteristics Property Characteristics (Value, Housing Mix etc) Socio-Economic Characteristics;
GL Hearn Page 32 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Demographics; and Household incomes/ finances.
3.44 These are brought together to define 15 groups. We have mapped households in these classes across the PUSH area (see Appendix G, H and I). There is a clear difference between socio- economic characteristics in the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton and those in surrounding areas.
3.45 There is a concentration of higher-value housing in Chandler’s Ford, Botley and Hedge End and in Park Gate. In contrast the housing/socio-economic profile is more mixed in Fareham/Porchester. Havant contains concentrations of local authority housing which influence the socio-economic profile.
3.46 Looking at differences in age structure, we firstly see a rural/ urban dimension (with a higher concentration of younger people in central Southampton, Portsmouth and Gosport (as well as further afield in parts of Winchester). The coastal parts of New Forest have a higher younger population than the inland areas. Concentrations of people aged over 60 at a ward level are highest in Hayling Island, around Stubbington, Portchester and in the New Forest. A lower proportion of the population is aged over 60 in Portsmouth, Southampton, Gosport (with the exception of one ward, Lee West, which has one of the highest levels in the PUSH area) and the town of Havant.
3.47 Unemployment is focused in Southampton, Portsmouth, Gosport and Havant. It is relatively low in the rural areas. Turning to look at deprivation, this is highest in Central Portsmouth, Cosham and Havant; and in central and some of the peripheral parts of Southampton
3.48 A full analysis of house type and socio-economic conditions using GIS analysis is set out within the Appendix (Appendix E – N).
Defining Two Housing Market Areas
3.49 Drawing the analysis together, there is a high level of self-containment in the South Hampshire Sub Region as currently defined. We consider that there are two clear overlapping housing markets, based on Portsmouth and Southampton. The commuting and migration analysis in particular continues to highlight a distinction between Southampton and Portsmouth focused markets.
3.50 However, the evidence does not suggest that these HMAs stretch as far inland/ north as suggested by the CLG Research; and we consider that the broad definition of the PUSH is still a sensible functional geography to base analysis on in advance of detailed information on commuting and travel to work data from the 2011 Census being released. Once this information is available, the definition of housing markets should be reviewed.
GL Hearn Page 33 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.51 The definition of the PUSH area, including the Waterside parts of the New Forest but excluding the Isle of Wight, continues to reflect this evidence. The Isle of Wight has a high degree of self- containment in commuting terms, and there is not a strong migration flow from either Portsmouth or Southampton relative to those with other surrounding authorities. The evidence thus continues to show that the Island represents its own sub-regional housing market. This is consistent with the findings of the Isle of Wight SHMA 2007.
3.52 Evidence on housing market geographies from CLG and DTZ showed that there are clear links between Fareham and Gosport within the eastern Portsmouth-focused HMA; and links between Winchester and Eastleigh in the Southampton-focused HMA although some overlap is acknowledged.
3.53 Based on the DTZ and CLG research and updated analysis of household migration, contextual data (e.g. travel to work / commuting) and housing dynamics, the Southampton Housing Market Area (HMA) comprises:
Southampton Eastleigh Southern Test Valley Eastern New Forest; and the western wards of Winchester and Fareham.
3.54 The Portsmouth Housing Market Area comprises:
Portsmouth Gosport; Havant; and the eastern wards of Fareham Borough; and the southern parts of Winchester District.
3.55 Not all of the wards in each local authority fall within the PUSH area. Where only part of the local authority falls within one of the two PUSH HMAs, this is shown by the word ‘Part’ in Table 4 (and elsewhere in this report). The breakdown of wards in each HMA is set out in Appendices B and C.
Table 4: Geography of the two Housing Market Areas Southampton HMA Portsmouth HMA Test Valley (Part) Portsmouth Southampton Gosport Eastleigh Havant New Forest (Part) East Hampshire (Part) Winchester (Part) (Western Wards) Winchester (Part) (Eastern Wards) Fareham (Western Wards) Fareham (Eastern Wards)
GL Hearn Page 34 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
3.56 Where data is limited and is only available at local authority level, we define the ‘Core HMA’ authorities as those which fall entirely within the PUSH area, namely:
Eastleigh; Fareham; Gosport; Havant; Portsmouth; and Southampton
3.57 Reflecting the CLG analysis and consistent with the findings of the Coastal West Sussex SHMA, our analysis of contemporary data indicates that there is some functional relationships between the PUSH area north to Winchester and Petersfield; to Lymington and the New Forest National Park to the west and Chichester to the east. Whilst these relationships do not affect the definition of the PUSH area as a HMA, they should be borne in mind in the context of the Duty to Cooperate.
Implications of the Analysis
3.58 Two Housing Market Areas (HMAs) have been defined covering the PUSH Area – a PUSH East HMA focused on Portsmouth; and a PUSH West HMA focused on Southampton. The Isle of Wight represents a separate housing market area and is not considered further within this report.
3.59 A common Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is being prepared for the two HMAs given the close inter-relationships between them, and the fact that some local authorities sit across both HMAs.
3.60 There is a degree of overlap between these two Housing Market Areas, particularly within Fareham Borough and the southern parts of Winchester City Council’s area; but also some interactions with surrounding areas around the boundaries of the PUSH area. This includes Lymington and the New Forest National Park in the west; Chichester and Bognor Regis to the east and towards Winchester and Petersfield to the north. The implications of this as this new housing development of a substantial scale (or shortfall in housing provision) in these areas will impact on the housing market within the PUSH area (and vice-versa).
3.61 However the analysis undertaken in this SHMA concludes that the PUSH area remains a sensible basis for strategic planning for housing provision based on the information currently available. This is also recognised by Government through its designation of the Solent LEP area.
GL Hearn Page 35 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 36 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4 POLICY CONTEXT
4.1 In this section we review relevant strategic housing and planning policies, from a national to local level.
National Planning Policy and Guidance
4.2 The Coalition Government has reformed the policy framework for planning for housing provision, revoking regional spatial strategies and returning responsibilities for determining policies for housing provision to local authorities. The South East Plan has been revoked. The primary legislation to support this is the 2011 Localism Act which now includes a ‘duty to cooperate’ on local authorities.
4.3 The duty applies to the preparation of development plan and other local development documents, and to activities which can ‘reasonably be considered to prepare the way’ for these activities or support them (such as the preparation of evidence base studies such as this). Authorities are required by Section 110:2 of the Localism Act to “engage constructively, actively and on an on- going basis” with the other authorities identified in undertaking these tasks. The Duty to Cooperate is a legal test with which development plans must comply.
4.4 National policies for plan-making are set out within the National Planning Policy Framework3.This sets out key policies against which development plans will be assessed at examination and with which they must comply.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. Compliance of existing Local Development Documents became a key issue from April 2013 onwards.
4.6 The Framework sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby Local Plans should meet objectively assessed development needs, with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid change, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits or policies within the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. Green Belt, AONB and flood risk are recognised as nationally-significant constraints.
4.7 The core evidence for housing requirements is intended to be a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the housing market area. Paragraph 159 in the Framework outlines that this should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures which the local population is likely to need over the plan period which:
3 CLG (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework
GL Hearn Page 37 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change; Addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community; and Caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand.
4.8 This is reaffirmed in the NPPF in Paragraph 50. The SHMA is intended to be prepared for the housing market area, and include work and dialogue with neighbouring authorities where the HMA crosses administrative boundaries.
4.9 Paragraph 181 sets out that LPAs will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examining.
4.10 This highlights the importance of collaborative working and engaging constructively with neighbouring authorities, as required by Section 33A of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, and ensuring that there is a robust audit trail showing joint working to meet the requirements of paragraph 181 of the NPPF.
4.11 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF also emphasises the alignment of the housing and economic evidence base and policy. This is a theme taken forward in Draft Planning Practice Guidance (which is considered next). Paragraph 17 in the NPPF reaffirms this, and outlines that plans should also take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability. However it also makes clear that plans must be deliverable.
4.12 The preparation of a strategic housing market assessment for the housing market area is intended to be the primary means of determining policies for future housing provision.
4.13 The SHMA is intended to be brought together with evidence of land availability, from a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. To increase housing supply, the NPPF requires that Local Authorities should maintain a 5 year supply of specific deliverable sites and include an allowance of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land (unless there is a persistent track record of under-delivery when a 20% allowance is required).
4.14 In regard to housing mix, the NPPF sets out that authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community. Planning authorities should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations reflecting local demand. Where a need for affordable housing is identified, authorities should set policies for meeting this need on site. National thresholds for affordable housing provision are removed as are national brownfield development targets.
GL Hearn Page 38 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.15 In setting affordable housing targets, the NPPF states that to ensure a plan is deliverable, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to a scale of obligations and policy burdens such that their ability to be developed is threatened and should support development throughout the economic cycle. The costs of requirements likely to be applied to development, including affordable housing requirements, contributions to infrastructure and other policies in the Plan, should not compromise the viability of development schemes. To address this, affordable housing policies would need to be considered alongside other factors including infrastructure contributions – a ‘whole plan’ approach to viability. Where possible the NPPF encourages Local Authorities to work up Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges alongside the Local Plan.
Draft Planning Practice Guidance
4.16 The Government published Practice Guidance on undertaking Strategic Housing Market Assessments in 2007. The approach in this report takes account of this Guidance.
4.17 New draft Planning Practice Guidance was issued by Government in August 2013 on ‘Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs’. This is relevant to this SHMA in that it provides clarity on how key elements of the NPPF should be interpreted, including the approach to deriving an objective assessment of the need for housing.
4.18 The draft Guidance defines “need” as referring to ‘the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that is likely to be needed in the housing market area over the plan period – and should cater for the housing demand of the area and identify the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this need.” It sets out that the assessment of need should be realistic in taking account of the particular nature of that area, and should be based on future scenarios that could be reasonably expected to occur. It should not take account of supply-side factors or development constraints.
4.19 The Guidance outlines that whilst estimating future need is not an exact science and that there is no one methodological approach or dataset which will provide a definitive assessment of need, the starting point for establishing the need for housing should be the latest household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). At the time of preparation of this report these are 2011-based ‘Interim’ Household Projections.
4.20 It sets out that there may be instances where these national projections require adjustment to take account of factors affecting local demography or household formation rates, in particular where there is evidence that household formation rates are or have been constrained by supply. It suggests that proportional adjustments should be made where there market signals point to supply being constrained relative to long-term trends or to other areas in order to improve affordability.
GL Hearn Page 39 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.21 Evidence of affordable housing needs is also relevant, with the draft Guidance suggesting that the total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing. In some instances it suggests this may provide a case for increasing the level of overall housing provision.
4.22 In regard to economic evidence, the draft Guidance indicates that job growth and economic forecasts should be considered, and that an increase in housing provision should be considered where there is evidence that labour supply in the housing market area might result in unsustainable commuting patterns or reduce the resilience of local business. It cautions against reducing migration assumptions based on economic evidence unless this approach is agreed with other local planning authorities under the duty to cooperate.
Changes to National Housing Policies
Housing Strategy for England
4.23 In November 2011 the Government published Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England (HM Government, Nov 2011). This outlines the Government’s ambition to stimulate housebuilding, not least to support economic recovery. It identifies a number of initiatives to support this, including:
New-build Indemnity Scheme – providing Government-backed 95% mortgages for new-build properties; Growing Places Fund – providing funding for infrastructure which unblocks housing and economic growth; Initiatives to Kick-Start Stalled Developments – including proposals to allow reconsideration of planning obligations; a ‘Get Britain Building’ Investment Fund to provide development finance; and ‘build now, pay later’ deals with public sector land; and Custom Homes Programme – with short-term project finance support for individuals looking to build their own homes.
4.24 The Strategy includes initiatives to support growth and investment in the Private Rented Sector, including new ‘build-to-let’ models and a review of barriers to investment. It also indicates that the Government is looking at supporting greater innovation and competition between social landlords, including encourage new private entrants to the sector, and potential new approaches to funding in the medium-term.
4.25 The Strategy also included proposals for Reinvigorating the Right-to-Buy by raising the discounts available to tenants, but with a commitment to build a new ‘replacement’ home for affordable rent for every home lost. It also identified a funding steam to support local authorities in bringing empty homes back into use.
GL Hearn Page 40 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.26 The Great Britain Building Fund and Growing Places Fund provide funding to unblock stalled schemes. The Government is also advising local authorities to renegotiate existing S106 agreements where these provide a hindrance to development, including allowing developers to appeal decision for a three year period to April 2016.
4.27 The Reinvigorating Right-to-Buy scheme increases the discount cap to £75,000; and makes provision that receipts from sales will be retained by local authorities to deliver replacement provision.
4.28 Since the 2011 Housing Strategy the Government has introduced a number of additional measures to try to kick-start the housing market. Of particular relevance is the new “Help to Buy” scheme introduced in the 2013 Budget. This provides two schemes aimed at increase the supply of low- deposit mortgages and new housing:
Help to Buy Equity Loan – a new-build only scheme which expands the existing FirstBuy scheme to provide an equity loan of up to 20% of the value of a home through an equity loan. The scheme will run until April 2016 and buyers will require only a 5% deposit; Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee – a similar scheme where buyers will require a 5% deposit and the Government will provide guarantees underpinning the 95% mortgage from a commercial lender. This scheme is available for both new-build and existing homes. Monies will be available from January 2014.
4.29 Moving forward these schemes could have a real impact at stimulating effective market demand for homes (and there is some evidence of this already) as they target some of the key challenges which have restricted access to owner occupation - difficulties for households in securing mortgage finance and high loan-to-value ratios.
Localism Act – Housing Reforms
4.30 The Localism Act has introduced a number of reforms affecting the management of social housing. These reforms are summarised below:
Allocations Policies
4.31 The Localism Act gives Councils greater flexibilities in deciding who qualifies to go onto housing waiting lists (through their allocations policies) and how they treat tenants who want rather than need to move. Local Authorities can thus revise their allocations policies, should they wish to do so, to prevent people with no ‘need’ for affordable housing from joining housing registers.
Tenancies
4.32 The Localism Act has introduced changes to social housing tenancies, giving both local councils and Registered Providers (RP’s) the flexibility to grant fixed term tenancies (as well as lifetime tenancies) should they decide to do so. New fixed term tenancies would continue to be at social rent levels and tenants would have the same rights as those with existing lifetime tenancies in terms
GL Hearn Page 41 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
of a right to repair or to buy/acquire. A minimum fixed-term tenancy in most cases would be for five years (with two year tenancies granted only in exceptional circumstances). Shorter tenancies are considered to be one way of making better use of the existing social housing stock in meeting housing need. Specific local policies are expected to be set out in local tenancy strategies.
4.33 The Government has also changed the rules on succession to make them consistent for all Council and RP tenants. The spouse or partner of a tenant who dies will have an automatic legal right to succeed, but will not have an automatic right to then pass on the property. This will not however affect joint tenancies or existing secure tenants.
Reform of Homelessness Legislation
4.34 Councils will be able to bring the statutory homelessness duty to an end with an offer of suitable private rented housing. People’s right to refuse private rented accommodation will be withdrawn. This could potentially assist in the use of private sector housing stock in meeting affordable housing needs. Specific local policies are expected to be set out in local authority’s tenancy strategies.
4.35 The Government has also introduced a new nationwide home swap scheme to support mobility in the social sector. In terms of social housing finance, the Localism Act also introduces ‘self-financing’ which allows Councils to keep money from rents to spend on upkeep, investment and management of their housing stock. It has also made changes to the regulation of the Social Housing Sector.
Consultation on Housing Standards Review
4.36 In August 2013, the Government published a consultation on housing standards. The consultation outlines the Government’s response to the Local Housing Delivery Group which found that there was significant scope for rationalisation in technical and functional standards.
4.37 The consultation covers a number of traditional themes including accessibility, water efficiency and energy but also seeks views on the introduction on national minimum internal space standards for private sector housing. The implications of minimum space standards are complex. On the positive side, space standards may serve to improve the quality of housing and provide a product which is more flexible to occupier needs. More generously sized units may also serve to encourage downsizing amongst older households. However, prescribing unit sizes could also have implications for viability and, in some areas, could increase entry level prices leading to some buyers (particularly first time buyers) being priced out of the market.
Welfare Reforms
4.38 The Welfare Reform Act received Royal Assent in March 2012. This introduces the following:
Household Benefit Cap; Planned introduction of Universal Credit (combining current existing benefits);
GL Hearn Page 42 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Linking Local Housing Allowance (LHMA) rates to CPI; and Size Criteria for Calculating Housing Benefit in the Social Rented Sector.
Household Benefit Cap
4.39 The Welfare Reform Act introduces restrictions on how much Housing Benefit working-age households in social rented properties can claim from April 2013, based on the size of the household. Housing Benefit has been previously based on the size of the property rather than the household. This change will particularly impact on working-age households who are under- occupying homes. The Government estimates that the change of policy will impact on 670,000 households nationally – 32% of all working-age households in receipt of Housing Benefit. The average cost to affected households will be a reduction in Housing Benefit of £13 per week in 2013/14. The policy change is focused on reducing the Government’s benefit bill, increasing mobility in the social rented sector and making better use of the existing social housing stock.
Shift towards Universal Credit
4.40 Universal Credit, which brings together existing benefits into a single payment, is due to be phased in from October 2013. A movement towards universal credit to provide one streamlined payment is likely to end the payments of housing benefit directly to landlords in some instances. Coupled with the caps on growth in LHA levels, this may over time make tenants on benefits less attractive to landlords. It could result in some moderating of growth in benefit claimants in the private rented sector, although this will depend on overall dynamics within the sector.
Changes to Local Housing Allowance
4.41 Low income households living in the Private Rented Sector are able to claim Local Housing Allowance (LHA) to assist in meeting their housing costs. LHA is determined in relation to rents in the Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA) in which a property lies.
4.42 In April 2011 the Government changed how LHA is calculated, shifting this from median rents in the BMRA to the 30th percentile. It has also introduced caps on LHA payments: £250 a week for a 1bed property or shared accommodation, £290 a week for a 2-bed property, £340 a week for a 3- bed property and £400 a week for properties with 4 or more bedrooms.
4.43 The Welfare Reform Act also indicates that increases in LHA rates from 2013 will be restricted to growth in inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Rates will also be set annually rather than monthly. This can be expected to exert a downward pressure on rents, particularly in areas where LHA claimants form a significant proportion of the private rented sector market, and may encourage some LHA claimants to move to cheaper areas.
GL Hearn Page 43 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
South Hampshire Strategy
4.44 The South Hampshire Strategy, published by PUSH in October 2012, “provides a framework to inform and support the preparation of statutory local plans and the future review/roll forward of those which are already adopted.”
4.45 The document sets out the ambition of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) to secure faster economic growth. The strategy recognises the role of housebuilding to facilitate this, and seeks to provide 55,600 new homes across South Hampshire during the period from 2011 to 2026.
4.46 The strategy also sets out a distribution of housing across the various PUSH authorities (Table 5). This ‘policy on’ distribution, which uses the South East Plan approach as a starting point, seeks to reflect the principle of prioritising development in the two cities and major urban areas to support regeneration whilst taking account of land availability and environmental constraints.
4.47 The distribution also recognises the role of the New Community North of Fareham (Welborne) in meeting housing needs of Fareham and other nearby authorities across the sub-region.
Table 5: Provision for Net Additional Homes 2011-2026
Area Number of Dwellings East Hampshire (Part) 1050 Eastleigh 8050 Fareham 2200 New Community North of Fareham 5400 Gosport 2550 Havant 5150 Portsmouth 9100 Southampton 12,200
Test Valley (Part) 2950
Winchester (Part) 6200 Housing Released by delivery of New Student Accommodation 750 South Hampshire Total 55, 600
Source: South Hampshire Strategy, 2012
GL Hearn Page 44 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Local Housing and Planning Policies in South Hampshire
4.48 The analysis below summarises relevant housing and planning policies, both current and where applicable emerging, across the South Hampshire authorities.
East Hampshire District
4.49 East Hampshire District Council’s Joint Core Strategy is being prepared with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) and covers the planning period 2011 to 2028. Progress on the Joint Core Strategy was suspended in November 2012 to allow for the completion of an up-to-date SHMA and other evidence based studies.
4.50 This work has been completed and the spatial strategy for the District is outlined in Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy - Submission (June 2012) and as revised by the Further Proposed Modifications (August 2013). The Further Proposed Modifications plan for 10,060 homes in the whole district, including the SDNP area (as outlined in Policy CP8) during the plan period 2011-2028. This overall total includes 2,725 dwellings as part of the development of a new Eco-town at Whitehall & Bordon plus further new allocations with capacity for 3,200 dwellings distributed across the main settlements.
4.51 The proposed number of dwellings in East Hampshire in various locations is summarised overleaf in Table 6:
Table 6: Dwellings Proposed in East Hampshire Broad Distribution of Dwellings Location Proposed Alton and Horndean About 700 Petersfield About 400 - 700 Clanfield About 200 Liphook and Four Marks / South Medstead About 175 Liss and Rowlands Castle About 150 Other Villages Outside the National Park About 150 Other Villages in the National Park About 100
4.52 Specific sites will be identified in the Site Allocations Plan and through consultations with the local community.
4.53 CP11 outlines proposed policy on affordable housing. To meet affordable housing needs, development of 1 or more additional dwellings must provide 40% affordable housing (except at Whitehill Bordon where the target is proposed to be 35%).
GL Hearn Page 45 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.54 Policy CP12 deals with affordable housing for rural communities. Residential development outside of settlement boundaries will only permitted in certain circumstances. In most cases, it is proposed that 100% affordable houses will be provided on these sites.
4.55 East Hampshire’s proposed policy on housing tenure, type and mix is outlined in Policy CP 10 which aims to maintain a range of dwelling sizes in the settlements and countryside. It also aims to protect areas of special housing character through measures such as restricting the size of replacement dwellings. Policy CSWB 4 states that development at Whitehill Bordon must provide a number of family homes (3-5 beds) and executive homes. Within the South Downs National Park, housing provision will be restricted to the tenure, type and mix needed to serve local communities in the National Park.
Eastleigh Borough
4.56 Eastleigh Borough Council is preparing a local plan for the period from 2011 to 2029. Public consultation on a revised draft of the plan is to take place in the autumn of 2013 with a view to submitting the plan for examination in early Summer 2014.
4.57 The Revised draft Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029 is to contain proposals to accommodate a little over 10,100 new homes in the borough over the plan period.
4.58 The plan notes that about 4,450 homes either already have planning permission or can be accommodated on sites within the existing built up area. The remaining 5,650 homes will be built on greenfield sites, of which 4,050 dwellings will be on strategic development sites, as shown in Table 7 below. The remaining requirement will be accommodated on a range of smaller sites around the borough.
Table 7: Dwellings Proposed on Strategic Sites in Eastleigh (Revised draft Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029) Location Proposed No of Dwellings Boorley Green, Botley 1,400 South of Chestnut Avenue, Eastleigh 1,100 West of Woodhouse Lane, Hedge End 800 West and south of Horton Heath 750
4.59 The plan states that the Borough Council will seek to secure 35% of the dwellings provided on sites capable of accommodating 15 or more dwellings as affordable homes. On sites capable of accommodating fewer dwellings, a reduced objective will apply.
4.60 There is a Housing Strategy for Eastleigh (2012 - 2017). There are also two relevant SPDs for Eastleigh: “Affordable Housing” (2009) and “Accommodation for Older People and Those in Need of Care” (2011).
GL Hearn Page 46 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Fareham Borough
4.61 Fareham Council’s Core Strategy was adopted in August 2011. It covers the planning period 2006 – 2026.
4.62 Policy CS2 outlines the Council’s policy on housing provision between 2006 and 2026. It states that 3,729 dwellings are to be provided within Fareham Borough excluding the Strategic Development Location (SDL). The SDL is to accommodate 6,500 – 7,500 homes. Policies CS7 - CS13 detail the number of dwellings proposed at various sites / locations (as can be seen in Table 8).
Table 8: Dwellings Proposed in Fareham Borough Location Number of Dwellings Proposed Fareham 680 dwellings (2010 – 2026) (including 350 dwellings within Fareham Town Centre) Western Wards & Whiteley Approximately 1,480 dwellings (2010 - 2026) in the Western Ward settlements and around 180 dwellings at Whiteley
Coldeast Hospital (Strategic Implementation of existing residential planning permissions Development Allocation) for 250 dwellings
Porchester Approximately 60 Stubbington & Hill Head Approximately 60 Titchfield Approximately 30 North of Fareham Strategic 6,500-7,500 dwellings as the target for the SDL Development Location
4.63 Policy CS 13 states that development outside of settlements will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline.
4.64 Policy CS 18 outlines the provision of affordable housing. It states that schemes that deliver 5 net additional dwellings or above must provide affordable housing. On sites between 5 and 9 dwellings, 30% affordable housing (or an equivalent financial contribution towards off-site provision) is to be provided. On developments that are between 10 and 14 dwellings, there is a 30% affordable housing target and on developments of 15 or more dwellings, there is a 40% affordable housing target. Policy CS 18 does not apply to the SDL. A more detailed site specific study will be needed for this.
4.65 As policy CS 2 states, development will achieve a mix of different housing sizes, types and tenures informed by the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Council's Housing Strategy.
Gosport Borough
4.66 Gosport Council undertook consultation on its draft Local Plan at the end of 2012. The revised Pre– Submission Plan is anticipated in December 2013.
GL Hearn Page 47 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.67 Policy LP3 proposed delivery of 2,700 net additional dwellings to 2029. There are a number of proposed regeneration areas (see Table 9 below).
Table 9: Dwellings Proposed in Gosport Area Number of Dwellings Proposed Gosport Waterfront and 700 to 900 dwellings Town Centre Daedalus Up to 350 dwellings
Haslar Peninsula Up to 300 dwellings at Royal Hospital Haslar and potential residential uses at Blockhouse. Rowner Up to 700 dwellings with approximately 200 net additional dwellings at the Alver Village Site, approximately 15 dwellings at Davenport Close
4.68 Policy LP24 states that on development sites where there are 10 or more dwellings proposed, 40% of dwellings are to be affordable housing. Houses are to be built to Lifetime Home Standards. The policy states that a mix of dwelling types and sizes are to be provided. Policy LP24 supports the reuse of previously developed land, redevelopment of poor quality homes and development of accommodation for the elderly, where appropriate.
Havant Borough
4.69 Havant Council’s Core Strategy was adopted in March 2011. The Plan aims to provide 6, 300 new dwellings between 2006 and 2026 (as outlined in Policy CS 9) which are to be distributed across the five main areas of the Borough (see Table 10).
4.70 Policy CS 9 requires provision of 30 – 40% affordable housing or a financial contribution depending on the size of the development. The policy aims to develop of up to 450 extra care dwellings over the plan period, provide housing for people with various needs and prioritise development of brownfield land.
Table 10: Dwellings Proposed in Havant Regeneration Area Number of Dwellings Proposed Waterlooville 2,126 Leigh Park 1,357 Emsworth 826 Hayling Island 727 Havant 1,944
New Forest District
4.71 The Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park was adopted in October 2009. Plan Objective 3 aims to provide 3,920 additional dwellings over the plan period to 2026. This is broken down into 1,540 dwellings in the Totton and the Waterside, and 2,380 dwellings in the rest of the District (excluding the National Park Area). Policy CS 10 states there will be allocation of new greenfield sites for 250 dwellings. This is being taken forward through the Local Plan Part 2.
GL Hearn Page 48 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.72 Policy CS 11 sets out new housing land allocations. Policy CS12 outlines that additional sites will be identified adjoining the main towns and larger villages to meet identified local needs for affordable and low cost market housing. It states that not more than 810 dwellings should be provided as part of the policy.
4.73 Affordable housing policies are set out in Policy CS 14 and CS 15. Requirements vary between 40% and 50% across the Plan Area. New greenfield allocations made under Policy CS11 are expected to deliver 50% affordable housing Sites allocated specifically to meet a local housing need under Policy CS12 are expected to provide 70% affordable housing. The requirements of CS 11 and the possible additional housing provision of CS12 are summarised in Table 11 below.
Table 11: Proposed Housing Provision in New Forest Local Plan Part 1 Area Number of Dwellings Proposed Totton Approximately 100 Ringwood Approximately 150 Totton (additional) Approximately 50 dwellings Marchwood Approximately 150 dwellings
Hythe Approximately 50 dwellings Lymington Approximately 150 dwellings New Milton Approximately 110 dwellings Fordingbridge Approximately 100 dwellings Blackfield Approximately 30 dwellings (in each) Langley Hardley and Holbury Fawley Milford-on-Sea , Sandleheath. Hordle Approximately 10 dwellings (in each) Everton Bransgore Ashford Sandleheath
4.74 Policy on housing types, tenure and provision is set out in policy CS13 which outlines how housing provision should meet the needs of local people.
Portsmouth
4.75 Portsmouth City Council adopted its Core Strategy in January 2012 covering the period from 2010 to 2027. Policy PCS 10 identifies the housing requirement for delivery of 7,117 - 8,387 homes to 2027, subject to the provision of necessary infrastructure. Housing delivery is proposed in the following areas (as set out in Table 12):
GL Hearn Page 49 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 12: Dwellings Proposed in Portsmouth Area Number of Dwellings Proposed Port Solent 500 Horsea Island 0-500 Tipner 480-1250 Somerstown and North Southsea 539 City Centre 1,600 Other Town Centres 602 Rest of the City 1,674
4.76 Expected affordable housing provision ranges from 20 – 30% and should be provided in developments where 8 or more net additional dwellings are constructed. 20% affordable housing is expected on schemes of 8 – 10 dwellings, 25% affordable housing where there are 11 – 14 dwellings, and 30% affordable housing where there are more than 15 dwellings.
4.77 The expected tenure mix of the affordable units is 70% social rented and 30% intermediate. In all cases, where provision of affordable housing is required, on-site provision will be sought which mirrors the market element in terms of mix, size and type of dwellings.
4.78 In exceptional circumstances, where it is not practical or viable to provide on-site affordable housing, provision will be sought on an alternative site. A financial contribution towards securing affordable housing elsewhere in the City will only be considered when both on- and off-site provision has been shown to be impossible. Information on affordable housing is set out in the Housing Standards SPD.
4.79 Affordable housing will not be required from care/nursing homes or from student accommodation. Affordable housing is required on schemes of sheltered accommodation. Policy PCS 20 states that applications for changes of use to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) will only be permitted where the community is not already imbalanced by a concentration of such uses; or where the development would not create an imbalance.
4.80 Objective 5 states there should be an increased focus on delivery of family homes and homes for the elderly in the City. Policy PCS 19 states that developments should achieve a target of 40% family housing where appropriate and that the Council will encourage development of homes for the elderly.
4.81 Regarding housing size, all new dwellings and conversions should meet Portsmouth City Council minimum space standards for internal floorspace. High density housing development is encouraged in areas with very good public transport links which are close to local facilities and have been identified for intensification. Housing density should be a minimum of 100dph in the following areas:
City Centre
GL Hearn Page 50 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Cosham District Centre Fratton District Centre Southsea Town Centre Albert Road/Elm Grove District Centre North End District Centre Port Solent Tipner Somerstown and North Southsea
4.82 Outside of these areas, housing density should be no less than 40dph.
Southampton
4.83 Southampton City Council adopted its Core Strategy in 2010. Partial Review is underway focused on revising office development targets in the City Centre.
4.84 Policy CS 4 in the Core Strategy states that an additional 16,300 homes will be provided within the City of Southampton between 2006 and 2026.
4.85 Policy CS 16 seeks 30% family homes on sites which comprise 10 or more dwellings or that are more than 0.5 hectares; and there is to be no net loss of family homes on sites which comprise a mixture of residential units unless planning consideration suggests otherwise. Houses in Multiple Occupation for students (where planning permission is required) is to be controlled and there is to be an improvement and increase in the provision of accommodation for senior citizens and the disabled as part of Policy CS 16. Policy CS 16 also outlines minimum space standards for different types of properties.
4.86 Policy CS 15 on affordable housing states that the Council will seek 20% affordable housing on sites of 5 - 14 dwellings and 35% affordable housing on sites of 15 dwellings or more or over 0.5 ha in size. Affordable housing is expected to comprise 65% social rented housing and 35% intermediate affordable housing.
4.87 Policy CS 5 states that high density housing should be confined to the most accessible areas (the City Centre and areas within close proximity of Shirley Town Centre), other district centre, areas in key public transport corridors and other major sites in the LDF allocated for significant intensification.)
Test Valley Borough
4.88 Test Valley Borough Council is in the process of developing a new Local Plan. The draft Revised Borough Local Plan was approved by the Council for consultation in February 2013.
GL Hearn Page 51 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.89 Policy COM 1 proposes provision of 10,026 homes over the planning period (2011 – 2029). The proposed distribution of this is as follows:
Table 13: Dwellings Proposed in Test Valley Area of the Borough Number of Dwellings Proposed Andover (Northern Test Valley) 5,868 Rural Test Valley (Northern Test Valley) 648 Southern Test Valley 3,510 Borough Wide Total 10,026
4.90 More detailed policies relating to the following key sites are outlined in Policies COM3 to COM6:
Policy COM3: New Neighbourhood at Whitenap, Romsey (approximately 1, 300 dwellings) Policy COM4: New Neighbourhood at Hoe Lane, North Baddesley (approximately 300 dwellings Policy COM5: Residential Development at Park Farm, Stoneham (approximately 75 dwellings) Policy COM6: New Neighbourhood at Picket Piece, Andover (approximately 1,000 dwellings)
4.91 Test Valley’s proposed policy on affordable housing is outlined in Policies COM 7 (Affordable Housing) and COM 8 (Rural Exemption Affordable Housing). The policy seeks:
15 or more dwellings (or sites 0.5ha or more) : up to 40% on-site provision 10-14 dwellings (or sites 0.3-0.49ha) : up to 30% on-site provision 5-9 dwellings (or sites 0.2-0.39ha) : up to 20% on-site provision, or equivalent off-site financial contribution; and 1-4 dwellings (or up to 0.19ha) off-site financial contribution equivalent to up to 10% on-site provision.
4.92 Policy COM 10 deals with accommodation in the countryside for rural workers and the circumstances in which this is permitted. Policy COM 11 deals with extension proposals for existing dwellings in the countryside which Policy COM 12 relates to replacement dwellings in the countryside.
Winchester
4.93 Winchester City Council and South Downs National Park Authority have worked together to prepare the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 – Joint Core Strategy which was adopted in March 2013.
4.94 Policy CP 1 states that provision will be made for 12,500 dwellings over the planning period 2011 – 2031, distributed as follows:
Table 14: Dwellings Proposed in Winchester Area of the District Number of Dwellings Proposed Winchester Town 4,000 South Hampshire Urban Areas 6,000 Market Towns and Rural Area 2,500
GL Hearn Page 52 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.95 Policy CP 2 states that there should be a range of tenure, types and sizes of homes on housing developments including private rented housing and extra care housing, but states that the majority of dwellings should be 2 – 3 beds.
4.96 Affordable housing policy for Winchester City Council is set out in Policy CP3. 40% affordable housing is expected unless it makes development proposals economically unviable. 70% of the affordable housing should be for affordable rent and the remaining 30% intermediate affordable housing.
Overview of Proposed Housing Provision
4.97 The NPPF indicates that the weight which can be given to existing adopted development plans is affected by their degree of fit with the Framework. The NPPF indicates that local plans should be prepared to meet objectively-assessed need (OAN) for market and affordable housing where this is compatible with achieving sustainable development.
4.98 Draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that the starting point for considering OAN is the latest set of household projections issued by Government. It however then identifies a number of tests which should be considered primarily to examine the case for increasing housing supply:
Is there evidence that household formation has been constrained? Do market signals suggest a need to increase housing supply to improve affordability? Will the projected housing provision be capable of meeting affordable housing needs? Should higher housing numbers be considered to increase delivery of affordable housing? Will the housing numbers support expected growth in jobs, or is there a need to consider increasing housing supply to support economic growth?
GL Hearn Page 53 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
4.99 Five of the authorities within the PUSH area have adopted plans. Others are emerging. The current proposed housing numbers, planning period and affordable housing policy for each are summarised in Table 15 below.
Table 15: Overview of Proposed Housing Whole Authority) Number of Affordable Planning Period Dwellings Housing Proposed East Hampshire 2006 - 2028 10,060 35 - 40%
Eastleigh 2011 - 2029 10,140 10 – 35%
Fareham (adopted) 2006 - 2026 3,729 30 – 40%
Gosport 2011 - 2029 2, 700 40%
North of Fareham SDL 2006-26 6,500 – 7,500 TBC
Havant 2006 - 2026 6, 300 30 – 40%
New Forest (adopted) 2006 - 2026 3,920 40 - 50%
Portsmouth (adopted) 2010 - 2027 7,117 - 8,387 20 – 30%
Southampton (adopted) 2006 - 2026 16, 300 20 – 35%
Test Valley 2011 - 2029 10, 026 Equivalent to 10- 40% Winchester (adopted) 2011 - 2031 12, 500 40%
4.100 In regard to housing policy, welfare and benefit reforms have (and can be expected to continue to have) an impact on dynamics within the social and private rented sectors. A range of Government initiatives have also been established to seek to increase housebuilding, including most recently the ‘Help-to-Buy’ scheme.
GL Hearn Page 54 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
5 STOCK AND SUPPLY TRENDS
5.1 This section reviews the housing stock and how this has been changing over the last decade. The PUSH SHMA looks at housing requirements over the period to 2031 and 2036. Much of the housing stock likely to exist in 2031 already exists now; and it is thus important to understand the current ‘housing offer’, to consider what gaps in the offer new-build development might fill moving forward.
5.2 In this section, we profile the current housing offer, considering the profile of stock of different types, sizes and tenures of homes, and how it varies across the HMA.
5.3 Where statistics are available below local authority level these are shown. Where local authority level data only is available, statistics are presented for the ‘Core’ PUSH Authorities, namely Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth and Southampton. Where data is available at sub local authority level, full tables for each local authority and parts of local authorities can be found in the Appendix (Appendix O – Q).
Tenure Profile
5.4 Table 16 below shows that there are just over 440,400 households in the PUSH area. Of this, just over half (50.2%) of households are in the PUSH West HMA and just under half are in the PUSH East HMA (49.8%).
Table 16: PUSH – Number of Households, 2011 Households % of PUSH Area PUSH Area 440,460 100.0% PUSH East HMA 219,254 49.8% PUSH West HMA 221,206 50.2%
East Hampshire (Part) 8,361 1.9% New Forest (Part) 29,546 6.7% Test Valley (Part) 17,060 3.9% Winchester (Part) 16,269 3.7% Eastleigh 52,177 11.8% Fareham 46,579 10.6% Gosport 35,430 8.0% Havant 51,311 11.6% Portsmouth 85,473 19.4% Southampton 98,254 22.3%
GL Hearn Page 55 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
5.5 Across the Core PUSH authorities4 17.9% of homes were in public sector ownership (owned by local authorities, Registered Providers or other parties such as the MOD); whilst 82.1% were in private ownership (either owner occupied or private rented).
Table 17: Broad Tenure Profile, 2011 Public Private Eastleigh 12.2% 87.8% Fareham 8.1% 91.9% Gosport 19.2% 80.8% Havant 19.0% 80.9% Portsmouth 18.8% 81.2% Southampton 23.4% 76.6% Core PUSH Authorities 17.9% 82.1% South East 14.0% 86.0% England 18.0% 82.0% Source: CLG Table 100
5.6 Figure 4 splits out the ownership of homes in public sector ownership for the Core PUSH authorities. Most of the public housing is either owned by local authorities or housing associations. Public sector ownership of housing is above the regional average in Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth and Southampton. It is highest in Southampton at 23.4% of the stock. Public sector ownership below average in Eastleigh (12.2%) and Fareham (8.1%).
Figure 4: Public Housing Sector Tenure, 2011 – Core PUSH Authorities
Source: CLG Table 100
4 Those authorities which fall wholly within the PUSH area – Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Porstmouth and Southampton
GL Hearn Page 56 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
5.7 A more detailed picture of the housing stock is available using 2011 Census data. This indicates that owner occupation is the dominant tenure across the PUSH area, and accommodates 64.6% of households. Owner occupation in the PUSH area is below the regional (67.6%) but above the England average (63.3%).
5.8 The proportion of private renting in the PUSH area (17.1%) is higher than regional (16.3%) and the national average (16.8%). Whilst the level of social renting in the PUSH area (16.4%) is above the South East (13.7%) but lower than the England average (17.7%).
5.9 The PUSH West HMA has a slightly higher proportion of private (17.5%) and social renting (16.5%) and lower proportion of owner occupier households (64.1%) compared with the PUSH East HMA in which 16.7% of households privately rented, 16.3% are in the socially rented sector and 65.1% in owner occupation.
Figure 5: Detailed Tenure Profile for HMAs, Census 2011
Source: Census 2011
5.10 Levels of owner occupation are highest in the parts of East Hampshire which fall in the PUSH area (83.5%), followed by Fareham (80.4%) and Test Valley (78.7%). They are lowest in the urban centres - Southampton (49.7%) and Portsmouth (54.9%) - and also in Gosport (65.2%).
5.11 Just under a quarter of households in Southampton and Portsmouth live in the private rented sector compared with the 17.1 % across the PUSH area. The private rented sector is particularly low in East Hampshire (7.8% of households) and Havant (9.9%).
GL Hearn Page 57 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
5.12 Portsmouth (18.3%) and Southampton (23.3%) have the highest levels of households in the social rented sector. This can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Detailed Tenure Profile at Local Authority Level, Census 2011
Source: Census 2011
5.13 Figure 7 profiles changes in the tenure pattern between 2001-11. It shows that private renting has been the key growth sector within the housing market over this decade and has increased in size each of the Core PUSH HMA local authorities. This increase has been particularly notable in Portsmouth and Southampton where owner occupation has decreased (in both absolute and percentage terms).
GL Hearn Page 58 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 7: Change in Tenure Profile Core PUSH HMA, 2001 – 2011
Source: 2001 and 2011 Census
House Types
5.14 Terraced housing accounts for the largest proportion of the housing stock across PUSH at 27.1% compared with 22.5% regionally and 24.5% nationally (as can be seen by Figure 8). There is also a significant level of flats/maisonettes (24.1% across the PUSH area with 20.3% regionally and 21.2% nationally), driven by the housing mix in Portsmouth and Southampton.
5.15 Detached housing across the PUSH area accounts for a lower than average proportion of the housing stock – 22.8% of the housing stock compared to 28.2% across the South East region.
5.16 The PUSH East HMA has an above average proportion of terraced housing (33.1%), is influenced particularly by the housing mix in Portsmouth.
5.17 Terraced housing in the PUSH West HMA, however, accounts for the lowest proportion of its housing stock, with detached (27.4%) and semi-detached (26.2%) homes predominating.
GL Hearn Page 59 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 8: Profile of Dwelling Stock by Type - PUSH HMA, 2011
Source: 2011 Census
5.18 The proportion of detached and semi-detached housing is lowest in Portsmouth. 4.2% of homes in the city are detached and 15.8% semi-detached (compared to a 22.8% and 25.2% respectively across the PUSH area). The city’s housing stock is strongly skewed towards terraced housing and flats/maisonettes.
5.19 Detached housing is highest in those parts of East Hampshire (55.9%), New Forest (37.1%), Winchester (44.3%) and Test Valley (43%), which fall within the PUSH area. The focus of the housing offer in these areas is towards larger, higher value homes. Semi-detached housing is highest in Fareham (32.1%), Havant (28.7%) and New Forest (28.4%).
5.20 The proportion of terraced housing is highest in Gosport (36.6%) and Portsmouth (45.2%). Portsmouth (33.9%) and Southampton (38.7%) have the highest levels of flatted stock, as we might expect for larger urban areas with higher development densities.
GL Hearn Page 60 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 9: Profile of Dwellings Stock by Type – PUSH Authorities, 2011
Source: 2011 Census
House Sizes
5.21 The profiles of housing of different sizes across the PUSH area is similar to national patterns, but with a slightly higher proportion of smaller (1 bed) properties (as can be seen from Figures 10 and 11).
5.22 Across the PUSH area:
12.9% of houses have 1 bedroom; 26.6% have 2 bedrooms; 41.6% are 3 bedrooms; 14.6% have 4 bedrooms; and 4.1% have 5 or more bedrooms.
5.23 The percentage of 2 – 3 bed homes in the PUSH East HMA is slightly higher (70.4%) than for the PUSH West HMA (66%). The PUSH West HMA has a higher proportion of smaller 1 bed homes (13.7%), which particularly reflects the housing mix in Southampton.
GL Hearn Page 61 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 10: Number of Bedrooms –PUSH HMA 2011
Source: Census 2011
5.24 In all authorities, three-bedroom properties predominate. The parts of East Hampshire, Test Valley and Winchester which fall in the PUSH area have the highest proportion of properties with three or more bedrooms, accounting for over 70% of its housing stock (74.6% in East Hampshire 72.4% in Test Valley, 70.5% in Winchester and 69.7% in Fareham) consistent with a focus more towards detached and semi-detached homes.
5.25 In Portsmouth, Southampton and Gosport in comparison, the percentage of dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms accounts for just over half of dwellings – much less than in other authorities (55.2%, 60.2% and 58.4% respectively). These areas have a housing offer focused more towards smaller properties.
GL Hearn Page 62 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 11: Number of Bedrooms – Local Authorities, 2011
Source: Census 2011
5.26 The different parts of the two HMAs play a somewhat complementary relationship to one another, with suburban and rural areas providing greater family homes than in the cores of the two cities where development densities are typically higher.
Council Tax Band
5.27 Across the Core Authorities, just under half of dwellings are in Council Tax Bands A and B (44.4%) which is consistent with the England average (44.4%) but much higher than the South East average (25.5%). This is influenced partly by below average housing costs in the PUSH area relative to other parts of the South East and partly by the housing mix. Just under a quarter of properties across the Core Authorities are in Band A (24.8%). 18.5% of properties are in Band E. This is lower than the regional average (25.3%) but consistent with the national average (18.5%).
5.28 The proportion of Band A and B properties is highest in Portsmouth (62%), Southampton (64%), Gosport (52.4%) and Havant (41.6%) and lowest in Fareham (20.9%) and Eastleigh (29.2%) (compared with a 44.4% average across the core authorities in the HMA). The housing offer in Southampton, Portsmouth, Gosport and Havant generally comprises smaller and more affordable homes. In those parts of East Hampshire, Winchester and Test Valley which fall in the PUSH area there are few wards with over 25% of properties in Bands A and B (see Appendix F).
GL Hearn Page 63 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
5.29 Portsmouth and Southampton in particular have a housing offer focused towards smaller and cheaper properties; whilst larger or higher value stock is more prevalent in Eastleigh and Fareham Boroughs.
Figure 12: Dwellings by Council Tax Band, 2011 – Core Authorities
Source: Neighbourhood Statistics
Completions by Bed Size
5.30 Over the 2002-12 decade the profile of dwelling completions significantly focused towards one- and two-bed properties as can be seen by Figure 13.
24.5% of completions across the PUSH area were of 1-bed homes; 46.8% 2-bed; 17.9% 3-bed; and 10.7% with four or more bedrooms.
5.31 Relative to the existing profile of homes, completions focused towards smaller one- and two-bed properties; and thus over the last decade the focus of the housing offer has shifted towards smaller homes.
GL Hearn Page 64 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 13: Completions by Property Size (PUSH Area), 2002-12
Source: HCC Monitoring. Note: This is based on gross not net dwelling completions
5.32 Analysing the profile of sales of different sizes, we saw a shift over the period to the peak of the market (2007-2008) towards smaller 1- and 2-bed dwellings; however since this point whilst completions overall have fallen the market for larger new-build properties of 3- and 4+ bedrooms has held up moderately better. Figure 14 profiles the proportion of completions of smaller 1 and 2- bed properties, and those with 3+ bedrooms.
Figure 14: Proportions of Completions by Broad Property Size (PUSH Area),
Source: HCC Monitoring. This is based on gross dwelling completions
GL Hearn Page 65 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Drawing the Analysis Together
5.33 Across the PUSH area, there is a higher proportion of terraced dwellings and flats than the national and regional average. In the Core authorities, over 60% of the housing stock falls within Council Tax Bands A and B and more than 40% of households live in rented accommodation. This is partly a function of the nature of the market and housing offer in the two cities.
5.34 The PUSH East HMA has more terraced housing (than PUSH West), largely driven by Portsmouth. The housing offer in Gosport and Havant is slightly broader but publically-owned or affordable housing is above average. In these authorities, two- and three-bed properties predominate, over 40% of homes fall within Council Tax Bands A and B, and over 16% of households live in the social rented sector. The housing offer is focused on mid-market housing. Gosport has over 1,000 properties in ‘other public sector’ (most likely MOD) ownership.
5.35 The PUSH West HMA has a higher proportion of dwellings in the private rented sector and a higher proportion of 1 bed dwellings (driven by the high proportion of flats in Southampton). In the parts of Test Valley and New Forest in this HMA (and in Eastleigh), owner occupation is higher, in part influenced by a housing offer focused towards larger detached and semi-detached ‘family’ homes with three or more bedrooms.
5.36 The analysis of the housing offer across the HMA highlights a distinction between the housing offer in “the two cities” (Southampton and Portsmouth) and Gosport to some extent. The two cities have a housing offer which is focused towards smaller properties and rented accommodation and are clearly built at a higher density than other parts of the HMA. Whilst Southampton has a higher proportion of flats, Portsmouth has a higher proportion of terraced housing. In the more rural areas with Winchester and Test Valley within the PUSH sub-region and in Fareham Borough, there is a higher proportion of larger, higher value detached properties which are owner occupied.
5.37 Key trends over the 2001-11 decade emerging from the analysis are the growth in private renting (across all areas but particularly in Portsmouth and Southampton where owner occupation has fallen); and a modest shift in the housing mix towards smaller properties.
GL Hearn Page 66 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6 HOUSING MARKET DYNAMICS AND MARKET SIGNALS
6.1 We have sought to provide an analysis in this section of housing market dynamics and market signals within the PUSH area. This includes a review of macro-economic dynamics and drivers as well as analysis of micro and local level house price, demand and rental trends for the Core PUSH authorities. This is supplemented by qualitative evidence and findings from consultation with estate and letting agents active across the PUSH area.
Overview of the UK Housing Market and Economy
Conceptual Framework
6.2 It is important to understand that the housing market is influenced by macro-economic factors, as well as the housing market conditions at a regional and local level. There are a number of key influences on housing demand, which are set out in the diagram below:
Figure 15: Understanding Housing Demand
Source: GL Hearn
GL Hearn Page 67 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.3 At the macro-level, the market is particularly influenced by interest rates and mortgage availability, as well as market sentiment (which is influenced by economic performance and prospects at the macro-level). In the recent recessionary period, these macro conditions have been particularly prominent in driving the housing market.
6.4 The market is also influenced by the economy at both regional and local levels, recognising that economic employment trends will influence migration patterns (as people move to and from areas to access jobs) and that the nature of employment growth and labour demand will influence changes in earnings and wealth (which influences affordability).
6.5 Housing demand over the longer-term is particularly influenced by population and economic trends: changes in the size and structure of the population directly influence housing need and demand, and the nature of demand for different housing products.
6.6 There are then a number of factors which play out at a more local level, within a functional housing market and influence demand in different locations. The importance of these local factors is perhaps more pronounced in stable or healthy economic times, when mortgage availability and market liquidity are far less of a constraint on activity. These include:
quality of place and neighbourhood character; school performance and the catchments of good schools; the accessibility of areas including to employment centres (with transport links being an important component of this); and the existing housing market and local market conditions.
6.7 These factors influence the demand profile and pricing within the market. At a local level, this often means that the housing market (in terms of the profile of buyers) tends to be influenced and consequently reinforce to some degree the existing stock profile. However, regenerative investment or delivery of new transport infrastructure can influence the profile of housing demand in a location, by affecting its attractiveness to different households.
6.8 Local housing markets or sub-markets are also influenced by dynamics in surrounding areas, in regard to the relative balance between supply and demand in different markets; and the relative pricing of housing within them. Understanding relative pricing and price trends is thus important.
Understanding the Macro-Level Dynamics
6.9 Much has been written over the last few years about economic performance and outlook. The UK economy, as well as a number of the major global economies, experienced an economic recession which lasted six quarters from Q3 2008 until the end of 2009. The economy began to recover in 2010.
GL Hearn Page 68 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.10 Economic recovery since 2010 has been relative weak – we have seen both a deep recession and weak recovery. As Figure 16 indicates during the course of 2012 there was minimal growth in the UK economy. During the course of 2013 the economic outlook has begun to improve.
Figure 16: UK Economic Growth, 2007-2013
Source: ONS
6.11 One of the key triggers to the recent economic difficulties on an international level was the ‘credit crunch.’ The downturn in the world economy was led to a large extent by the sub-prime lending crisis in the United States: this crisis has generated a fundamental shift in not only interbank lending but more significantly, attitudes towards customer lending (including home purchasers, landlords and developers).
6.12 From the onset of the economic downturn, banks sought to increase the inter-bank lending rate (LIBOR) and sought to adjust their exposure to risk by adopting much more cautious lending practices. This sharply reduced liquidity in the financial markets and credit available and in tightening lending criteria for current and prospective homeowners. This tightening of lending criteria increased ‘barriers’ to entry for marginal mortgage applicants by reducing loan to value ratios (LTVs), increasing costs associated with obtaining mortgages and reducing the income multiples accepted.
6.13 The tight lending criteria initiated by the credit crunch have continued to have an impact on mortgage lending over the last four years, with households’ ability to obtain mortgage finance functioning as a notable constraint on effective demand for market homes. As the figure below
GL Hearn Page 69 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
demonstrates, there is virtually no evident recovery in lending since 2010; with trends flat during the past few years. There are however signs that mortgage lending is picking up in 2013, particularly owing to Government-backed schemes.
6.14 Overall there has been limited evident recovery in lending since 2010. The trend in gross lending in 2012 was flat, as Figure 17 shows. There is however some evidence in recent months that mortgage lending is picking up in 2013, driven in part by Government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy.
Figure 17: Trends in Gross Mortgage Lending, UK
Source: Council for Mortgage Lenders
6.15 The impact on first-time buyers (FTB) has been particularly notable. Average loan-to-value ratios fell sharply post-2008 and currently stand at 80%. There has however been a gradual improvement in the proportion of FTB with a deposit of 10% or less (albeit that for these loans the interest rates charged are often punitive), with 25% of FTBs putting down a deposit of 10% or less in early 2013. Key issues affecting the ability of households and investors to secure mortgage finance are:
Savings and Capital: the ability to raise a deposit; Earnings and Interest Rates: affecting the ability to afford repayments; Lending Criteria: key criteria which have to be met to secure finance.
6.16 For those with a sufficient deposit, housing is now actually relatively affordable given the reductions in the value of homes since the peak of the market in 2007 and low interest rates by historic standards. The figure below demonstrates the trend in mortgage interest rates over the past 15 years.
GL Hearn Page 70 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 18: Interest Rates
Source: Bank of England Statistics
6.17 The persistence of low interest rates has helped to make monthly mortgage payments for first-time buyers (and other home owners) the most affordable for almost eight years at 12.2% of income in January 2013 (consistent with a year previously), according to the Council for Mortgage Lenders.
6.18 Figure 19 assesses long-term trends in the balance between housing costs and incomes as an indicator of the affordability of market housing. It considers the cost of mortgage payments as a percentage of monthly income.
6.19 With reductions in house prices and low interest rates, market housing is now as affordable as it was in the late 1990s on this measure. Mortgage repayments are on average 35.0% of (gross) household income in the South East (and 27.8% across the UK) as at Q1 2013. This is significantly down on the peak of the market in Q3 2007 when mortgage repayments were on average 55.8% of gross income across the region. Indeed affordability on this measure is similar to 1997.
GL Hearn Page 71 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 19: Mortgage Payments as a % of Monthly Income
Source: Halifax House Price Index
6.20 We can therefore see that the key constraint on the market is not the affordability of housing (in terms of the ability of households to cover mortgage repayments), but the ability of households to raise a sufficient deposit and to meet lending criteria to secure mortgage finance.
6.21 Market sales are also influence by investment activity - that is properties bought to be rented privately. The buy-to-let sector continues to grow, with the Council for Mortgage Lenders indicating that by the end of March 2013 buy-to-let lending accounted for 13.4% of total outstanding mortgage lending in the UK - up from 13% the previous quarter and 12.9% at the end of the first quarter of 2012. This is partly related by improved access to finance. With growth in rents over the last few years and lower capital costs for house purchases, housing represents an improved investment proposition. There is evidently occupier demand from a combination of demographics, limited new- build and restrictions on home purchases.
6.22 In addition to “buying activity”, data also shows that mortgage possessions have been falling (no doubt supported by low interest rates). The Council of Mortgage Lenders in February 2013 stated that the number of repossessions held by lenders in 2012 was at the lowest level for 5 years5. The trend in mortgage arrears is also downwards.
5 https://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3422
GL Hearn Page 72 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Demand Indicators and Market Signals in the PUSH Area
House Price Trends
6.23 As recognised in the draft Planning Practice Guidance, long term changes in house prices can be an indicator of the balance between the demand for, and supply of, housing in a particular area. Figure 20 profiles median house prices in the Core PUSH authorities 1998 – 2007 (the pre- recession decade).
6.24 As we can see, price growth across the Core PUSH authorities has been broadly consistent with regional trends. Between Q1 1998 and Q4 2007, the median house price in the South East as a whole increased by an average of 188%. However, as the chart illustrates, the Core PUSH authorities experienced similar growth levels over the corresponding period with little evidence of significant divergence from regional trends. Southampton and Eastleigh performed closest to the regional average at 188% and 189% growth respectively. Gosport (190%), Portsmouth (191%) and Havant (192%) experienced growth only slightly above this.
6.25 Amongst the part authorities within the PUSH area, our analysis of median price data shows comparatively stronger growth in the New Forest (203%) and East Hampshire (196%) areas over the period from 1998 to 2007, with comparatively weaker growth in both Winchester (164%) and Test Valley (158%) when compared to long term regional growth.
6.26 Overall, the pre-recession price growth points towards an imbalance between housing supply and demand over this period.
GL Hearn Page 73 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 20: Median House Price Trends, 1998 – 2007, Core PUSH Authorities
Source: HM Land Registry / CLG. Note: Data only available at LA level
6.27 House price dynamics since 2007 have been vastly different as a result of the wider economic situation. As the chart below demonstrates, house prices have been broadly flat over the past 5 years and, if inflation was stripped out, would likely show nil or even negative growth across many areas. This indicates a market characterised by higher supply than demand.
Figure 21: Median House Price Trends, 2007-2012 (Q3), Core PUSH Authorities
Source: HM Land Registry. Note: Data only available at LA level
GL Hearn Page 74 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.28 Analysis of price change since the “peak” of the market in Q3/Q4 2007 indicates that only two of the Core PUSH authorities have experienced growth; both of which have been relatively marginal (Gosport 2.1% and Fareham 2.9%). In the three other core authorities, prices in late 2012 remained below peak prices, most significantly in Portsmouth (-5.0%) and Havant (-5.9%).
6.29 Of the non-core authorities, Winchester has experienced the strongest growth at 2.7% whilst the New Forest has experienced very slight growth of 0.4%. Prices in Test Valley are flat against the peak of the market with no growth or decline, whilst prices in East Hampshire remain almost 3% down against the peak.
Current House Prices
6.30 Average house prices are influenced by the mix of homes sold and pricing differentials can be an important indicator of supply and demand dynamics for particular types of property within an area. Figure 22 profiles the average price for different types of property in each of the PUSH authorities over the past year.
6.31 Across all property types, the non-core or part authorities within the PUSH area experience higher median prices. Winchester in particular experiences comparatively high median prices with an average over the past year of £295,000. Winchester also experiences comparatively high prices for flats, even against the other non-core authorities, indicating strong demand across all market segments.
6.32 Of the core authorities, we see particularly low median prices in Gosport (£143,500) and Portsmouth (£148,630), with relatively higher median prices in Eastleigh (£210,000) and Fareham (£212,750). Amongst the core authorities, median prices for detached properties are broadly consistent around the £300,000 mark, except for Southampton which over the past year has experienced substantially lower prices at c.£220,000. Prices for semi-detached properties vary somewhat, with particularly comparatively high prices in Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant against the other core authorities. Eastleigh also experienced comparatively high prices for flats (£137,250), more than 10% above the other core authorities.
GL Hearn Page 75 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 22: Median House Prices by Type – Local Authorities (Aug 2012-Feb 2013)
Source: GLH Analysis of HMLR Data
Sales Trends
6.33 Sales volumes and sales rates are an important indicator of effective demand for market housing. We have benchmarked sales performance against long-term trends to assess relative demand. We use an approach of benchmarking sales performance against long-term trends to assess relative demand. Figure 23 benchmarks annual sales across the Core Authorities and wider geographies over the 1998-2011 periods. 2011 is the latest data currently available consistently. It uses an index where 1 is the average annual sales over the 1998-2007 decade (prior to the credit crunch).
6.34 The chart shows that the credit crunch resulted in a substantial reduction in effective demand, with sales broadly halving across the Core PUSH authorities, as well as across England and the South East. Since 2009, there has been only a very modest recovery across both the PUSH area and the country as a whole.
6.35 Analysis of the data indicates that in 2012, the combined number of sales across the Core Authorities was 46% down on the pre-2008 annual average, broadly consistent with the corresponding figure for England as a whole (45%).
GL Hearn Page 76 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 23: Sales Trends – PUSH Overall (Core Authorities), 1998-2011
Source: HM Land Registry
6.36 Looking at the individual authorities, we again see a similar broad trend in terms of the impact of the economic downturn, demonstrating somewhat the influence of macro rather than micro factors on the PUSH market at this point.
6.37 However, there is some divergence with the drop off in sales/demand noticeably greater in Southampton, Portsmouth and Gosport and in the other three authorities. There is also evidence of a noticeably stronger recovery in demand in the Fareham area compared to other authorities, particularly over the past couple of years.
6.38 In essence, comparison of 2012 sales against the pre-recession average indicates two distinct “groupings” in terms of sales and demand performance:
A more substantial fall in sales and more protracted recovery in Portsmouth (-53%), Southampton (-50%) and Gosport (-48%). A less significant fall in sales and slightly better recovery in Eastleigh (-43%), Havant (-42%) and Fareham (-34%).
GL Hearn Page 77 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 24: Sales Index (Individual Districts), 1998 – 2012
Source: HM Land Registry / CLG
6.39 We have also analysed sales performance of the non-core authorities. Whilst all of the non-core authorities experienced similar falls in sales levels in 2008 as the core authorities, the data indicates that they have recovered more rapidly over the past few years. As a result, the comparisons to pre- recession averages are more favourable:
Winchester: -30% New Forest: -39% Test Valley: -35% East Hampshire: -34%
6.40 At Local Authority level, the proportion of detached sales is highest in New Forest (46%) and East Hampshire (40%), suggesting a strong market for, and availability of, such properties in this area. The proportion of semidetached sales is highest in Fareham (30%) and Havant (27%) whilst the proportion of terraced sales is significantly higher in Portsmouth than other local authorities (57%) Flatted represented 38% of all sales in Southampton, significantly above the next two highest areas – Portsmouth and Gosport – which both had 27%.
GL Hearn Page 78 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 25: Percentage of Sales by Type – LA level, April 2012 – March 2013
Source: GLH Analysis of HMLR Data
Rental Values
6.41 Analysis of trends in median monthly private rents indicates that there has been relatively little movement in rental prices across the PUSH area over the past few years. As the chart below demonstrates, the two cities have seen no or even negative change in rents. The most significant change in rents has been in Winchester, where average monthly rents have increase by £75 (9%) over the past three years. Eastleigh and Test Valley have experienced rental growth of around 7% since 2011.
GL Hearn Page 79 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 26: Median Monthly Rental Levels – 2011 - 2013
Source: VOA Private Rental Data
Market Affordability
6.42 The draft Guidance specifically identifies the affordability of market housing for sale as an important signal of market pressures. We have therefore considered lower quartile affordability ratios produced by CLG. These describe the ratio between lower quartile house prices and lower quartile earnings, to provide an indication of the cost of entry level housing relative to the typical earnings of younger households. As a general observation, we can see that across all areas the affordability of market housing has worsened quite markedly over the past 15 years across the country.
6.43 In broad terms, Figure 27 demonstrates that amongst the core authorities, affordability issues (using this measure) are more acute in Eastleigh and Fareham, with these two areas having ratios of 8.7 and 8.9 respectively, significant above the national level of 6.6. Towards the top of the market in 2007-8, affordability pressures in Havant have been similar to those in Eastleigh and Fareham; however, the recession has effected a significant improvement in affordability in Havant using this measure, more so than most others in the PUSH area.
6.44 Affordability issues are noticeably less significant for the remaining core areas and ratios are broadly comparable with the national picture. In this case of Portsmouth and Southampton,
GL Hearn Page 80 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
affordability is actually better than that experienced across the country as a whole. In these areas, issues of suppressed household formation are likely to be less prevalent across the market as a whole but may occur in pockets as a result of mismatches in particular property types.
Figure 27: Lower quartile affordability (price/income) – Core Authorities (1997 - 2012)
Source: DCLG Affordability Tables
6.45 Looking at the non-core authorities, the evidence suggests that affordability pressures are more acute. Test Valley performs similarly to Eastleigh and Fareham with a current ratio of 8.60. However, in New Forest (9.38), Winchester (9.60) and particularly East Hampshire (10.32), lower quartile affordability ratios are significantly above the national picture and those seen elsewhere in the HMA, indicating greater market pressure and increased likelihood of household suppression.
6.46 Across almost all of the core and non-core authorities, the situation with respect to affordability improves at the median house price to earnings level and in the case of Eastleigh, Fareham and Gosport, this improvement is quite marked. This broadly indicates that issues with affordability are particularly focussed on the lower end of the market rather than across the market as a whole.
GL Hearn Page 81 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 18: Comparison of Median and Lower Quartile Affordability, 2012 Median Ratio Lower Quartile Ratio Portsmouth 5.45 6.06 Southampton 5.80 6.34 Eastleigh 7.78 8.68 Fareham 8.04 8.89 Gosport 6.36 7.45 Havant 6.71 6.87 New Forest 9.51 9.38 Test Valley 8.47 8.60 Winchester 9.36 9.60 East Hampshire 10.00 10.32 England 6.74 8.35
Source: DCLG Affordability Tables
Qualitative Evidence
6.47 The above analysis is based on interrogation of available data. To bring the analysis right up-to- date we have sought to use qualitative research as well, to examine housing market conditions and trends within the HMA. The aim is to add a local or bottom up perspective to the study and provide a ‘how and why’ perspective to overall study findings.
6.48 The following information is based upon face to face interviews with estate agents, letting agents and on site new-build sales staff in each of the districts and cities of the PUSH Sub-Region. Interviews were conducted early June 2013. These interviews are important as they record the perceptions of professionals that service and facilitate the housing market.
6.49 Interviews are designed to answer research questions aimed at broadly understanding local housing market conditions trends and drivers, which parts of the market serve the needs of important groups such as local people, incomers, first time buyers, investors, students, those on low income and vulnerable people. The research also explores the interfaces between the sales and letting markets and these markets with sub market and affordable housing.
6.50 Our research questions relate to defined market segments:
Owned new-build (volume and small house builders); second hand (re-sale); Rented market; student; sub-market; and Affordable.
GL Hearn Page 82 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.51 Additional supply is mostly through development of new build housing and it is important to understand the characteristics of new build housing and households that purchase or occupy it. This is delivered mainly by volume builders. On a smaller scale local builders and self-builders develop smaller infill and windfall sites. We have only interviewed volume developers with on-site sales staff.
6.52 Project resources are limited and the PUSH sub-region is large and diverse in character. The following report is structured by area and inevitably some areas needed more investigation than others due to their size and complexity.
6.53 During the fieldwork period in June 2013 a stakeholder consultation event for developers, registered providers and their associates was held in Havant. We report key findings here in order to supplement the overall findings of the qualitative analysis of housing market dynamics across the PUSH area.
Housebuilder Workshop
6.54 A consultation and workshop was held with developers, registered providers, planning consultants, and local authority and PUSH officers on 5th June 2013. We have sought to summarise below key issues arising from the discussion.
Housing Market Recovery
6.55 Thought was given to what market conditions may exist when the market can be said “to have recovered”. It was generally felt that price recovery to peak levels would not represent a normal market as that would represent peak market conditions. Many thought that factors should include:
balance between supply and demand; fewer financial constraints and a return of confidence i.e. adequate finance that is accessible to households with good credit ratings; and first time buyers able to participate more fully in the housing market.
6.56 The stakeholders present felt that the implications of this are that supply of market housing will need to increase from current (2013) levels. On the matter of confidence, it was also noted that an improving economy and improves land supply in parts of the PUSH area were having a positive impact on the market.
GL Hearn Page 83 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Shared Housing
6.57 Some concern was expressed about shared housing being seen as a satisfactory solution to housing needs, particularly taking account of the Government’s reforms to benefits. Many felt that self-contained housing should be available to anyone that wants it.
Financing Affordable Housing
6.58 Concern was expressed about the long term impact of registered providers providing such a high proportion of new build funding in the current climate; and around the difficulties in securing funding for affordable housing development. The workshop included discussion around funding models and potential innovative ways of supporting affordable housing delivery.
General Findings from Estate & Letting Agents
6.59 A programme of engagements with estate and letting agents across the PUSH area has been undertaken to inform the SHMA and suggests that there is a slight current upward pressure on house prices and rents. House prices are still well below their peak in 2007, but sales agents report rising sales volumes. Letting agents are very busy and some are maintaining waiting lists for some dwelling sizes and types, pointing to localised shortages of supply in some areas.
6.60 Estate agents report that up to 95% of transactions are bought and sold by local people. The lack of incomers is noteworthy. Letting agents and new build sales staff report higher levels of ‘incomers’. Estate agents say that ‘normal’ market conditions would reflect a greater number of higher earning households moving out of the cities in the PUSH area into the suburbs and surrounding districts; and a greater number of first time buyers participating in the re-sale market. These are essential for chains to complete. Estate agents remarked that both of these factors were significantly different in the period up to 2007. Most agents expressed the view that a greater volume of new-build is needed relative to current levels, both to meet latent demand and to ensure that there is greater price stability.
6.61 First time buyers are active in the new-build market mainly due to Help-to-Buy and predecessor schemes. They are less active in the resale market although some have now managed to save the deposit, currently around 10%.
6.62 Investors are active in the market for both new build and re-sales. The price they are prepared to pay varies as higher rents can be charged in some parts of the sub-region, however they are mostly ‘competing’ with first time buyers at entry level prices. The additional rental supply that is being created is however helping to stabilise rents.
GL Hearn Page 84 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.63 Landlords of student housing are expressing concern about demand in Portsmouth and Southampton. Some are considering offering lettings to benefit claimants paid at the room rate. Most landlords are ‘waiting to see’ if the drop in demand is temporary.
6.64 Many low income and benefit dependant households seek housing in the private rented sector. Few landlords will consider working-age households that rely totally on benefits. Many more landlords will consider low income working households receiving ‘top up’ benefits provided they have good references. All agents passed on the concern from landlords about the cessation of direct payment of housing benefit to the landlord and the impacts this could have on landlords’ willingness to take tenants supported by Local Housing Allowance (LHA).
6.65 Based upon the areas covered by agents and evidence from them about local housing markets (LHMs) we have the following observations about HMA linkages between the PUSH Authorities:
parts of south Fareham and south west Gosport combine to be a distinct local housing market; Denmead in Winchester District is closely associated with the Havant LHM with its connection to Waterlooville; the eastern section of the M27 corridor north of Portsmouth in the districts of Havant and Fareham forms a LHM, housing people leaving Portsmouth and people needing to commute via the M27. That said the town of Fareham is distinct from this LHM due to its character.
6.66 Some local variations are noteworthy.
Ringwood and Lymington in New Forest District are areas of housing that are considerably more expensive, which relates to their location and local character. Certain local areas are noteworthy because of their high proportions of older people (Lee on Solent and Milford on Sea). The housing requirements of serving members of H.M. armed forces are a significant factor mainly in Gosport. The cities of Portsmouth and Southampton have significantly larger private rented sectors than the other parts of PUSH. They have developed landlord accreditaion, consultation, selective licensing and Article 4 directions in response to problems. Officers in both cities concur with the view of agents that demand for private rented sector student accomodation is weakening. A house-share market is present in the two cities, but not the surrounding boroughs and districts beyond these within the sub-region. Local authority housing officers across the area report severe shortages of 1 bedroom homes and to a lesser extent 2 bedroom homes and the shortage is being being made worse by the ‘bedroom tax’ affecting working-age households in social rented housing. All work with the private rented sector through leasing schemes or tenancy support. Some have policies aimed at assisting low-income working households. The only area of low demand is in connection with sheltered housing bedsits. Officers stated that between 30% and 50% of households presenting as homeless so as a result of private rented sector tenancies that have failed or have ended. Local authority officers state that both currently and historically there has been little interest in self build. It is not currently a significant part of the new-build supply within the sub-region.
GL Hearn Page 85 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.67 We summarise below key findings from the consultation with estate and letting agents relating to different parts of the PUSH area.
Southampton – Key Findings
6.68 Key features of Southampton’s housing market at the time of the assessment included:
Most sales and rentals house local people, although a large number of Eastern European workers have settled in the City. Agents reported that in the last 6 months house prices are have shown modest recovery in some parts of the City. Rents in Southampton are increasing slightly but rental supply is increasing to meet increasing demand. The lack of new-build and suitable sites is major factor affecting the City’s housing market. Some student houses have not yet been let for 2013/14 academic year and some landlords are looking to let to under 35s in receipt of benefit to secure tenants. The only realistic option for some low-paid workers is to share housing. Some professionals move out of the City Centre and the peripheral residential areas into the suburbs and the towns and villages beyond such as in Eastleigh and Test Valley, but flows are small relative to the period before 2007. The City has large private rented Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) sector and is phasing in an additional licensing scheme. Around half of the demand for social rented housing is for one bedroom homes partly driven by the ‘bedroom tax’. The City has seen increasing proportions of homeless applications come from failed and ended private rented sector tenancies.
Test Valley – Key Findings
6.69 Consultation with agents covering the Southern Test Valley identified the following:
Whilst the majority of sales and lettings are to local people, the district houses households moving out of Southampton who seek a better quality housing offer, and households from Winchester that cannot afford Winchester prices. There is significant new build at the Abbotswood development in Romsey with developers offering a range of specifications and price points. Developers and registered providers were offering a range of affordable products. There is considerable demand for rented housing at the time of this assessment due to first time buyers and others not being able to afford home ownership. Investors are continuing to grow rental supply through new acquisitions not being able to secure mortgage finance. House prices were thought by some to be increasing marginally in the Southern Test Valley, rents less so.
Eastleigh – Key Findings
6.70 Eastleigh has four distinct local housing markets: Chandler’s Ford; the town of Eastleigh; Hedge End which is north east of the M27 and the area south of the M27 which borders Southampton Water. Each market has different characteristics.
GL Hearn Page 86 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Chandler’s Ford has seen prices recover to near 2007 levels and has a significant number of incomers from Romsey and Winchester. The town of Eastleigh has current new-build for the retirement market and for Eastleigh and Southampton based employees, many of whom are taking advantage of the Help to Buy scheme. There is a very active rental market. Agents state that the town’s house prices are recovering slowly and investors are very active. Demand for private rented housing outstrips supply in the town. The area approaching Southampton Water is made up of several villages (including Hamble, Bursledon and Netley) within commuting distance of Southampton; but with a local economy of its own focused on marine leisure and aviation. Agents report that around 50% of sales and lettings are to incomers who are mostly re-locating to work in the local economy or in Southampton. Officers state that there is a critical shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom social rented homes in the Borough
Havant - Key findings
6.71 From engagement of agents in Havant, the following market characteristics and trends were identified:
Estate and letting agents in Havant indicate that sales and letting volumes are rising. Transactions are overwhelmingly for local people. Sales prices for homes under £150k are rising due to demand. Rents are also rising very gradually as landlords test the market. Demand is 50/50 from first time buyers and investors at this price point. Investors in the Borough are letting to families rather than converting to flats and bedsits. There is a current lack of demand for a proportion of Hayling Island homes on the market with properties taking longer to sell. There is a significant market for retirement housing, again mostly to assist older people to downsize and release equity. Denmead is closely associated with Havant even though it is in Winchester District. Havant is a recognisable part of the M27 commuter belt. Officers state that the shortage of 1 and 2 bedrooms social rented homes has become more acute because of the ‘bedroom tax’. There is a shortage of shared accommodation for single benefit claimants aged under 35; over 40% of homeless applicants are from private rented tenancies that have failed or ended.
Gosport - Key Findings
6.72 Factors that distinguish the Gosport market from others in South Hampshire are:
Demand from HM Forces households based in various training complexes, and people working in the extensive supply chain for the Royal Navy. Much of the Borough is away from the M27 corridor and less well connected to employment opportunities along it; however parts of Gosport and Fareham can arguably be viewed as a local housing market. The town of Gosport offers an alternative housing offer to Portsmouth. Lee-on-Solent is a popular retirement destination.
GL Hearn Page 87 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Portsmouth - Key Findings
6.73 Agents in Portsmouth identified the following market characteristics and trends:
The market for sales is stagnating due to credit crunch related factors. Few people are moving out of the city. This is leading to heightened demand for rented housing as the population grows; Officers state that a high proportion of the city’s private rented sector stock is HMOs – 4,312 in number. Southsea contains some fine 3 storey Victorian dwellings. Agents reported that some years ago the trend was for investors to acquire and convert these into flats however this is no longer the case and some restoration into single dwellings has occurred. Student housing is a significant part of the market for rentals and agents reported some reduction in demand for the academic year 2013/14. Agents said that there was a lack of demand for apartments in the city. New build was scarce and hard to find. The recent developments and schemes under construction we came across were mostly for affordable housing. Agents believe that much more new build market housing is needed to help ‘get the market moving’ and there is evidence of unmet demand for high quality retirement housing. Officers stated that there was a critical shortage of 2 bedroom social rented housing as many households in need required a second bedroom, however there is significant unmet need and demand for 1 bedroom homes due to the ‘bedroom tax’.
Fareham – Key Findings
6.74 The following characteristics and trends were identified by agents in regard to Fareham Borough:
Fareham Borough is expected to see significant growth in housing and employment in the next few years with delivery of the new community north of Fareham. Parts of Fareham and Gosport Boroughs can be said to have a common local housing market; Parts of Fareham Borough traditionally housed higher-income households moving from Portsmouth. This process has faltered due to the credit crunch restricting supply but may well resume with the above mentioned new build. Fareham Town’s rental market is seeing sharper rent increases due to significant demand from incomers in addition to local demand. Agents say there is a shortage of 2 and 3 bedroom family homes for purchase and rent. Officers report a critical shortage of 1 bedroom social rented homes and that around 405 of homeless applications are a result of failed or ended private rented sector tenancies. Homeless households will generally be supported to take private rented sector tenancies in order to meet their housing need.
New Forest (Urban Areas) – Key Findings
6.75 The stakeholder engagement programme identified the following characteristics relating to the parts of New Forest District within the PUSH Area:
Agents state that prices generally now exceed 2007 peak values and did not suffer a significant drop in the interim. Parts of the coastal strip are sought after retirement destinations.
GL Hearn Page 88 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Within the PUSH area, settlements along Southampton Water are more modestly priced and there is interest from incomers from Southampton and re-locators seeking to work in the local refinery or in Southampton. Agents say that the refinery is no longer a major driver in the local housing market and agents believe that Totton can be regarded as a suburb of Southampton. Generally agents say there is a shortage of rental accommodation for working households and housing suitable for elderly downsizers. Officers tell us that 15-20% of social rented vacancies are advertised to give preference to working households.
Winchester – Key Findings
6.76 The stakeholder engagement programme identified the following characteristics relating to the parts of Winchester within the PUSH Area:
Low and middle income households are mostly priced out of the re-sale housing market in the southern part of the District. This means that many new households, moving households and households employed in Winchester seek housing in surrounding areas notably Test Valley and Eastleigh. The rental market is buoyant. There is also a house-share market. Key drivers in the market are prestigious international local employers and interest from London based households seeking to relocate.
Changes in the Use of Housing
6.77 Studying levels of overcrowding in the housing stock is an important part of the SHMA. This is strongly recognised in the Practice Guidance which notes that ‘if overcrowding is an issue, building one new larger property could help to resolve the needs of several households as households “move up” through the system into larger properties’. The draft Planning Practice Guidance identifies long term increases in overcrowding as a potential signal that housing supply might need to increase.
6.78 Data about overcrowding is available from the 2011 Census based on the ‘bedroom standard’. This is defined by the difference between the number of bedrooms needed to avoid undesirable sharing (given the number, ages and relationships of the household members) and the number of bedrooms available to the household. A household is defined as overcrowded if there are fewer bedrooms available than required by the bedroom standard.
6.79 The PUSH area has a slightly higher level of overcrowding in 2011 (4.0%) than the South East (3.8%) but levels of overcrowding are below the England average (4.8%). Overcrowding is marginally higher in the PUSH West HMA (4.0%) than in PUSH East HMA (3.9%).
6.80 Levels of over occupation vary considerably across the local authorities - from 1.8% in East Hampshire to 6.2% in Southampton. The higher than average level of overcrowding in Portsmouth and Southampton is likely to partly be a function of the higher percentage of smaller dwellings (terraced housing and flats) relative to other housing types; the socio-economic characteristics of
GL Hearn Page 89 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
the areas; levels of Houses in Multiple Occupation; and the higher occupancy levels amongst student housing.
Table 19: Overcrowding, 2011 % Overcrowded % Households Under-
Households Occupying Homes East Hampshire (Part) 1.8% 83.3% New Forest (Part) 2.7% 74.9% Test Valley (Part) 1.9% 80.1% Winchester (Part) 2.0% 80.1% Eastleigh 2.6% 74.8% Fareham 2.0% 78.9% Gosport 3.4% 68.1% Havant 3.7% 71.0% Portsmouth 5.2% 61.4% Southampton 6.2% 56.1% PUSH Area 4.0% 68.0% PUSH East 3.9% 68.5% PUSH West 4.0% 67.6% Hampshire 2.8% 75.0% South East 3.8% 70.7% England 4.8% 68.7% Source: 2011 Census
6.81 To identify trends, we have compared the room based occupancy measure from the 2001 and 2011 Census. From this, we can see that over the past decade, the number of overcrowded households has grown by more than 36% across the South East, slightly above the national level at 32%.
6.82 Across many of the authorities in the PUSH area, the increase in overcrowding over the past decade have been broadly similar to the regional average; however, a number of the PUSH authorities have seen significantly higher increases in particular Portsmouth (50.6%), Gosport (45.7%) and Winchester (46.3%). This might indicate that these areas in particular have experienced more acute supply/demand imbalances over the past decade, however, the large growth in Portsmouth is likely to be partly attributable to the characteristics and growth of the student market and numbers of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). Also notable is the comparatively low increase growth in overcrowding in Havant at only 18.1%.
GL Hearn Page 90 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 20: Changes in overcrowding (2001-2011) – based on Room Standard
Overcrowded Overcrowded households households Change (no.) Change (%) (2001) (2011)
East Hampshire (Part) 1,806 (4.1%) 2,362 (5.0%) 556 30.8% New Forest (Part) 2,794 (3.9%) 3,436 (4.5%) 642 23.0% Test Valley (Part) 2,826 (3.1%) 1,908 (4.0%) 541 39.6% Winchester (Part) 1,367 (4.1%) 2,583 (5.5%) 818 46.3% Eastleigh 1,954 (4.2%) 2,362 (5.0%) 663 33.9% Fareham 1,287 (3.8%) 1,776 (3.8%) 489 38.0% Gosport 1,512 (4.8%) 2,203 (6.2%) 691 45.7% Havant 2,826 (5.8%) 3,338 (6.5%) 512 18.1% Portsmouth 6,169 (7.8%) 9,290 (10.9%) 3,121 50.6% Southampton 9,408 (10.3%) 13,324 (13.6%) 3,916 41.6% South East 195,392 (5.9%) 265,974 (7.5%) 70,582 36.1% England 1,457,512 (7.1%) 1,928,596 (8.7%) 471,084 32.3% Source: Census 2001 and Census 2011
Vacant and Second Homes
6.83 The 2011 Census indicated that there were just over 13, 500 vacant and second homes in the PUSH Area (equivalent to 3.0% of the dwelling stock). This level is below the regional and national averages.
6.84 The level of vacant and second homes area particularly low (below 3%) in a number of authorities including: the parts of East Hampshire, New Forest and Test Valley, which fall within the PUSH area; as well as Eastleigh, Fareham, Havant. In contrast levels are highest in the cities of Southampton (3.0%) and Portsmouth (3.6%) and in Gosport (3.5%).
GL Hearn Page 91 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 21: Vacant and Second Homes, 2011
Household spaces All categories: % Households with with no usual Dwelling type no usual residents residents
East Hampshire (Part) 198 8558 2.3% New Forest (Part) 613 30146 2.0% Test Valley (Part) 506 17556 2.9% Winchester (Part) 695 16962 4.1% Eastleigh 1,238 53401 2.3% Fareham 1,371 47,941 2.9% Gosport 1,282 36,677 3.5% Havant 1,503 52,781 2.8% Portsmouth 3,165 88,091 3.6% Southampton 3,018 100,596 3.0% PUSH Area 13589 452709 3.0% PUSH East 7257 225885 3.2% PUSH West 6332 226824 2.8% Hampshire 3,165 88,091 3.6% South East 148,710 3694388 4.0% England 980,729 22,976,066 4.3% Source: 2011 Census
Rates of Development
6.85 Figure 28 below profiles growth in dwelling stock over the 2001-11 decade. Over this period the housing stock grew by 8.7% across the Core Authorities within the HMA, which was marginally above the 8.3% growth recorded across England but below the 9.1% growth recorded across Hampshire.
6.86 Over the 2001-11 decade, growth in housing stock has been strongest in Gosport (12.7%) and, Eastleigh (11.7%), whilst housing stock growth has been lower than average in Havant (5.1%). The notably ‘above average’ housing growth in Gosport and Eastleigh is likely to have fed through to higher migration to these authorities in comparative terms. This in turn can influence trend-based demographic projections.
GL Hearn Page 92 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 28: Growth in Dwelling Stock, 2001-12 (Core Authorities)
Source: CLG, Table 125
6.87 Figure 29 shows the trend in net completions across the PUSH area since 2001. This demonstrates completions steadily rising to a peak of 4,547 in 2006/07. However, since then completions have dropped off with a particularly pronounced drop in 2009/10 owing to the recession and wider market circumstances. In 2012/13, completions in the PUSH area (including New Forest) totalled 2011/12 totalled 2,492 dwellings.
6.88 Within the PUSH study area, net completions have been highest in Portsmouth, Southampton and Eastleigh in absolute terms (as can be shown by Figure 30).
GL Hearn Page 93 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 29: Net Completions 2001-2013 (PUSH Area)
Source: HCC
Drawing the Analysis Together
6.89 Across the PUSH area, and indeed across much of the country, there has been a fundamental shift in housing market conditions nationally since 2007, particularly in relation to confidence and credit availability
6.90 Since the recession, the evidence indicates a substantial decline in effective demand from peak levels, with annual sales in the PUSH area more than 46% down on pre-recession levels. However, the pattern is somewhat variable with the non-core authorities experiencing stronger recovery in effective demand over the past couple of years, as have Eastleigh and Fareham whilst in the two cities and Gosport there is little evidence of a sustained recovery to date. The downturn in sales, driven by wider economic and market conditions, is likely to have resulted in some suppression of household formation since 2008.
6.91 House price patterns prior to the recession were broadly consistent across the PUSH authorities with little evidence of divergence from regional or national trends. Since the recession, our analysis shows generally flat price across most authorities (both core and non-core) with some remaining in negative territory (Portsmouth and Havant in particular). Overall, there is little evidence of a sharp recovery and, taking account of inflation most areas have seen price falls in real terms.
GL Hearn Page 94 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
6.92 In terms of pricing levels, market evidence indicates that Eastleigh and Fareham experience the highest median prices across most property types out of the core authorities. In particular, the data suggests that prices of flats in Eastleigh are more than 10% above those of the other core authorities. Prices are noticeably cheaper in the two cities and Gosport than in the other core authorities. Median prices in the non-core authorities, particularly Winchester and East Hampshire, are significantly above the wider PUSH average.
6.93 This pricing analysis translates somewhat into market affordability. Lower quartile affordability in many of the core authorities compares quite favourably with the national ratio, with housing in the two cities in particular shown to be more affordable than the average across England. Affordability issues are however more acute in Eastleigh and Fareham, and even more so within the non-core authorities, particularly Winchester and East Hampshire. The market signals do however suggest that affordability issues in most areas occur mainly at the lower end of the market.
6.94 There is some evidence of increasing “household constraint” across the PUSH area. Whilst overcrowding across the PUSH area is not significantly out of step with the South East generally, the number of overcrowded households has increased by more than one third over the past decade. The data suggests that there are pockets of high overcrowding in Portsmouth and Southampton (albeit that this is likely to be partly influenced by the nature of the housing offer and demand profile) and that, in terms of trends, there have been particularly sharp increases in overcrowding in Gosport, Winchester and Portsmouth. We do however recognise that overcrowding issues in Portsmouth and Southampton in particularly are likely to be driven in part by the student market and levels of HMOs. In contrast, growth in overcrowding has been very low in Havant compared to both the regional and national picture.
6.95 In terms of past growth, the housing stock in the majority of the core authorities has grown at a similar rate to the national and regional averages over the past decade. However, we do see quite notably high growth in Gosport and Eastleigh with very low growth in Havant. The evidence does not however indicate that the low growth in Havant has fed through to pricing and demand signals.
6.96 Overall, the signals in terms of market and affordability pressures are not considered to be significant for most of the core authorities within the PUSH area. Given the evidence, we identify relatively modest market pressure in Eastleigh and Fareham but little significant evidence of market constraint for the remainder of the core authorities. In terms of the non-core authorities, we consider there to be some modest market pressure in Test Valley; however, in the other three authorities, evidence of demand, pricing and affordability all point to more significant pressure and constraint in the market.
GL Hearn Page 95 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 96 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
7 ASSESSING FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
Introduction
7.1 This section of the SHMA seeks to begin considering overall housing needs in the PUSH area. The analysis is prepared to meet the requirements of the NPPF which says the scale of housing required should be based on meeting ‘household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change’ (para 159) and the approach proposed in the draft Planning Practice Guidance. The analysis considers demographic trends and the relationship between population and employment growth. It also considers household formation rates and how these relate to market signals.
7.2 Section 8 in this SHMA report then deals with affordable housing need. The relationship between the projections herein and meeting affordable need are considered in drawing conclusions on Objectively Assessed Need for housing in Section 11 of the report.
7.3 For the study, we have run a total of nine separate projections covering a range of scenarios. The section below discusses the main scenarios in the context of the draft Planning Practice Guidance and provides the headline output in terms of housing need arising across the two PUSH Housing Market Areas (HMAs). Detailed population, employment and household outputs are set out in Appendix U.
7.4 Full details of the methodological approach taken in preparing the projections is set out in Appendix T along with a table summarising the key inputs and assumptions underpinning each projection.
The Starting Point – PROJ 1 (SNPP)
7.5 In line with the guidance, the starting point for projections is reasonably an analysis of the most recent Government projections. At the time of writing these were the 2011-based Interim Household Projections from CLG (which are directly based on the 2011 based Interim Sub-National Population Projections prepared by ONS).
7.6 These projections are important as they provide a consistent approach where key inputs (such as levels of internal migration) sum at a national level. The draft Planning Practice Guidance encourages their use as a “starting point” for considering housing need, setting out that they are statistically robust and based on nationally consistent assumptions.
7.7 The SNPP is also a good source of data as it uses a ‘multi-regional’ model that studies migratory movements by age and sex between all local authorities in the country. It takes account of how the population in different areas is expected to change over time and how this might influence in- and
GL Hearn Page 97 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
out-migration. The SNPP is however limited by the accuracy of data underpinning it, such as migration which is notoriously difficult to accurately measure – particularly at smaller area level.
7.8 Our first projection uses information in the ONS 2010- and 2011-based Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP). The last full set of SNPP published by ONS was 2010-based figures. These have subsequently been updated by 2011-based ‘Interim’ Projections which look at the ten year period to 2021. These interim projections use the same assumptions around fertility, mortality and migration profiles as 2010-based figures (based on pre-Census data). However the 2011-based figures have updated estimates of future levels of migration (both in- and out-migration and by type of migration (e.g. international vs. internal)) to take account of what the 2011 Census showed about the population structure.
7.9 The PROJ 1 projections therefore use the same assumptions as in the ONS 2010-based SNPP with regards to fertility, mortality and migration rates but with some adjustments to overall levels of migration on the basis of the 2011-based figures (the assumptions around fertility, mortality and migration rates from the 2010-based SNPP are also used in all other projections within this report).
7.10 It should be noted that the 2011-based SNPP only projects for a ten-year period to 2021. Beyond 2021 we have used 2010-based SNPP data but adjusted this to take account of the differences shown between the 2010- and 2011-based versions of the SNPP. In keeping with the methodology used by ONS, figures for cross-border and international migration are held constant with internal migration figures changing slightly on the basis of the projected change in the 2010-based data (but from the adjusted baseline position for 2021 shown in 2011-based projections).
7.11 The table below summarises the household growth across the PUSH area resulting from PROJ 1 For the whole period studied these projections suggest a need for an additional 3,589 homes per annum across the PUSH area, equivalent to household growth of 19.8% over the period to 2036 (0.8% per annum).
Table 22: Projected Household Growth 2011-36 – PROJ 1 2011 Interim SNPP/CLG 2011- based Household Projections PUSH Area Households 2011 439,639 Households 2036 526,744 Change in households 87,105 Change per annum 3,484 % change from 2011 19.8% % change per annum 0.79% Change per annum (inc. 3% vacancy allowance) 3,589
GL Hearn Page 98 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
7.12 The projections indicate a need for 1,655 homes per annum across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA and 1,934 across the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA.
Taking Account of the Latest Demographic Evidence – PROJ 2 (Adjusted SNPP)
7.13 Whilst the figures in the household projections appear broadly reasonable in the context of regional and national comparisons, the draft Planning Practice Guidance directs plan makers to take account of the most recent demographic evidence, including the latest population estimates prepared by the Office of National Statistics. This projection therefore considers a range of evidence (around population growth and migration) to test whether or not the key assumptions in PROJ 1 should be changed.
7.14 The key issue here is that the 2011-based Population and Household Projections are based on data regarding trends regarding fertility, mortality and migration which pre-date the release of data from the 2011 Census. Projections for future housing need are particularly sensitive to the migration trends.
7.15 We have therefore examined the key migration inputs feeding into the SNPP for the PUSH authorities in more detail, in particular seeking to reflect the 2011 Mid-Year Population Estimates and ONS’ revised data on components of change from 2001-11 (which have been rebased to take account of Census population estimates since the 2011-based SNPP was produced). We have also considered the implications of the 2012 Mid-Year Population Estimates which were published in June 2013 to ensure that the latest data is considered.
7.16 We have compared the levels of migration estimated by ONS at the time of its work on the 2011 SNPP and the revised estimated produced following the Census rebasing. Data for the five years to 2011 has been used. Across the PUSH Area the most recent data suggested that migration was under-recorded by around 434 people per annum.
7.17 Compared to many areas across the Country (and indeed the in- and out-flows) the levels of over- and under-estimation are pretty moderate. Whilst the reasons for problems with population estimates are unknown, it is the case that migration is notoriously difficult to accurately measure given that there is no formal method of registration of moves from one area to another. The issues with migration data are most likely to result from inaccuracies in the modelling of international migration and poor data regarding movement of younger persons, particularly students.
7.18 In line with the guidance, we have therefore prepared an adjusted projection which adjusts the level of net migration in the SNPP projection on a year-by-year basis using the annual difference shown in Table 22. We anticipate that this adjusted SNPP projection will be broadly reflective of an ONS
GL Hearn Page 99 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
projection would show, if one were carried out on the basis of the new data published since the last SNPP.
7.19 In our view, PROJ 2 therefore represents a robust, demographic driven baseline or “starting point” for considering overall housing needs. The table below summarises the household growth across the PUSH area resulting from PROJ 2. For the whole period studied these projections suggest a requirement for an additional 3,779 homes per annum across the PUSH area, slightly above PROJ 1. This is equivalent to household growth of 20.9% over the period to 2036 (0.8% per annum).
Table 23: Projected household growth 2011-36 – PROJ 2 Adjusted SNPP-based Household Projections PUSH Area Households 2011 439,639 Households 2036 531,368 Change in households 91,729 Change per annum 3,669 % change from 2011 20.9% % change per annum 0.83% Change per annum (inc. 3% vacancy allowance) 3,779
7.20 The projections indicate a need for 1,936 homes per annum across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA and 1,843 homes per annum across the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA.
Considering Sensitivity to Headship Rates and Household Formation
7.21 The headship rates in the 2011-based projections are based on trends between 2001 and 2011 – a period during which house prices rose substantially and affordability worsened both within the PUSH area and across the wider South East (as outlined in Section 6).
7.22 The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that local planning authorities should take account of the implications of constrained or suppressed household formation. To provide an indication of the impact of greater household formation, we have therefore run a sensitivity analysis on PROJ 2 (Adjusted SNPP), applying headship rates from the 2008 based CLG Household Projections. The headship rates in the 2008-based Projections were published in advance of the release of 2011 Census data and are based on longer-term trends in household formation dating back to 1971.
7.23 The table below summarises the household growth across the PUSH area resulting from PROJ 2A. This indicates that stronger household formation could generate a need for 4,537 additional homes per annum across the PUSH area, equivalent to an annual growth rate of around 1.0%. The impact of the 2008-based headship rates on household formation is therefore to increase housing requirements by around 20% (compared to PROJ 2).
GL Hearn Page 100 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 24: Projected household growth 2011-36 – PROJ 2A Adjusted SNPP-based household projections with 2008 headship assumptions PUSH Area Households 2011 439,639 Households 2036 549,768 Change in households 110,128 Change per annum 4,405 % change from 2011 25.0% % change per annum 1.00% Change per annum (Inc. 3% vacancy allowance) 4,537
7.24 The equivalent figure for the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA is for 2,309 homes per annum; with a need for 2,251 homes per annum identified in the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA to 2036 in this projection.
7.25 Recent national research indicates that around half of the change in assumptions between 2008 and 2011 can be attributed to economic and market conditions constraining household formation (although this will vary area by area) with around half of the change being due to changes in household structures (particularly linked to international migration) 6 . The potential reasons for changes to headship rates and how these should be projected forward are considered as part of our conclusions about overall housing needs.
Considering Sensitivity to Migration Assumptions
7.26 As a sensitivity analysis, we have also run two additional projections based on different assumptions on migration:
PROJ 3 – 10 year past migration trends
PROJ 4 – 5 year past migration trends
7.27 The table below shows estimated net migration into the sub-region (and each local authority area) over the 2001-11 and 2006-11 period. The figures have been taken from the revised ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates.
6 Holmans, A (2013) New estimates of housing demand need in England, 2011 to 2031
GL Hearn Page 101 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 25: Past Trends in Net In-Migration Year EH East- Fare- Gos- Havant NF Ports- South- TV Winc’r Sub- (part) leigh ham port (part) mouth ampto (part) (part) region n Average (last 75 618 353 391 372 476 1,057 581 157 259 4,339 ten years) Average (last 112 824 661 308 509 442 909 346 127 328 4,568 five years) Source: ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates
7.28 Migration figures can be somewhat variable over time – particularly for individual districts. Variation could be linked to a number of factors such as completions levels (which could inhibit or provide greater opportunities for migration), year-on-year changes to specific parts of the population such as students and other demand factors influencing migration such as employment. Additionally, given the difficultly of measuring migration accurately. It is possible that year-on-year changes may influenced by recording issues, but this should be evened out by looking at 5 and 10 year averages. Overall, for the full decade studied it is however considered that the figures in the table above are of the right order of magnitude as these have been calibrated to take account of Census data (in both 2001 and 2011).
7.29 Generally the highest estimated levels of migration have been over the past five years, including a net in-migration of 7,600 people in 2009/10. This contrasts with some much lower levels of net in- migration in 2005/6 and 2006/7 (1,300 and 1,700 people respectively).
7.30 Relative to the 10 year average, migration trends over the 2006-11 period have higher in East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Fareham, Havant and Winchester; and lower in other areas. However the trends shown can be influenced by quite modest changes in the balance between in- and out- migration. These are likely to be influenced by a range of factors including age structure dynamics and housing market conditions.
7.31 In developing PROJ 3 and PROJ 4 we have simply taken an overall average and projected this forward. Over the last ten years (2001-11) the average level of net migration has been an in- migration of 4,340 people with a slightly higher figure (of 4,570) if we look at 5-year trends (2006- 11). Both of these trend figures are slightly above those shown in the SNPP which as noted above averages 3,600 per annum from 2011 to 2036 or about 4,000 when adjusted to take account of the latest demographic data (PROJ 2). The table below summarises the household growth across the PUSH area resulting from PROJ 3 and 4.
GL Hearn Page 102 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 26: Projected Household Growth 2011-36 – PROJ 3 (10 yr Migration Trend) and PROJ 4 (5 yr Migration Trend) PROJ 3 PROJ 4 Households 2011 439,639 439,639 Households 2036 537,437 539,227 Change in households 97,798 99,588 Change per annum 3,912 3,984 % change from 2011 22.2% 22.7% % change per annum 0.89% 0.91% Change per annum (inc. 3% vacancy allowance) 4,029 4,103
7.32 Equivalent figures can be provided for the two housing market areas. The projections indicate a need for 2,039 homes per annum over the 2011-36 period in the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA based on average 10 year migration levels (PROJ 3); and 2,110 homes per annum based on the higher 5-year migration levels (PROJ 4). In the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA the projections indicate a need for 1,988 homes per annum based on 10-year migration levels (PROJ 3) rising slightly to 1,991 homes per annum based on the trends over the 2006-11 period (PROJ 4).
7.33 The housing need identified in both PROJ 3 and PROJ 4 is based on headship rates in the 2011- based Household Projections.
7.34 Whilst PROJ 3 and PROJ 4 provide a useful sensitivity test, unlike PROJ 2 they are not “dynamic” in terms of the impact of population age profile on migration. As such, we consider that the dynamic projection (PROJ 2) is a more realistic and robust projection of future population. This is mainly because it is reasonable (and logical) that levels of migration will change in the future as the population age structure across the PUSH area changes and the population in surrounding areas (and further afield) continues to grow and change in structure as well.
Taking Account of Economic and Employment Trends
7.35 The draft Planning Practice Guidance highlights the need to consider the implications of economic and employment growth on housing need. The Solent LEP has commissioned the preparation of detailed economic scenarios to consider future economic performance. The analysis herein should be regarded as indicative as it is not based on a detailed assessment of drivers, opportunities and risks associated with future economic performance across the sub-region.
7.36 It should also be borne in mind that economic forecasting is not an exact science and is more difficult to undertake accurately than projections for future population growth. How the economy might perform over the next 20+ years is somewhat uncertain. Relating economic performance to housing need is also not straightforward, and will be influenced by a range of factors including:
Future economic and employment growth;
GL Hearn Page 103 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Potential changes to commuting patterns;
The relationship between growth in employment and the workforce; and
The proportion of people (in different age groups) who are in work.
7.37 Employment rates moving forward are likely to be influenced by changes to pensionable ages and we may see some people work for longer. There are opportunities to reduce unemployment and worklessness as the economy improves. It is however difficult to predict precisely how commuting patterns may change given the various influences on these including the balance between employment growth and growth in the workforce in different areas, skills issues and transport investment – all of which may influence commuting. The relationship between overall economic growth (GVA) and growth in employment will also be influenced by the nature of growth in jobs and improvements in productivity.
7.38 Given these sensitivities, the economic-led projections presented should be considered indicative – particularly at a local level. They are based on (and sensitive to) multiple assumptions.
7.39 To provide an initial indication of the potential impact of employment growth on housing requirements in the PUSH area, we have run the following two projections:
PROJ A – Jobs baseline
PROJ B – Residents in employment
7.40 In developing PROJ A and PROJ B, we have drawn on January 2013 local economic and employment forecasts prepared by Experian for each of the constituent districts of the PUSH HMA. These projections should be seen as an initial set of findings with the opportunity for these to be updated when the ongoing work around economic prospects (by Oxford Econometrics) is completed.
7.41 The local forecasts take account of Experian’s forecast for the performance of different sectors in the economy at a national and regional level and the structure of the economy in different areas locally. They take account of past economic performance and assume that historical relationships between performance of different sectors locally relative to the region and UK hold true moving forward (so if a certain sector locally has seen a relative stronger growth rate in the past relative to the region, it is expected to continue to do so). They do not take account of local policy based factors, land supply or other influenced which might mean that future performance relative to wider areas (by sector) could differ from that in the past.
GL Hearn Page 104 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
7.42 For both projections we have built in an assumption that employment rates will increase moving forward – assuming that unemployment levels fall over time and we see an increase in older people working (partly driven by changes to pensionable age).
7.43 However, we have applied different assumptions with regards to commuting as explained below. The detailed assumptions are explained in Appendix T.
7.44 The PROJ A projection assumes a 1:1 relationship between the number of jobs created and the number of local residents in employment. This projection essentially does not include any assumptions about commuting patterns with all new jobs being filled by local people (it can alternatively be viewed as being based on no changes to commuting patterns with equal numbers of people in- and out-commuting as a result of new employment opportunities). This projection sees an increase in the number of residents in employment of 111,600 over the 25-year period.
7.45 The PROJ B projection draws on the Experian data about the number of additional jobs forecast to be created in each district but also considers commuting patterns (from 2001 Census data) to calculate a commuting ratio (the number of people who live in an area and are working as a proportion of the total number of people who work in an area. These ratios and their derivation are provided in Appendix T. This generates a very slightly higher projected increase in the number of residents in employment of 111,700 over the 25-year period.
7.46 The table below shows the estimated increase in the number of residents in employment in five year periods for each of the two economic-led scenarios. The data shows that the strongest employment growth is expected in the 2011-16 period with weaker growth thereafter.
Table 27: Employment Growth Assumptions used in Modelling Period PROJ A – Jobs Baseline PROJ B – Residents in Employment Annual 5-year total Annual 5-year total 2011-2016 5,426 27,132 5,552 27,759 2016-2021 5,117 25,584 5,087 25,434 2021-2026 4,032 20,159 4,017 20,086 2026-2031 3,919 19,596 3,902 19,510 2031-2036 3,913 19,564 3,896 19,479 PUSH Total 112,035 112,268 Source: Experian 2013
7.47 This is fed through the demographic model. In doing so we consider how employment rates might change for different age groups, and overall adjust in-migration to support the identified expected scale of growth in the labour force.
GL Hearn Page 105 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
7.48 The table below summarises the household growth across the PUSH area resulting from PROJ A and PROJ B. The outcomes of the two projections in terms of household requirements are broadly aligned at around 5,400 homes per annum over the period to 2036. A need for 2,609 – 2,644 homes per annum is identified in the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA (for PROJ A and PROJ B respectively); and for between 2,778 homes (PROJ B) and 2,809 homes (PROJ A) in the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA.
7.49 The economic driven projections indicate a requirement for higher levels of household growth than any of the demographic-led projections suggesting that meeting economic/employment aspirations in the PUSH are could generate upward pressure on housing needs. However as identified the projections are not based on a detailed interrogation of economic prospects within the PUSH Area, as well as the potential for improvements in productivity and economic participation which could be realised.
Table 28: Projected household growth 2011-36 – PROJ A (Jobs Baseline) and PROJ B (Residents in Employment) PROJ A PROJ B Households 2011 439,639 439,639 Households 2036 571,147 571,250 Change in households 131,508 131,611 Change per annum 5,260 5,264 % change from 2011 29.9% 29.9% % change per annum 1.20% 1.20% Change per annum (inc. 3% vacancy allowance) 5,418 5,422
7.50 The outputs of the economic modelling should be treated as a sensitivity rather than an accurate assessment of housing need. In purely methodological terms, there are inherent limitations in the accuracy of economic forecasts. Furthermore, the relationship between population growth and growth in jobs locally is complex, and is sensitive to changes in employment rates, commuting patterns and double jobbing.
7.51 The pure forecasts also need to be considered in the context of economic realities. Future employment growth in the PUSH area will in reality be sensitive to the national economic recovery (and even Eurozone performance) and at the micro level could be affected by single shocks such as the future of the naval presence in Portsmouth. There are also particular local sensitivities in relation to public funding and the resultant impact on jobs in the public sector.
7.52 Bespoke local economic forecasts are being developed for the PUSH area as part of its economic strategy. These forecasts are likely to take better account of specific local circumstances than the general “shift-share” type projections and thus a more accurate indication of housing requirements arising from future economic and employment trends in the PUSH area. The findings of the SHMA
GL Hearn Page 106 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
should be reviewed alongside these to assess whether there is any potential upward pressure on housing provision from expected economic performance.
Considering Past Completions (PROJ Z)
7.53 The final projection run in this report seeks to demonstrate the population, employment growth and household growth which would arise if past trends in housing delivery (based on average completions over the past 10-years) were to continue into the future. This projection is indicative – it does not take account of future arising needs and thus is not an approach upon which future planning should be based. It does not represent an assessment of “housing need.”
7.54 The figure below shows net housing completions over the ten years (from 2003/04 to 2012/13). The data shows considerable year-on-year variation in the numbers with strongest delivery (more than 4,500 units) being seen in 2006/7 and more moderate completion levels over the past four years as a result of the recession (between 2,200 and 2,500 homes in all cases). Over the full ten-year period the average level of completions has been 3,349 per annum and this figure is taken forward into our projection modelling exercise. For most of the 2003-9 period net completions averaged 3,500-4,000 homes per annum.
Figure 30: Net Completions 2003/04 to 2012/13
Source: Hampshire County Council
7.55 Detailed outputs of the population and employment impacts of this scenario (i.e. maintaining past trends in delivery) are set out in Appendix U. In terms of housing growth, a replication of past
GL Hearn Page 107 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
delivery trends would generate a requirement for an additional 86,230 homes in the PUSH area over the period to 2036 (allowing for 3% vacancy), equivalent to household growth of around 19.7% (0.8% per annum).
7.56 This projection results in a need for 1,530 homes per annum to 2036 across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA and 1,821 homes per annum across the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA.
Taking the Analysis forward
7.57 The analysis suggests that the PROJ2 figures should be considered a starting point for assessing housing need. These indicate a need for 1,936 homes per annum to 2036 within the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA and 1,843 homes per annum within the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA.
7.58 The evidence herein points towards the need to consider an upward adjustment to this to:
Ensure that we are not projecting forward a degree of constraint to household formation which was evidence over the 2001-11 period, based on the market and demographic analysis; and To potentially support growth in employment, pending the findings of detailed economic modelling for the PUSH area.
7.59 The third key test identified in the draft Government Guidance is the need to consider how identified affordable housing needs might be met. This is considered in the next section.
GL Hearn Page 108 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS
8.1 In this section we discuss levels of affordable housing need in PUSH and each of the two housing market areas PUSH West and PUSH East. The detailed assessment of needs for individual districts and part districts can be found in Appendix Y.
8.2 Affordable housing need is defined in the draft Planning Practice Guidance as those households who lack their own housing or live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market. The draft Guidance sets out a standard approach for assessing housing need, which we adopt for this study. This Guidance is largely consistent with that in the CLG 2007 SHMA Guidance.7
Assessment process
8.3 Affordable housing need has been assessed using the approach set out in the draft Planning Practice Guidance. This model is summarised in the chart below.
Figure 31: Overview of Basic Needs Assessment Model
Future Housing Need Current Housing Need (Gross) Estimate of Newly-Forming Households in Need & Existing Current Households in Housing Households falling into Need Need based on Census and over plan period Net Total Net other modelled data Housing Current Need Need Affordable Housing Arising Affordable Housing Supply Supply
Estimate of Supply of Affordable Total Net Current Need Housing from Relets of Existing Supply of Affordable Housing Properties over plan period Over plan period from Vacant Stock & Development Pipeline
8.4 The figures presented in this report for affordable housing needs have been based on contemporary secondary data sources including analysis of 2011 Census data. The housing needs modelling undertaken provides an assessment of housing need for the period to 2031. Each of the stages of the housing needs model calculation are discussed in more detail below.
8.5 The housing needs model is however influenced strongly by housing market conditions (and particularly the relationship of housing costs and incomes) at a particular point in time – the time of the assessment – as well as the existing supply of affordable housing (through relets of current stock) which can be used to meet housing need.
7 CLG (August 2007) Strategic Housing Market Assessments, Practice Guidance Version 2
GL Hearn Page 109 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Key Definitions
8.6 We begin by setting out key definitions relating to housing need, affordability and affordable housing.
Affordable housing: Affordable housing is defined in the NPPF as social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. The NPPF states that affordable housing should:
o Meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices;
o Include provision for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or, if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
Social rented housing: Defined as rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and registered social landlords, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing owned or managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency as a condition of grant.
Affordable rented housing: Defined as rented housing let by registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is not subject to the national rent regime but is subject to other rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent.
Intermediate housing: Intermediate housing is housing at prices and rents above those of social rent, but below market price or rents. These can include shared equity products (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent but does not include affordable rented housing.
Housing Need: Housing need is defined as the number of households who lack their own housing or who live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market.
Newly-Arising Need: Newly-arising (or future) need is a measure of the number of households who are expected to have an affordable housing need at some point in the future. In this assessment we have used trend data from CORE along with demographic projections about the number of new households forming (along with affordability) to estimate future needs.
Supply of Affordable Housing: An estimate of the likely future supply of affordable housing is also made (drawing on secondary data sources about past lettings). The future supply of affordable housing is subtracted from the newly-arising need to make an assessment of the net future need for affordable housing.
GL Hearn Page 110 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Affordability: The affordability of market housing is assessed by comparing household incomes, based on income data modelled using a number of sources including CACI, ASHE, the English Housing Survey (EHS) and ONS data, against the cost of suitable market housing (to either buy or rent). Separate tests are applied for home ownership and private renting (in line with the 2007 SHMA Guidance) and are summarised below:
o Assessing whether a household can afford home ownership: A household is considered able to afford to buy a home if it costs 3.5 times the gross household income – CLG guidance suggests using different measures for households with multiple incomes (2.9) and those with a single income (3.5), however (partly due to data availability) we have only used a 3.5 time multiplier for analysis. This ensures that housing need figures are not over-estimated – in practical terms it makes little difference to the analysis due to the inclusion of a rental test (below) which tends to require lower incomes for households to be able to afford access to market housing;
o Assessing whether a household can afford market renting: A household is considered able to afford market rented housing in cases where the rent payable would constitute no more than 30% of gross income. CLG guidance suggests that 25% of income is a reasonable start point but suggests that a higher figure could be used. A sensitivity analysis is also provided using 30%.
8.7 It should be recognised that a key challenge in assessing housing need using secondary sources is the lack of information available regarding households’ existing savings. This is a key factor in affecting the ability of young households to purchase housing, particularly in the current market context where a deposit of at least 10% is typically required for the more attractive mortgage deals. However in many cases households who do not have sufficient savings to purchase have sufficient income to rent housing privately without financial support.
Survey of Local Prices & Rents
8.8 An important part of the assessment of housing need is to establish the entry-level costs of housing to buy and rent. This housing needs assessment then compares this with the incomes of households within the HMA to establish what proportion of households can meet their needs in the market, and what proportion require support and are thus defined as having a ‘housing need.’
8.9 In this section we establish the entry-level costs of housing to both buy and rent in each of the two HMAs – the outputs have been built up from a more localised analysis of prices and rents which is presented in Appendix Y. Our approach has been to carry out a desktop survey using internet sources. We have assessed prices and rents for different sizes of properties from one to four bedrooms in each of the different locations.
GL Hearn Page 111 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.10 The figure below shows estimated lower quartile property prices obtained from this search. The prices have been reduced slightly (on average by about 6%) to take account of the difference between asking prices and prices paid based on information from the Hometrack website.
8.11 The data shows some differences between areas, with prices in the Southampton HMA being slightly higher than in the Portsmouth HMA for all sizes of property. Overall, prices are estimated to start at about £82,000 for a one-bedroom home in the Portsmouth HMA and rising to about £264,000 for four bedrooms in the Southampton HMA. The data excludes shared ownership and retirement homes for the purposes of analysis (although the latter have been included within the analysis of the profile of homes available by size).
Figure 32: Entry-level Purchase Price
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
8.12 Figure 33 below shows the profile of properties for sale in each of the two HMAs (again more detailed area level information is available in Appendix Y). The data shows that the two HMAs overall have a similar profile of dwellings available and that these are particularly focussed on two- and three-bedroom homes. Across the PUSH area as a whole the analysis suggests that 36% of properties available have three bedrooms, 29% two-bedrooms, 23% four or more bedrooms and just 12% one bedroom. Overall the profile appears relatively balanced.
GL Hearn Page 112 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 33: Profile of Properties Advertised for Sale
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
8.13 The entry-level cost for private rented accommodation is presented in the figure below. This indicates that entry-level rents range from about £480-£510 per month for a one bedroom home up to around £1,100 per month for a four bedroom property depending on location. As with the sales prices rent levels in the Southampton HMA are generally higher than for the Portsmouth HMA. The only exception to this is in the case of one bedroom homes which appear to be slightly more expensive in the Portsmouth HMA.
Figure 34: Entry-level Private Rents
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
GL Hearn Page 113 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.14 The figure below shows the profile of properties available for rent in each of the two HMAs by size of property. Compared with properties for sale the data clearly indicates a higher proportion of smaller homes being available to rent in both areas (which is consistent to wider trends) with around 30% of available homes being one bedroom compared with just 12% for sales. In total an estimated 63% of homes available for rent have one or two bedrooms which compares with 41% of sales availability. Where possible the figures exclude lettings advertised on a room only basis (which are often advertised under the heading of the overall size of the property). However, where a property is advertised in its entirety it is included in the figures even if it is specifically targeted at sharers (e.g. groups of students).
Figure 35: Profile of Properties Advertised to Rent
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
8.15 In addition to rental costs from our internet survey we have looked at the maximum amount of Local Housing Allowance (LHA) payable on different sized properties within the HMA. Maximum LHA payments are based on estimates of rents at the 30th percentile and should therefore be roughly comparable with our estimates of lower quartile costs. The vast majority of homes are within either the Southampton or Portsmouth Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA) although small parts of the HMA are within other BRMAs (for example part of Havant is in the Chichester BRMA).
8.16 Below we have therefore provided details for the two main BRMAs. The data suggests some differences between LHA rates and the findings of our market survey: these mainly relate to larger properties where the market survey suggests higher rents than the LHA rates. There are likely to be very few households who are eligible for the 4-bed LHA rate. However the analysis does suggest that larger households may need to top up LHA through their own resources, and suggests that the potential role of the Private Rented Sector in meeting the needs of larger households falling into housing need is more limited and thus their needs will need to be met primarily in the
GL Hearn Page 114 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Social/Affordable Rented Sector. The analysis of BRMA data generally confirms the market survey finding of slightly higher rents in the Southampton HMA.
8.17 In Table 29 we have also added LHA rates for room only accommodation. Generally, the amount able to be claimed for a room is around 55%-60% of the figure for a self-contained one bedroom property. Single households under 35 are now only to claim the Single Room Rate.
Table 29: Maximum LHA payments by Size and Broad Housing Market Area Size Southampton Portsmouth Room only £280 £294
1 bedroom £500 £500
2 bedrooms £664 £613
3 bedrooms £790 £741
4 bedrooms £1,000 £1,022
Source: VOA data (June 2013)
Cost of Affordable Housing
8.18 Traditionally the main type of affordable housing available in an area is social rented housing and the cost of social rented accommodation by dwelling size can be obtained from Continuous Recording (CORE) - a national information source on social rented lettings. The table below illustrates the rental cost of lettings of social rented properties by size in 2011/12. As can be seen the costs are below those for private rented housing indicating a gap between the social rented and market sectors. This gap increases for larger properties. The figures in the table include service charges.
Table 30: Monthly Average Social Rent Levels Area 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3+ bedrooms SOUTHAMPTON HMA £362 £397 £447 PORTSMOUTH HMA £376 £443 £483 PUSH £369 £420 £465 Source: CORE (2013)
8.19 Changes in affordable housing provision have seen the introduction of a new tenure of affordable housing (Affordable Rented). Affordable rented housing is defined in the NPPF as being ‘let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable)’. In the short-term it is likely
GL Hearn Page 115 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
that this tenure will replace social rented housing for new delivery, however, the tenure is initially only being trialled for four years and so this situation may change in the future. Registered Providers are also able to re-let social rented properties at affordable rent levels.
8.20 Affordable Rented housing can therefore be considered to be similar to social rented housing but at a potentially higher rent. The 80% (maximum) rent is to be based on the open market rental value of the individual property and so it is not possible to say what this will exactly mean in terms of cost (for example the rent for a two-bedroom flat is likely to be significantly different from a two-bedroom detached bungalow). In addition, market rents for newbuild homes are likely to be higher than within the existing stock and may well be in excess of 80% of lower quartile rents.
8.21 The table below shows potential affordable rents at 80% of (average) market cost by size of property (including service charge). The data shows that affordable rents are above social rents for all property sizes although in the case of one-bedroom homes in particular the differences are quite marginal (the estimated affordable rent for the whole push area is £394 compared with an average social rent of £369). For smaller homes there will be less to gain in viability terms in providing homes at 80% of market rents.
8.22 For larger property sizes it is however the case that affordable rents will be notably higher than current social rents with the gap widening as property sizes get bigger. This suggests in viability terms that affordable rent might work for some sizes and locations – the affordability of such accommodation should however also be considered. This latter point provides some support for providing affordable rent at below the 80% maximum (particularly for larger properties), but noting that this needs to be balanced against scheme viability and the availability of HCA funding.
Table 31: Cost of Affordable Rented Housing by Size and HMA (per month) Area 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms SOUTHAMPTON HMA £387 £547 £664 £904 PORTSMOUTH HMA £406 £513 £621 £874 PUSH £394 £532 £643 £892 Source: Derived from Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
Gaps in the Housing Market
8.23 The table below estimates how current prices and rents in PUSH might equate to income levels required to afford such housing. The figures are based on the figures derived in the analysis above and include four different tenures (buying, private rent, affordable rent and social rent) and are taken as the lower quartile price/rent across the whole stock of housing available (i.e. including all property sizes). The data clearly indicates a gap between the costs of ‘entry-level’ market housing
GL Hearn Page 116 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
and the social rented sector – demonstrating the potential for intermediate and affordable rented housing to meet some of the affordable need.
Table 32: Indicative Income Required to Purchase/Rent without Additional Subsidy
Lower quartile Lower quartile Lower quartile Area Affordable rent purchase price private rent social rent SOUTHAMPTON HMA £44,358 £25,333 £20,267 £14,829 PORTSMOUTH HMA £40,005 £23,968 £19,175 £15,445 PUSH £42,188 £24,829 £19,863 £15,133 Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013) and CORE
8.24 For illustrative purposes the calculations are based on 3.5 times household income for house purchase and 30% of income to be spent on housing for rented properties. The figures for house purchase are based on a 100% mortgage for the purposes of comparing the different types of housing. In reality, home ownership will also be influenced by households existing savings or equity.
Income levels and affordability
8.25 Following on from our assessment of local prices and rents it is important to understand local income levels as these (along with the price/rent data) will determine levels of affordability and also provide an indication of the potential for intermediate housing to meet needs. Income in this analysis is taken to be gross income including all benefits. Data about total household income has been modelled on the basis of a number of different sources of information to provide both an overall average income and the likely distribution of incomes in each area. The key sources of data include:
CACI from Wealth of the Nation 2012 – to provide an overall national average income figure for benchmarking; English Housing Survey – to provide information about the distribution of incomes (taking account of variation by tenure in particular); Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) – to assist in looking at differences between local authority area (but recognising that this source only provides data about people in employment); and ONS modelled income estimates – to assist in providing more localised income estimates (e.g. for the partial authorities and for sub-markets such as the east/west split in Fareham).
8.26 Drawing all of this data together we have therefore been able to construct an income distribution for the whole PUSH area and individual HMAs (and smaller areas) for 2013. Figure 38 below shows the distribution of household incomes for the whole of PUSH. The data shows that around a third (34%) of households has an income below £20,000, with a further 33% in the range of £20,000 to
GL Hearn Page 117 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
£40,000. The overall average (median) income of all households in the sub-region was estimated to be around £28,100 with a mean income of £37,500.
Figure 36: Distribution of Household Income in the PUSH Sub-Region (gross including benefits)
30% 27.5%
25%
19.1% 20%
15% 13.8%
9.8% 10% 6.6% 6.3% 7.1% 5.5%
Proportionhouseholdsof groupin 4.3% 5%
0% Under 10k £10k to £20k to £30k to £40k to £50k to £60k to £80k to Over £100k £20k £30k £40k £50k £60k £80k £100k
Source: Derived from ASHE, Experian, SEH, CACI and ONS data
8.27 The table below shows how the distribution of income varies for each of the two HMAs. Incomes were found to be slightly higher in the Southampton HMA than the Portsmouth HMA with the mean income in Southampton estimated to be £38,800 compared with £36,100.
Table 33: Income levels by HMA Income band SOUTHAMPTON PORTSMOUTH PUSH HMA HMA Under £10k 6.2% 6.9% 6.6% £10k to £20k 26.5% 28.5% 27.5% £20k to £30k 18.9% 19.3% 19.1% £30k to £40k 13.9% 13.7% 13.8% £40k to £50k 9.8% 9.9% 9.8% £50k to £60k 6.7% 6.0% 6.3% £60k to £80k 7.6% 6.6% 7.1% £80k to £100k 4.4% 4.2% 4.3% Over £100k 6.1% 4.9% 5.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mean £38,800 £36,100 £37,500 Median £29,000 £27,200 £28,000 Source: Derived from ASHE, SEH, CACI and ONS data
GL Hearn Page 118 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.28 To assess affordability we have looked at households’ ability to afford either home ownership or private rented housing (whichever is the cheapest), without financial support. The distribution of household incomes, within each area, is then used to estimate the likely proportion of households who are unable to afford to meet their needs in the private sector without support, on the basis of existing incomes. This analysis brings together the data on household incomes with the estimated incomes required to access private sector housing.
8.29 The table below shows across the PUSH area that it is estimated that around 44% of households are unable to access market housing on the basis of income levels. There is little difference between the two HMAs with affordability looking to be very marginally better in the Portsmouth HMA. The fact that private sector rents are typically higher in the Southampton HMA, along with slightly higher incomes, has had the effect of broadly bringing affordability calculations in line for both locations.
8.30 It should be remembered that this analysis only considers income levels and not a full range of financial information (such as savings and equity). In the sub-region where around two-thirds of households are already owner-occupiers, it is clear that a proportion of households will have sufficient funds to be able to access housing were there to be a need to move home. The lack of information about savings and equity does not fundamentally impact on the overall housing needs analysis which is predominantly focussed on non-owners.
Table 34: Estimated Proportion of Household Unable to Afford Market Housing without Subsidy Area Number unable to Estimated households % of households afford (2013) unable to afford SOUTHAMPTON HMA 100,382 225,199 44.6% PORTSMOUTH HMA 97,677 223,557 43.7% PUSH 198,059 448,755 44.1% Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013) and Income modelling
Assessing Current Housing Need (Backlog)
8.31 In line with CLG guidance, the backlog of affordable housing need has been based on estimating the number of households living in unsuitable housing along with consideration of their current tenure and affordability. Unsuitability is based on the number of households shown to be overcrowded in the 2011 Census, along with an estimate of other needs which have been modelled by comparing the tenure profile in each area with information from previous surveys about households in need. Much of these additional needs are found in the private rented sector and relate to issues around security of tenure and housing costs.
8.32 The data modelling estimates housing unsuitability by tenure. From these figures households living in affordable housing are excluded (as these households would release a dwelling on moving and
GL Hearn Page 119 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
so no net need for affordable housing will arise). The analysis also excludes all outright owners under the assumption (which is supported by analysis of survey data) that they will have sufficient equity to move and 90% of owners with a mortgage. Again analysis of a range of recent surveys indicates that the vast majority of owners with a mortgage are able to afford housing once savings and equity are taken into account. The small element of owners included in the backlog will take account of a number who may be in negative equity and/or are unable to fund mortgage payments due to a change in circumstances (e.g. loss of job). A final adjustment (which mainly impacts on Southampton and Portsmouth) is to slightly reduce the unsuitability figures to take account of student-only households – such households could technically be overcrowded but would be unlikely to be considered as being in housing need.
8.33 At the time of the assessment there were an estimated 12,064 households living in unsuitable housing (excluding current social tenants and the majority of owner-occupiers). This represents 2.7% of all households in the PUSH area. The figure below shows the current locations of these households by HMA – the data suggests a similar level of unsuitability in each of the two HMAs with the figure for the Southampton HMA being very slightly higher.
Table 35: Estimated number of households in unsuitable housing Area In unsuitable Total number of % in unsuitable housing households housing SOUTHAMPTON HMA 6,200 225,199 2.8% PORTSMOUTH HMA 5,864 223,557 2.6% PUSH 12,064 448,755 2.7% Source: Census (2011) and data modelling
8.34 We can however additionally consider that a number of these households might be able to afford market housing without the need for subsidy. For an affordability test we have used the income data and adjusted the distribution to reflect the fact that typically households living in unsuitable housing have an average income which is around 69% of the figure for all households in an area. Overall, around 36% of households with a current need are estimated to be likely to have sufficient income to afford market housing and so our estimate of the total backlog need is reduced to 7,714 households.
GL Hearn Page 120 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 36: Estimated Backlog Need by Sub-Area Area In unsuitable % Unable to Revised Gross housing Afford Need (including Affordability) SOUTHAMPTON HMA 6,200 65% 4,033 PORTSMOUTH HMA 5,864 63% 3,682 PUSH 12,064 64% 7,714 Source: Census (2011), data modelling and income analysis
8.35 CLG guidance also suggests that the Housing Register can be used as a data source to assist in estimating levels of housing need. In the sub-region it has proved difficult to get a consistent set of figures from all authorities due to different allocation policies and pointing systems and so, for consistency, the method linked to Census and other modelled data is preferred.
Estimating Newly Arising Need
8.36 To estimate newly-arising (projected future) need we have looked at two key groups of households based on the CLGs SHMA Guidance. These are:
Newly forming households; and Existing households falling into need.
Newly-Forming Households
8.37 For newly-forming households we have estimated (through our demographic modelling) the number of new households likely to form over the five year period and then applied an affordability test. This has been undertaken by considering the changes in households in specific 5-year age bands in 2018 relative to numbers in the age band below 5 years previously to provide an estimate of gross household formation. This is then projected forward over the plan period to 2031. This differs from numbers presented in the demographic projections in section 6 which are for net household growth. The number of newly-forming households is limited to households forming who are aged under 45. This methodology is recognised in guidance as a robust method for assessing the number of newly forming households.
8.38 The estimates of gross new household formation have been based on outputs from our projection linked to the adjusted SNPP (for each local authority). In looking at the likely affordability of newly- forming households we have drawn on data from previous surveys. This establishes that the average income of newly-forming households is around 84% of the figure for all households. This figure is remarkably consistent across areas (and is also consistent with analysis of English Housing Survey data at a national level).
GL Hearn Page 121 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.39 We have therefore adjusted the overall household income data to reflect the lower average income for newly-forming households. The adjustments have been made by changing the distribution of income by bands such that average income level is 84% of the all household average. In doing this we are able to calculate the proportion of households unable to afford market housing without any form of subsidy (such as LHA/HB). Our assessment suggests that overall around 53% of newly- forming households will be unable to afford market housing – there is no great difference in assessed affordability in the two HMAs.
Table 37: Estimated Level of Housing Need from Newly Forming Households (2013- 2036) Area Number of new % unable to Total in need households afford SOUTHAMPTON HMA 97,745 53.1% 51,903 PORTSMOUTH HMA 89,249 52.6% 46,945 PUSH 186,995 52.9% 98,920 Source: Projection Modelling/Income analysis
Existing Households falling into Housing Need
8.40 The second element of newly arising need is existing households falling into need. To assess this we have used information from CORE. We have looked at households who have been housed over the past five years - this group will represent the flow of households onto the Housing Register over a five year period. From this we have discounted any newly forming households (e.g. those currently living with family) as well as households who have transferred from another social rented property. An affordability test has also been applied, although relatively few households are estimated to have sufficient income to afford market housing.
8.41 This method for assessing existing households falling into need is consistent with the 2007 SHMA Guidance which says on page 46 that ‘Partnerships should estimate the number of existing households falling into need each year by looking at recent trends. This should include households who have entered the housing register and been housed within the year as well as households housed outside of the register (such as priority homeless households applicants)’.
8.42 Table 38 below therefore shows our estimate of likely new need from existing households over the next five years by location. The data shows an additional need arising from 46,699 households, with a notably higher proportion of these being in the Southampton HMA.
GL Hearn Page 122 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 38: Estimated level of Housing Need from Existing Households (2013-36) Area Number of Existing % of Need Households falling into Need SOUTHAMPTON HMA 26,997 57.8% PORTSMOUTH HMA 19,702 42.2% PUSH 46,699 100.0% Source: CORE/affordability analysis
8.43 Estimates of total future housing need which is likely to arise over the plan period are shown below, by combining the estimates of need arising from newly-forming households and from existing households falling into need. Total newly-arising need is estimated at 145,619 households over the 2013-36 period.
Table 39: Estimated Future Housing Need (2013-36) Area Newly-forming Existing Total Newly- Households in Households Arising Need Need falling into Need 2013-18 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 51,903 26,997 78,900 PORTSMOUTH HMA 46,945 19,702 66,647 PUSH 98,920 46,699 145,619
Calculating the Supply of Affordable Housing
8.44 The future supply of affordable housing is the flow of affordable housing arising from the existing stock that is available to meet future need. It is split between the annual supply of social relets and the annual supply of relets/sales within the intermediate sector.
Social rented housing
8.45 The Practice Guidance suggests that the estimate of likely future relets from the social rented stock should be based on past trend data which can be taken as a prediction for the future. We have used information from the Continuous Recording system (CORE) to establish past patterns of social housing availability. Our figures include general needs and supported lettings but exclude lettings to new properties plus an estimate of the number of transfers from other social rented homes. These exclusions are made to ensure that the figures presented reflect relets from the existing stock.
GL Hearn Page 123 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 40: Analysis of Past Social Rented Housing Supply (past 5 years) SOUTHAMPTON PORTSMOUTH PUSH HMA HMA Total lettings 9,075 5,657 14,732 % as non-newbuild 81.4% 72.6% 78.0%
Lettings in existing stock 7,388 4,108 11,496 General needs % non-transfers 60.2% 61.7% 60.7% Total lettings to new tenants 4,446 2,535 6,981 Total lettings 7,300 5,388 12,688 % as non-newbuild 96.5% 96.6% 96.5%
Lettings in existing stock 7,043 5,207 12,250 Supported % non-transfers 68.1% 76.6% 71.7% Total lettings to new tenants 4,795 3,987 8,782 Total lettings to new tenants (past 5 years) 9,240 6,522 15,763
Total lettings to new tenants (per annum) 1,848 1,305 3,153
Source: CORE
8.46 On the basis of past trend data is has been estimated that 3,153 units of social rented housing are likely to become available each year moving forward (72,519 over the period to 2036). Table 45 breaks this information down by source of supply and it is notable that 56% is in supported rather than general needs housing.
8.47 The supply figure is for social rented housing only and whilst the stock of intermediate housing in PUSH is not significant compared to the social rented stock it is likely that some housing does become available each year (e.g. resales of shared ownership). For the purposes of this assessment we have estimated the likely size and turnover in the intermediate stock on the basis of 2011 Census data. From this it is estimated that around 166 additional properties might become available per annum (3,818 over the projection period to 2036).
8.48 The total supply of affordable housing is therefore estimated to be 3,319 per annum (or 76,337 over the projection period). Table 41 shows the locations where supply is expected to arise.
GL Hearn Page 124 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 41: Supply of Affordable Housing from the existing stock by HMA Area Social rented Intermediate Total supply relets housing ‘relets’ (2013-2036) SOUTHAMPTON HMA 42,504 2,231 44,735 PORTSMOUTH HMA 30,015 1,587 31,602 PUSH 72,519 3,818 76,337 Source: Derived from CORE and Census (2011) analysis
Net Affordable Housing Need
8.49 The table below shows our overall calculation of housing need. This excludes supply arising from sites with planning consent (the ‘development pipeline’) to allow comparison with the demographic projections. In considering the net need for additional affordable housing provision in negotiating S106 agreements, the ‘pipeline’ of affordable housing which is expected to be delivered should be netted off the ‘backlog need’ figures shown in the table.
8.50 The data shows an overall need for affordable housing of 76,996 units over the period to 2036, equivalent to 3,345 units per annum. For individual HMAs of the PUSH area the analysis finds the highest needs to be in the Southampton HMA although the net need figure for the Portsmouth HMA is broadly similar. The net need is calculated as follows:
Net Need = Backlog Need + Need from Newly-Forming Households + Existing Households falling into Need – Supply of Affordable Housing
Table 42: Estimated level of Housing Need (2013-36) excluding Pipeline Area Backlog Newly Existing Total Supply Net Need Net need need forming household Need per household s falling annum s into need SOUTHAMPTON 4,033 51,903 26,997 82,933 44,735 38,198 1,661 HMA PORTSMOUTH HMA 3,682 46,945 19,702 70,329 31,602 38,727 1,684 PUSH 7,714 98,920 46,699 153,333 76,337 76,996 3,345 Source: Census (2011)/CORE/Projection Modelling and affordability analysis
GL Hearn Page 125 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Putting the Affordable Needs Assessment into Context
8.51 The need assessment set out above concludes that there is a significant need for almost 77,000 affordable homes across the PUSH area over the period from 2013 to 2036, equivalent to 3,345 per annum. We therefore conclude that there is a clear justification for authorities in the PUSH area seeking to secure the maximum viable level of affordable housing on development schemes.
8.52 However, there are a number of things that need to be remembered in interpreting the quantitative findings of the assessment. The role of the needs assessment is specifically to identify whether there is a shortfall or surplus of genuine affordable housing product to provide for those households who cannot afford to meet their needs in the market: it does not look at all housing needs. There are therefore two key assumptions which underpin the model:
All households are adequately housed in a home which they can afford (assuming no more than 30% of the households’ gross income is spent on housing costs); and
All households in need are housed in a “genuine” affordable housing product (as defined by the NPPF).
8.53 Considering this, there are therefore three key factors and sensitivities which need to be considered in order to put the needs identified in the model into a “real life” context:
The extent to which households defined as in housing need may choose to spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs or may not actively seek an affordable home;
The role of the Private Rented Sector, supported by Local Housing Allowance, in providing accommodation for those identified as in need; and
The possible future impacts of recently announced welfare reforms on need for affordable housing.
8.54 It should be recognised that the assessment is also a ‘snapshot’ at a point in time. It is therefore particularly sensitivity to the differential between housing costs and incomes at that point; as well as the existing supply of affordable housing. The turnover of stock has also generally decreased over time. The shortfall of affordable housing identified will also to some extent be affected by past investment decisions.
GL Hearn Page 126 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.55 The following sections discuss in detail the implications of these various factors.
Sensitivity to Income Thresholds
8.56 Whilst 30% is a widely accepted and robust income threshold for the assessment, in practice, many households will choose to spend a greater proportion of their income on housing. This is particularly likely to occur in more affluent areas.
8.57 To understand the implications of this factor, we sensitivity tested affordable housing need assuming variant levels of income spent on housing costs. If we reduce the proportion to be spent on housing to 25% the level of net need across the PUSH area rises to 94,340 (4,104 per annum) whilst increasing the figure to 35% see the estimated level of need drop to 61,647 (2,680 per annum). In all cases the analysis shows a significant need for affordable housing.
Role of the Private Rented Sector in Meeting Housing Need
8.58 In considering the true dynamics of the local housing market, it is vitally important to consider the role played by the private rented sector (through the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) system) in meeting the needs of households with an affordable housing need. To do this, we have analysed data from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in order to identify the number of LHA, supported private rented homes and estimate its role in augmenting the supply of homes for households in need.
8.59 As of February 2013 it is estimated that there were 26,034 benefit claimants in the private rented sector in the PUSH area.
8.60 The data in the table below shows that in both HMAs the number of LHA claimants has increased over the two year period from February 2011 although the proportionate increase in the Southampton HMA is high relative to the Portsmouth HMA.
Table 43: Number of People claiming LHA in Private Rented Sector (February 2011 and February 2013) Area February February Absolute % change 2011 2013 change SOUTHAMPTON HMA 11,003 12,129 1,126 10.2% PORTSMOUTH HMA 13,176 13,905 729 5.5% PUSH 24,178 26,034 1,856 7.7% Source: Department of Work and Pensions
8.61 Comparing this to the total private rented sector (PRS) stock in the PUSH area (75,180 dwellings) shows that benefit claimants account for just under 35% of the sector.
GL Hearn Page 127 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.62 What this information does not tell us is how many lettings are made each year to tenants claiming benefit as this will depend on the turnover of stock. From English Housing Survey we estimate that the proportion of homes within the private sector which are “new lettings” each year (i.e. stripping out the effect of transfers) is around 13%. Applying this to the private rented stock gives us an estimate of 9,773 private sector lettings per annum in the PUSH area.
8.63 Of these lettings, we assume 35% are to benefit claimants, consistent with their representation in the total private rented stock, giving a total of approximately 3,383 lettings per annum to LHA claimants. There are however likely to be instances of multiple LHA claimant households in the PUSH area and we have therefore applied a reduction of 20% to convert to households. The result indicates that the PRS supports around 2,706 LHA households per annum across the PUSH area – 1,261 lettings in the Southampton HMA and 1,445 in the Portsmouth HMA.
8.64 The table below takes the above data and uses it to show concentrations of households living in the private rented sector (PRS) by area along with an estimate of the number of lettings in this sector over a five year period. Some caution should be used in interpreting this data given the different data sources used. In addition it should be noted that the number of claimants is individuals and in some cases there may be more than one claimant per household. The data shows as a proportion of the whole PRS that claimant rates are higher in the Portsmouth HMA which also has a higher number of claimants.
Table 44: Private Rented Sector LHA claimants by HMA Area LHA Households Claimants Estimated Estimated claimants in PRS as % of lettings per lettings to in PRS households annum LHA claimants SOUTHAMPTON HMA 12,129 38,613 31.4% 5,020 1,261 PORTSMOUTH HMA 13,905 36,567 38.0% 4,754 1,445 PUSH 26,034 75,180 34.6% 17,260 2,706 Source: Census (2011), DWP
8.65 As such, the overall estimated number of lettings in the LHA part of the PRS can be seen to be more than three quarters of the net need derived through housing needs analysis. Whilst the private rented sector is not recognised as a genuine affordable housing product, it is important to recognise that, in practice, the sector makes a significant contribution to meeting housing need and addressing a shortfall in genuine affordable housing products.
8.66 The extent to which authorities across the PUSH area wish to see this role in the future will clearly have implications for both affordable housing supply and by implication overall housing provision. Whilst, this is ultimately a local policy decision which is beyond the scope of this study, we would note the following considerations:
GL Hearn Page 128 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
The private rented sector continues to grow (across the PUSH area and the South East) and given the stock of affordable housing locally as well as the future prospects in terms of grant funding for new affordable housing delivery the reality is that there is likely to be comparatively greater availability in the private rented sector moving forward.
The private rented sector however provides less security than the affordable sector and standards can also be lower than for social rented properties.
There are likely to be households with specific housing needs who may not be able to find suitable accommodation within the Private Rented Sector.
Impact of Welfare Reforms
8.67 The Coalition Government has heralded a period of considerable change by way of welfare reforms which will have an effect on local residents. The reforms are set against a backdrop of government spending cuts, which has seen funding levels drop, and an economic recession which has led to changes to the country’s housing market and how housing can be accessed. A summary of the welfare reforms and impacts are shown below:
Reducing the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) from the median rent in a Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA) to the 30th centile and the abolition of the rate for 5 or more bedroom homes. These changes were introduced in April 2011 and will have meant that some households will have seen a reduction in housing benefit. There has also been a reduction in the number of homes available to rent at or below payment thresholds and potentially increased demand for lower cost properties. Households requiring larger (5 or more bedroom) homes have been disproportionately affected.
Limiting payments for people under 35 to the shared room rate (up from 25) – from January 2012. This change has made it harder for Councils to place young single people in private rented accommodation and has resulted in a greater demand for shared housing.
Up rating LHA in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of by reference to local rents. If rents increase at a rate above CPI then there will be a reduction in the number of properties with a rent below LHA maximum levels.
Limiting Housing Benefit entitlements for working age people in social housing sector to reflect family size. The ‘bedroom tax’ is arguably the most controversial of the Government changes with households losing 14% of housing benefit if they have one spare bedroom and 25% for two or more. This change has already put considerable pressure on housing providers who are seeing a significantly increased demand for smaller (particularly one bedroom) homes. In the longer-term if the supply does not improve this change could see some increases in homelessness. This change was brought in from April 2013.
GL Hearn Page 129 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
A household benefit cap is being phased in from April 2013 which will limit the amount claimed in all benefits for working age (non-working) households to £500 per week for households with two or more people and £350 for single adults. For many households this will not make a difference to their ability to access housing; however larger households living in larger (more expensive) homes will be disproportionately affected.
The move towards a Universal Credit is likely to end Housing Benefit payments direct to landlords (which happens in some instances), making benefit claimants potentially less attractive as tenants.
8.68 Whilst the full impact of the various current and proposed changes is difficult to quantify it is clear when taken together that a significant number of people and households will be affected. Given the levels of housing need identified set against the potential supply of affordable housing (from both the existing stock and new provision) it seems unlikely that the number of households in need will fall in the short/medium-term. Indeed the evidence suggests a likely growth in need.
Need for Different Types of Affordable Housing
8.69 Having studied housing costs, incomes and housing need the next step is to make an estimate of the proportion of affordable housing need that should be met through provision of different housing products. We therefore use the income information presented earlier in this section to estimate the proportion of households who are likely to be able to afford intermediate housing and the number for whom only social or affordable rented housing will be affordable. The main data sources for establishing housing need are Census data and projections of newly-forming households (along with local income and affordability estimates).
8.70 We have assessed need on the basis of three income bands which have been associated with three different tenures of housing – intermediate, affordable rented and social rented. Households are considered able to afford intermediate housing if their income is greater than that required to rent at 80% of market rental costs (a figure which equates with possible affordable rent maximum costs) and the income falls below that required to access the market without subsidy. Although technically an intermediate product could be provided at below this level, the reality is that most intermediate housing is priced closer to market costs than social housing costs. Households whose income falls in the gap between intermediate housing and social rented housing are allocated to affordable rented housing with lower income households placed in the social rent group. The categories of affordable housing are described in the table below.
GL Hearn Page 130 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 45: Categories of Affordable Housing Used for Analysis Housing type Description Intermediate housing Assigned to households who can afford a housing cost at or above 80% of market rents but cannot afford full market costs
Affordable rent Assigned to households who could afford a social rent without the need to claim housing benefit but would need to claim benefit to afford an Affordable Rented home (priced at 80% of market rental costs)
Social rent Households who would need to claim housing benefit regardless of the cost of the property
8.71 In fact there will be a considerable overlap between these categories – the first would potentially represent households who could afford affordable rented housing without the need to claim housing benefit whilst the latter category (called social rent for analytical purposes) could have their needs met through affordable rented housing (with benefit assistance).
8.72 The table below shows our estimate of the number of households in need in each of the above categories. The analysis confirms the levels of intermediate housing required as well as showing (in affordability terms) that affordable rented housing may have a limited role to play in meeting need with only around a quarter of those in the affordable/social rented category being able to afford an affordable rent without the need for benefit assistance.
Table 46: % Net Need for Different Types of Affordable Housing (2013-18) Area Intermediate Affordable rent Social rent Total SOUTHAMPTON HMA 29.4% 19.9% 50.7% 100.0% PORTSMOUTH HMA 27.4% 14.1% 58.5% 100.0% PUSH 28.4% 17.3% 54.4% 100.0% Source: Housing Needs Analysis
8.73 In considering what mix of housing to deliver, it needs to be borne in mind that HCA funding is primarily focused on delivering affordable (as opposed to social) rent as part of the current National Affordable Housing Programme.
Drawing the Evidence Together
8.74 The NPPF (and national guidance) sets out that plans should be prepared on the basis of meeting full needs for market and affordable housing. In assessing needs for affordable housing, we have adopted the methodology set out in the draft Planning Practice Guidance.
GL Hearn Page 131 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.75 In following this approach, we have identified a net affordable housing need across the PUSH area of 76,996 households over the period from 2013 to 2036, equivalent to 3,345 households each year. There is thus a significant need for new affordable housing across the PUSH area and we therefore consider the Councils are justified in seeking to secure the maximum viable level of affordable housing.
8.76 However, whilst a significant quantitative shortfall is identified, there are in reality two key factors against which the assessment must be put into context. Firstly, in practice there are likely to be households who are adequately housed whilst paying more than the 30% of income threshold used in this report, particularly in more affluent parts of the HMA. Our sensitivity testing demonstrates that at an income threshold of 35%, affordable housing need over the plan period falls to around 2,700 households per annum whilst at 25%, needs rise to more than 4,100 per annum.
8.77 Secondly, in considering the true dynamics in the affordable sector, it is important that the role played by the private rented sector is recognised, particularly insofar as it provides adequate and affordable housing when supported by the LHA. In this regard, our evidence shows that in the PUSH area the private rented sector makes a potentially significant contribution to meeting affordable housing needs with an estimated 2,700 lettings per annum in the sector to households supported by LHA.
8.78 Clearly the private rented sector is not a recognised form of affordable housing and the extent to which the councils wish to see the private rented sector being used to make up for shortages of affordable housing is ultimately a local policy decision which is outside the scope of this study. However, assuming its current role continues, our analysis indicates a need to deliver around 640 affordable homes per annum across the PUSH area. This could be deliverable with overall housing provision across the PUSH area in the region of 2,100-2,200 homes per annum.
8.79 Looking at the district level analysis in Appendix Y, there is some evidence that meeting affordable housing needs is likely to place upward pressure on housing requirements over and above the demographic projections in some areas. In Eastleigh, even assuming the current role of the private rented sector continues, we identify a need to deliver around 310 additional affordable homes per annum, which would require overall housing provision in the region of 1,000 to 1,100 homes per annum. In Fareham, our analysis shows a need to deliver around 150 additional affordable homes per annum, which could be deliverable at an overall housing figure of 480-500 homes per year. This is based on current funding mechanisms for affordable housing (i.e. largely through Section 106 Agreements). We also see some upward pressure in the East Hampshire (part) where a need for 50 affordable homes per annum is identified, requiring an overall housing requirement in the region of 150 homes per year to ensure full delivery.
GL Hearn Page 132 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
8.80 In establishing an objective assessment of overall housing requirements in Section 10, the outputs of this assessment will be considered alongside other signals as well as the demographic-led projections of housing requirements.
GL Hearn Page 133 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 134 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9 REQUIREMENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMES
Introduction
9.1 As discussed in Section 5, there are a range of factors which influence housing demand. These factors play out at different spatial scales and influence both the level of housing demand (in terms of aggregate household growth) and the nature of demand for different types, tenures and sizes of homes.
9.2 In this section we consider in some detail the implications of demographic drivers on demand for different housing products. The assessment is intended to provide an understanding of the implications of changes in the size and structure of the population on need and demand for different sizes of homes.
9.3 The analysis in this section seeks to use the information available about the size and structure of the population and household structures; and consider what impact this may have on the sizes of housing required in the future. For the purposes of this analysis we have looked at the demographic change as indicated in our projection linked to the 2011-based SNPP (as updated) - delivery of 93,300 additional homes from 2011 to 2036.
Methodology
9.4 The figure below describes the broad methodology employed in the housing market modelling. Data is drawn from a range of sources including the 2011 Census and our demographic projections and below we briefly discuss key information sources.
GL Hearn Page 135 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 37: Summary of Housing Market Model
Understanding how Households Occupy Homes
9.5 Whilst the demographic projections provide a good indication of how the population and household structure will develop it is not a simple task to convert the net increase in the number of households in to a suggested profile for additional housing to be provided. The main reason for this is that in the market sector households are able to buy or rent any size of property (subject to what they can afford) and therefore knowledge of the profile of households in an area does not directly translate into the sizes of property needed. The sizes of market housing which households occupy relates more to their wealth and age than the number of people which they contain. For example, there is no reason why a single person cannot buy (or choose to live in) a four bedroom home as long as they can afford it and hence projecting an increase in single person households does not automatically translate in to a need for smaller units.
9.6 In the affordable sector this issue is less relevant (particularly since the introduction of the ‘bedroom tax’) although there will still be some level of under-occupation moving forward with regard to older person and working households who may be able to continue to under-occupy their current homes.
GL Hearn Page 136 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9.7 The general methodology is to use the information derived in the projections about the number of household reference persons (HRPs) in each age and sex group and apply this to the profile of housing within these groups. The data for this analysis has been formed from a commissioned table by ONS (Table C1213 which provides relevant data for all local authorities in England) with data then calibrated to be consistent with 2011 Census data (e.g. about house sizes in different tenure groups and locations).
9.8 The figure below shows an estimate of how the average number of bedrooms varies by different ages of HRP and different sexes by broad tenure group. In the market sector the average size of accommodation rises over time to typically reach a peak around the 45-54 age group. In the affordable sector this peak appears earlier. After this the average dwelling size decreases – possibly due to a number of people down-sizing as they get older. It is also notable that the average size for affordable housing is lower than that for market housing whilst in market housing male HRPs live in larger accommodation for all age groups (with no particular trend being seen in the affordable sector).
Figure 38: Average Bedrooms by Age, Sex and Tenure - PUSH
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5 Male - market Averagenumber bedroomsof Female - market 1.0 Male - affordable Female - affordable 0.5
0.0 Under 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 79 80 - 84 85 + 25 Age band
Source: Derived from ONS Commissioned Table C1213 and 2011 Census
Establishing a Baseline Position
9.9 As of 2011 it is estimated that there were 440,893 households living in the PUSH area. Analysis of Census data linked to the demographic baseline provides us with an estimate of the profile of the housing stock in 2011, as shown in the table below. The table shows that an estimated 17.2% of households live in affordable housing with 82.8% being in the market sector. The size of the
GL Hearn Page 137 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
affordable sector has been fixed by reference to an estimate of the number of occupied social rented and shared ownership homes in 2011. The data also suggests that homes in the market sector are generally bigger than in the affordable sector with 66% having three or more bedrooms compared to 32% for affordable housing.
9.10 These figures are for households rather than dwellings as information about the sizes of vacant homes across the whole stock (i.e. market and affordable) is not currently readily available. For the purposes of analysis this will not make any notable difference to the profile. We have however translated the household projections into dwelling figures by including a 3% vacancy allowance when studying the final outputs of the market modelling.
Table 47: Estimated Profile of Dwellings in 2011 by Size Size of Market Affordable Total housing Number % Number % Number % 1 bedroom 33,071 9.1% 25,762 33.9% 58,832 13.3% 2 bedrooms 91,727 25.1% 25,862 34.0% 117,590 26.7% 3 bedrooms 161,394 44.2% 21,567 28.4% 182,961 41.5% 4+ bedrooms 78,648 21.6% 2,862 3.8% 81,511 18.5% Total 364,840 100.0% 76,053 100.0% 440,893 100.0% % in tenure 82.8% 17.2% 100.0% Source: Derived from 2011 Census
Tenure Assumptions
9.11 The housing market model has been used to estimate future requirements for different sizes of property over the 2011-36 period. The model works by looking at the types and sizes of accommodation occupied by different ages of residents, and attaching projected changes in the population to this to project need and demand for different sizes of homes. However the way households of different ages occupy homes differs between the market and affordable sectors (as shown earlier). Thus it is necessary to consider what mix of future housing will be in the market and affordable sectors.
9.12 The key assumption here is not a policy target but possible delivery. Our assumption is influenced by a range of factors. The affordable housing needs analysis in this report provides evidence of considerable housing need which would support any target although the viability of providing affordable housing will limit the amount that can be delivered. On the basis of information available we believe that 30% is probably about the maximum affordable housing delivery likely to be achieved over the longer term and have developed projections on the basis of 30% of new delivery being in the affordable sector. It should be stressed that this is not a policy position and has been applied simply for the purposes of providing outputs from the modelling process.
GL Hearn Page 138 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Model Outputs: Affordable Housing
9.13 The table and figure below show estimates of the sizes of affordable housing required based on our understanding of demographic trends. The data suggests in the period between 2011 and 2036 that around 78% of the requirement is for homes with one or two-bedrooms with around 22% of the requirement being for larger homes with three or more bedrooms. There is no significant difference in the outputs for each of the two Housing Market Areas.
9.14 This analysis provides a longer-term view of need for different sizes of affordable housing and does not reflect any specific priorities such as for family households in need rather than single people. In addition we would note that smaller properties (i.e. one bedroom homes) typically offer limited flexibility in accommodating the changing requirements of households, whilst delivery of larger properties can help to meet the needs of households in high priority and to manage the housing stock by releasing supply of smaller properties. That said, there may in the short-term be an increased requirement for smaller homes as a result of welfare reforms limiting the amount of housing benefit which can be claimed by working-age households.
Table 48: Estimated Size of Dwellings Needed 2011 to 2036 – Affordable Housing Additional % of additional Size 2011 2036 households 2011- households 2036 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 1 bedroom 13,009 18,407 5,397 41.5% 2 bedrooms 13,547 18,196 4,649 35.7% 3 bedrooms 10,594 13,230 2,636 20.3% 4+ bedrooms 1,437 1,762 325 2.5% Total 38,587 51,594 13,007 100.0% PORTSMOUTH HMA 1 bedroom 12,753 19,261 6,508 45.9% 2 bedrooms 12,315 16,870 4,555 32.2% 3 bedrooms 10,973 13,727 2,754 19.4% 4+ bedrooms 1,425 1,776 350 2.5% Total 37,466 51,634 14,168 100.0% PUSH AREA 1 bedroom 25,762 37,667 11,906 43.8% 2 bedrooms 25,862 35,066 9,204 33.9% 3 bedrooms 21,567 26,956 5,390 19.8% 4+ bedrooms 2,862 3,538 676 2.5% Total 76,053 103,228 27,175 100.0% Source: Housing Market Model
GL Hearn Page 139 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9.15 The figure below shows how our estimated affordable requirement compares with the stock of affordable housing in 2011. The figures are based on households (i.e. before adding in a vacancy allowance). The data shows that, relative to the current stock, there is a slight move towards a greater proportion of smaller homes being required (with 77% of the need in the Southampton HMA and 78% in the Portsmouth HMA for properties with 1- or 2-bedrooms). This makes sense given that in the future household sizes are expected to drop whilst the population of older people will increase – older person households (as shown earlier) are more likely to occupy smaller dwellings. However, the analysis still identifies a requirement for larger units (particularly three bedroom accommodation).
Figure 39: Impact of Demographic Trends on Affordable Housing Need by House Size, 2011 to 2036 - PUSH
40,000
35,000 11,906 30,000 9,204 2036 2011 25,000 5,390
20,000
15,000 25,762 25,862 21,567
Numberhouseholdsof groupin 10,000
5,000 676 2,862 0 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms
Source: Housing Market Model
Model Outputs: Market Housing
9.16 As we have previously identified there are a range of factors which can be expected to influence demand for housing. This analysis specifically looks at the implications of demographic drivers. It uses a demographic-driven approach to quantify demand for different sizes of properties over the 25-year period from 2011 to 2036.
9.17 The table and figure below shows estimates of the sizes of market housing required from 2011 to 2036 based on demographic trends for the whole of the PUSH area and the two HMAs. The data suggests a need for homes for 63,408 additional households with the majority of these being two-
GL Hearn Page 140 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
and three-bedroom homes. As with the affordable housing analysis, there is no significant difference in the profile of homes needed in each HMA.
Table 49: Estimated Size of Dwellings Required 2011 to 2036 – Market Housing Additional % of additional Size 2011 2036 households 2011- households 2036 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 1 bedroom 18,321 21,515 3,194 10.5% 2 bedrooms 44,441 54,054 9,613 31.7% 3 bedrooms 77,641 90,973 13,332 43.9% 4+ bedrooms 42,273 46,484 4,211 13.9% Total 182,676 213,026 30,350 100.0% PORTSMOUTH HMA 1 bedroom 14,750 18,040 3,290 10.0% 2 bedrooms 47,286 58,465 11,179 33.8% 3 bedrooms 83,753 98,613 14,860 45.0% 4+ bedrooms 36,375 40,105 3,729 11.3% Total 182,164 215,222 33,058 100.0% PUSH AREA 1 bedroom 33,071 39,555 6,484 10.2% 2 bedrooms 91,727 112,519 20,791 32.8% 3 bedrooms 161,394 189,586 28,192 44.5% 4+ bedrooms 78,648 86,588 7,940 12.5% Total 364,840 428,248 63,408 100.0% Source: Housing Market Model
9.18 The figure below shows how our estimated market requirement compares with the current stock of housing (based on households (i.e. excluding the 3% vacancy allowance)). The data suggests that housing requirements reinforce around the existing profile of stock, but with a slight shift towards a requirement for smaller dwellings relative to the distribution of existing housing. This is understandable given the fact that household sizes are projected to fall slightly in the future (which itself is partly due to the ageing of the population).
GL Hearn Page 141 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 40: Impact of Demographic Trends on Market Housing Requirements by House Size, 2011 to 2036
200,000
180,000 28,192 160,000
140,000 2036 2011 120,000
100,000 20,791
80,000 161,394 7,940
60,000
Numberhouseholdsof groupin 91,727 40,000 6,484 78,648
20,000 33,071 0 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms
Source: Housing Market Model
9.19 The graphs and statistics are based upon our modelling of demographic trends. As we have identified, it should be recognised that a range of factors including affordability pressures and market signals will continue to be important in understanding market demand. This may include an increased demand in the private rented sector for rooms in a shared house due to changes in housing benefit for single people. In determining policies for housing mix, policy aspirations are also relevant.
9.20 In the immediate term we would expect stronger relative demand for family homes as the market for smaller properties is restricted by mortgage finance constraints; albeit that with the Help-to-Buy Scheme this may start to change. Over the 25-year projection period it is anticipated that there will be a continuing market for larger family homes, but the existing stock is expected to make a significant contribution to meeting this demand, as older households downsize (releasing equity from existing homes).
9.21 As the last few years have shown, there are a range of inter-dependencies which affect housing demand, with effective demand for entry-level market housing currently influenced by the availability of mortgage finance for first-time buyers and those on lower earnings. This is likely to affect market demand for smaller properties typically purchased by first-time buyers in the short-term.
GL Hearn Page 142 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9.22 The NPPF is explicit in requiring local planning authorities to identify and plan for the required mix of housing in terms of type, size and tenure. The analysis of an appropriate mix of dwellings should also inform the ‘portfolio’ of sites which are considered for allocation through the local plan processes to ensure that land supply is capable of delivering not only the right amount, but also the right type of housing. Housing mix can also be guided implicitly through policies on development densities which may be geared towards driving sustainable and efficient patterns of growth.
Interpreting the Model Outputs
9.23 The table and figure below summarises the above data in both the market and affordable sectors under the modelling exercise. We have also factored in a 3% vacancy allowance in moving from household figures to estimates of housing requirements. Given the similarities in outputs for both the Southampton and Portsmouth HMAs there does not appear to be any great benefit in considering these separately.
Table 50: Estimated Dwelling Requirement by number of Bedrooms (2011 to 2036) Number of Market Affordable bedrooms Households Dwellings % of Households Dwellings % of dwellings dwellings 1 bedroom 6,484 6,678 10.2% 11,906 12,263 43.8% 2 bedrooms 20,791 21,415 32.8% 9,204 9,480 33.9% 3 bedrooms 28,192 29,038 44.5% 5,390 5,552 19.8% 4+ bedrooms 7,940 8,178 12.5% 676 696 2.5% Total 63,408 65,310 100.0% 27,175 27,990 100.0% Source: Housing Market Model
Figure 41: Size of Housing Needed 2011 to 2036 Market Affordable
Source: Housing Market Model
GL Hearn Page 143 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9.24 Whilst the outputs of the modelling provide estimates of the proportion of homes of different sizes that should be provided there are a range of factors which should be taken into account in setting policies for provision. This is particularly the case in the affordable sector where there are typically issues around the demand for and turnover of one bedroom homes. We also need to consider that the stock of four bedroom affordable housing is very limited and tends to have a very low turnover. As a result, whilst the number of households coming forward for four or more bedroom homes is typically quite small, the ability for these needs to be met is even more limited.
9.25 It should also be recognised that local authorities have statutory homeless responsibilities towards families with children and may therefore prioritise the needs of families over single person households and couples. In the short-term however there may be a need to increase the supply of one-bedroom homes due to the ‘bedroom tax’.
9.26 For these reasons we would suggest converting the long-term modelled outputs into a profile of housing to be provided (in the affordable sector) that the proportion of one bedroom homes required is reduced slightly from these outputs with a commensurate increase in four or more bedroom homes also being appropriate.
9.27 Across the PUSH level and for each of the two HMAs, the analysis point towards the following mix of affordable housing:
1-bed properties: 35%-40% 2-bed properties: 30%-35% 3-bed properties: 20%25% 4-bed properties: 5%-10%
9.28 This profile recognises the role which delivery of larger family homes can play in releasing supply of smaller properties for other households; together with the limited flexibility which one-bed properties offer to changing household circumstances which feed through into higher turnover and management issues.
9.29 The need for affordable housing of different sizes will vary by area across the PUSH area and over time. In considering the mix of homes to be provided within specific development schemes, the identified needs at a strategic level should be brought together with details of households currently on the Housing Register in the local area and the stock and turnover of existing properties.
9.30 Based on the evidence, we would expect the focus of new market housing provision to be on two and three-bed properties. Continued demand for family housing can be expected from newly forming households. There may also be some demand for medium-sized properties (2 and 3 beds) from older households downsizing and looking to release equity in existing homes, but still retain flexibility for friends and family to come and stay.
GL Hearn Page 144 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9.31 The evidence would point towards the need and the following mix of market housing across the PUSH area and in the two HMAs:
5%-10% 1-bed properties 30%-35% 2-bed properties 40%-45% 3-bed properties 15%-20% 4+ bed properties
9.32 Whilst we consider the mix modelling for affordable and market housing provides a sound basis for strategic aspirations and planning across the PUSH area, decisions on local mix policy should be made by individual authorities in conjunction with PUSH neighbours. Such decisions would likely need to take into account the availability of land to deliver particular types of housing, the need to promote sustainable patterns of growth and the need to address specific market expectations or the needs of individual groups.
9.33 The current Government consultation on housing standards, particularly in respect of the possibility of national space standards, may have implications for mix requirements. Authorities within PUSH should keep abreast of developments in this area but at any rate may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to set out specific local space standards for new development, particularly to encourage provision of decent sized family housing (e.g. 3 bed properties). The local authorities may also wish to consider whether it is appropriate to limit the sub-division of existing larger properties which can help to attract and retain family households in certain parts of the sub-region.
Modelled Outputs at Local Level
9.34 Whilst the analysis above has focussed on outputs for the whole PUSH area and the two HMAs the data itself has been built up from analysis at a smaller area level. The tables below provide the outputs of this analysis in terms of the sizes of accommodation estimated to be needed in each of the affordable and market sectors for twelve different areas.
9.35 To a considerable degree the outputs show a reinforcing of the current housing offer in each area with larger homes expected to be required in areas which traditionally have provided larger housing units. This is largely a function of the expected demographic change in these areas and the fact that household types requiring larger homes are expected to continue seeking these locations.
9.36 The only slightly unexpected output is an apparent (small) surplus of four or more bedroom accommodation in Fareham West. This does not mean that there is no demand for larger homes but that the market appears likely to have capacity within the existing stock. The findings for Fareham West are driven by the ageing population and, as a result, in the short-term we would expect there to be some continued requirement to provide larger units in the market sector.
GL Hearn Page 145 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 51: Estimated Dwelling Requirement by number of Bedrooms (2011 to 2036) – Market Sector Sub-area 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms Eastleigh 7.7% 30.5% 45.5% 16.3% Fareham (West) 14.3% 45.0% 42.4% -1.7% New Forest (part) 7.8% 33.9% 47.9% 10.4% Southampton 13.6% 30.3% 42.3% 13.8% Test Valley (part) 10.3% 32.9% 43.5% 13.3% Winchester (part-west) 6.0% 29.4% 39.5% 25.2% SOUTHAMPTON HMA 10.5% 31.7% 43.9% 13.9% East Hampshire (part) 5.6% 27.3% 44.1% 23.1% Fareham (East) 12.3% 40.6% 44.4% 2.8% Gosport 10.3% 36.4% 43.0% 10.3% Havant 8.9% 34.2% 45.2% 11.6% Portsmouth 10.3% 30.6% 46.8% 12.2% Winchester (part-east) 5.7% 28.5% 38.6% 27.2% PORTSMOUTH HMA 10.0% 33.8% 45.0% 11.3% PUSH 10.2% 32.8% 44.5% 12.5% Source: Housing Market Model Table 52: Estimated Dwelling Requirement by number of Bedrooms (2011 to 2036) – Affordable Sector Sub-area 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms Eastleigh 33.0% 43.0% 22.1% 1.9% Fareham (West) 51.4% 30.8% 15.8% 2.0% New Forest (part) 33.6% 36.0% 27.5% 3.0% Southampton 48.0% 31.2% 17.7% 3.1% Test Valley (part) 45.9% 34.8% 17.9% 1.4% Winchester (part-west) 43.1% 31.8% 22.6% 2.5% SOUTHAMPTON HMA 41.5% 35.7% 20.3% 2.5% East Hampshire (part) 38.3% 40.5% 19.4% 1.8% Fareham (East) 51.0% 31.1% 16.5% 1.5% Gosport 56.7% 25.1% 16.5% 1.8% Havant 41.6% 36.0% 19.6% 2.8% Portsmouth 41.2% 33.7% 21.9% 3.2% Winchester (part-east) 44.2% 29.7% 23.8% 2.4% PORTSMOUTH HMA 45.9% 32.2% 19.4% 2.5% PUSH 43.8% 33.9% 19.8% 2.5% Source: Housing Market Model Drawing the Analysis Together
9.37 The various constituent parts of the two HMAs play a somewhat complementary relationship to one another in respect of housing mix. In the two cores of Portsmouth and Southampton (and to a lesser extent Gosport), the housing offer is focussed towards smaller properties, serving professional, small family and student markets. The more suburban and rural areas provide the
GL Hearn Page 146 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
“family” offer within the PUSH area, in particular parts of East Hampshire, Test Valley and Winchester, all of which have high representations of properties with three or more bedrooms.
9.38 Our evidence indicates that overcrowding across the PUSH area is slightly above regional average. This conclusion is consistent across both the PUSH East and PUSH West areas and in both cases it is the main urban areas (Portsmouth and Southampton) where overcrowding is highest. This is perhaps unsurprising given the smaller stock profile; however, it may also be driven in part by the strong student and professional sharing markets in these areas, the socio-economics of the area and levels of HMOs. Under-occupation similarly varies, but in some areas within the PUSH HMA, such as Winchester and East Hampshire, it rises to in excess of 80%. Given the demographic profile of these areas, this is likely to be driven by “empty nesters” and retirees and may point to some strategic need to consider improving quality and choice of housing at the smaller end of the market in these areas, rather than a need to substantially increase the supply of smaller units.
9.39 There are a range of factors which will influence demand for different sizes of homes, including demographic changes; future growth in real earnings and households’ ability to save; economic performance and housing affordability. Our analysis linked to long-term (25-year) demographic change points towards a broad need for the following mix of homes in the affordable and market sectors homes.
Table 53: Summary of Strategic Conclusions on Housing Mix – Southampton and Portsmouth HMAs 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4+ bed Market 5-10% 30-35% 40-45% 15-20% Affordable 35-40% 30-35% 20-25% 5-10%
9.40 Our strategic conclusions in the affordable sector recognise the role which delivery of larger family homes can play in releasing supply of smaller properties for other households. It is however important to recognise that smaller properties (i.e. one bedroom homes) typically offer limited flexibility in accommodating the changing requirements of households which can feed through into high turnover. That said, there may in the short-term be an increased requirement for smaller homes as a result of welfare reforms limiting the amount of housing benefit being paid to some working-age households.
9.41 In the market sector, we would expect the focus of housing need to be on two and three-bed properties. Continued demand for family housing can be expected from newly forming households. There may also be some demand for medium-sized properties (2 and 3 beds) from older households downsizing and looking to release equity in existing homes, but still retain flexibility for friends and family to come and stay.
GL Hearn Page 147 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
9.42 The analysis has been developed to inform strategic PUSH-wide policies as well as inform the ‘portfolio’ of sites which are considered through the local plan process, including site allocations, neighbourhood plans and other planning documents.
9.43 Our analysis considers the implications of demographic trends on the need for different types of homes. In converting this into policies for housing mix, a number of wider factors are relevant:
Balance in the existing housing mix (as considered in Section 4), albeit recognising the role and function of different parts of the PUSH area within the two HMAs; The findings of the affordable housing needs analysis and what this suggests about short-term needs for different sizes of homes; The needs of specific groups within the population, as considered in Section 9 of this report; The likely availability (and viability) of land in different areas to deliver particular types of homes, and market expectations of the offer in different areas; and Local policy objectives, including aspirations to focus on meeting needs of particular groups within the population and/or support economic growth.
GL Hearn Page 148 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10 REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC GROUPS
Introduction
10.1 We have established overall housing requirements for different sizes of properties over the next 25- years, however there can be specific groups within the population who require specialist housing solutions or for whom housing needs may differ from the wider population. These groups are considered within this section.
10.2 Estimates of household groups who have particular housing needs is a key output of the SHMA Guidance whilst the National Planning Policy Framework identifies that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing which takes account of the needs of different groups in the community.
10.3 The following key groups have been identified which may have housing needs which differ from those of the wider population:
Older Persons; People with disabilities; Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) households; Households with children; Young people; and Students.
10.4 These are considered in turn in this section.
Housing Needs of Older People
10.5 The SHMA Guidance recognises the need to provide housing for older people as part of achieving a good mix of housing. A key driver of change in the housing market over the next 25-years is expected to be the growth in the population of older persons.
10.6 Indeed, as population projections show, the number of older people is expected to increase significantly over the next few years. In this section we draw on a range of sources including our population projections, 2011 Census information and data from POPPI (Projecting Older People Population Information).
GL Hearn Page 149 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.7 The context for older persons’ housing provision can be summarised as below:
A need to provide housing for older people as part of achieving a good mix of housing, but recognizing that many older people are able to exercise choice and control over housing options – e.g. owner occupiers with equity in their homes; Falling demand for residential care in some areas, and a rapidly rising average age of people living in sheltered housing over 20-years, requiring higher levels of support. This said, many local authorities have struggled to contain expenditure on services for older people; New models of enhanced and extra care housing have emerged. These aim to meet the needs of those who require high levels of care and support alongside those who are still generally able to care for themselves. These models often allow for people’s changing circumstances in situ rather than requiring a move; and Providing choice, including supporting people to stay in their own homes including through supporting adaptations to properties and provision of floating support.
Current Population of Older Persons
10.8 Below we have provided some baseline population data about older persons and compared this with other areas. The data for population has been taken from the published ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates and is provided for age groups from 55 and upwards. In reality, those aged 55 might not be considered as ‘old’ but we have started the analysis from this age group as some housing developments are specifically targeted at the ‘over 55’ age group.
10.9 The data shows that, when compared with both the region and England, the PUSH area has a similar proportion of older persons. In 2011 it is estimated that 28% of the population of PUSH was aged 55 or over compared with 29% in the South East region and 28% for the whole of England. The Portsmouth HMA has a slightly higher proportion of people aged 55 and over (at 29%) although the difference when compared with the Southampton HMA (27%) is not particularly notable.
Table 54: Older person population (2011) Age Southampton HMA Portsmouth HMA PUSH South England group East Populati % of Popul- % of Popul- % of % of % of on popn ation popn ation popn popn popn Under 55 388,783 72.9% 369,115 70.8% 757,899 71.9% 70.8% 72.0% 55-64 60,349 11.3% 60,240 11.6% 120,589 11.4% 11.9% 11.6% 65-74 43,463 8.2% 47,098 9.0% 90,561 8.6% 8.9% 8.6% 75-84 28,617 5.4% 31,792 6.1% 60,408 5.7% 5.8% 5.5% 85+ 11,819 2.2% 13,068 2.5% 24,887 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% Total 533,031 100.0% 521,313 100.0% 1,054,345 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 55+ 144,248 27.1% 152,198 29.2% 296,446 28.1% 29.2% 28.0% Source: ONS 2011 mid-year population estimates
GL Hearn Page 150 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Future Changes in the Population of Older Persons
10.10 As well as providing a baseline position for the proportion of older persons in the PUSH area we can use population projections to provide an indication of how the numbers might change in the future. The data provided below is based on our projection linked to updating the 2011-based SNPP (PROJ 2) with data for the South East and England being taken directly from published projections. Due to the timescales used by ONS the analysis below only looks to 2021 although for PUSH this report does look at the changing age structure through to 2036.
10.11 The data shows that the PUSH area (in line with other areas) is expected to see a notable increase in the older person population with the total number of people aged 55 and over expected to increase by 21% over just 10-years. This figure is slightly lower than projected for the region but higher than for England. PUSH is projected to have relatively strong growth in the population aged 85+ when compared with other areas although, to some degree, this is linked to the size of the population in this age group in 2011.
10.12 There are small differences between the Southampton and Portsmouth HMAs with the increase in older persons expected to be slightly stronger in the Portsmouth HMA. Much of this however is in the ‘younger’ age group of 55-64 with increases for other groups being broadly the same in both areas.
Table 55: Projected Change in Population of Older Persons (2011 to 2021) Age group Southampton Portsmouth PUSH South East England HMA HMA Under 55 2.7% 1.3% 2.1% 4.0% 4.4% 55-64 12.6% 18.6% 15.6% 15.7% 13.5% 65-74 21.4% 21.0% 21.2% 22.7% 20.3% 75-84 22.2% 22.8% 22.5% 26.2% 22.6% 85+ 44.4% 45.7% 45.1% 40.4% 38.5% Total 7.4% 7.5% 7.4% 9.3% 8.6% Total 55+ 19.8% 22.5% 21.2% 22.1% 19.4% Source: ONS 2011-based SNPP
Characteristics of Older Persons Households
10.13 We have used 2011 Census data to explore in more detail the characteristics of older person households in PUSH (based on the population aged 65 and over). The first table below shows the number of households compared with the region and England. The data shows that in 2011 around 21% of households were comprised entirely of people aged 65 and over. This is in-line with both regional and national figures. The proportion of pensioner only households is slightly higher in Portsmouth HMA than Southampton HMA.
GL Hearn Page 151 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Table 56: Pensioner households (Census 2011) Pensioner households Southampton Portsmouth PUSH South East England HMA HMA Single pensioner 26,126 28,918 55,044 449,969 2,725,596 2 or more pensioners 18,460 20,400 38,860 329,263 1,851,180 All households 221,206 219,254 440,460 3,555,463 22,063,368 Single pensioner 11.8% 13.2% 12.5% 12.7% 12.4% 2 or more pensioners 8.3% 9.3% 8.8% 9.3% 8.4% All households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total % pensioner only 20.2% 22.5% 21.3% 21.9% 20.7% Source: Census (2011)
10.14 The figure below shows the tenure of older person households. The data has been split between single pensioner households and those with two or more pensioners (which will largely be couples). The data shows that pensioner households are relatively likely to live in outright owned accommodation (70%) and are also slightly more likely than other households to be in the social rented sector. The proportion of pensioner households living in the private rented sector is relatively low (4% compared with 17% of all households in the PUSH area).
10.15 There are however notable differences for different types of pensioner households; with single pensioners having a much lower level of owner-occupation than larger pensioner households. This group also has a much higher proportion living in the social rented sector.
10.16 Given that the number of older people is expected to increase in the future, and that the number of single person households is expected to increase, this would suggest (if occupancy patterns remain the same) that there will be a notable demand for affordable housing from the ageing population. This does not however necessarily translate into demand for existing stock.
GL Hearn Page 152 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 42: Tenure of older person households - PUSH
100% 0.9% 1.9% 0.8% 1.0% 2.7% 2.1% 3.6% 4.6% 8.6% 90% 20.7% 17.1% 7.4% 17.9% 80% 24.4% 6.6% 16.4% 70% 16.0% 6.1% 60%
50% 35.3% 40% 81.0% 43.0% 70.0%
30% 62.2% % of households of % groupin 20% 30.2% 10% 19.4% 0% Single pensioner 2 or more pensioners All pensioner only All other households PUSH total Owner-occupied (no mortgage) Owner-occupied (with mortgage) Social rented Private rented Other
Source: 2011 Census
10.17 A key theme that is often brought out in Housing Market Assessment work is the large proportion of older person households who under-occupy their dwellings. At the time of writing no up-to-date Census information was available to study levels of under-occupation by age although past Census data along with knowledge of under-occupation by tenure (and linked to the above data) would suggest that older person households are more likely to under-occupy their housing than other households. Whilst the majority of under-occupation is expected to be found in the owner-occupied sector there will be a notable number under-occupying in social rented stock (who will not have been affected by the ‘bedroom tax’). This may therefore present some opportunity to reduce under- occupation.
10.18 It should however be recognised that many older households in the private sector will have built up equity in their existing homes. In the private sector many older households may be able to afford a larger home than they need (and thus under-occupy housing). Some may look to downsize to release equity from homes to support their retirement; however we would expect many older households to still require family housing with space to allow friends and relatives to come to stay. This said, there is a clear role for delivery of attractive homes which may encourage downsizing within the PUSH area.
GL Hearn Page 153 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Health-related Population Projections
10.19 In addition to providing projections about how the number and proportion of older people is expected to change in the future we can look at the likely impact on the number of people with specific illnesses or disabilities. For this we have used data from the Projecting Older People Information System (POPPI) website which provides prevalence rates for different disabilities by age and sex. For the purposes of the SHMA analysis has focussed on estimates of the number of people with dementia and mobility problems.
10.20 For both of the health issues analysed the figures relate to the population aged 65 and over. The figures from POPPI are based on prevalence rates from a range of different sources and whilst these might change in the future (e.g. as general health of the older person population improves) the estimates are likely to be of the right order.
10.21 The table below shows that both of the illnesses/disabilities are expected to increase significantly in the future although this would be expected given the increasing population. In particular there is projected to be a large rise in the number of people with dementia (up 84%) along with a 77% increase in the number with mobility problems. Broadly similar changes are expected in each of the Southampton and Portsmouth HMAs.
Table 57: Estimated Population Change for range of Health Issues (2011 to 2031) Type of illness/disability 2011 2031 Change % increase Southampton HMA Dementia 6,631 12,064 5,433 81.9% Mobility problems 15,678 28,183 12,505 79.8% Portsmouth HMA Dementia 7,417 13,821 6,405 86.4% Mobility problems 17,275 30,115 12,841 74.3% PUSH Dementia 14,047 25,885 11,838 84.3% Mobility problems 32,953 58,298 25,345 76.9% Source: Data from POPPI and demographic projections
10.22 We have also accessed data from the Housing LIN website’s Strategic Housing for Older People (SHOP) analysis toolkit. This source estimates potential requirements for sheltered, extra care and residential care housing. A broad summary of the outputs for PUSH (using the SHOP standard settings) are shown in the table below.
10.23 The data suggests a current (2012) requirement for 4,103 units with an additional 14,789 expected to be needed over the period to 2030. This is a total of 18,893, with the majority of this expected to
GL Hearn Page 154 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
be required as affordable housing. The analysis suggests a current surplus of sheltered housing although this is only related to Southampton and Portsmouth.
10.24 In total (and excluding the figures for registered care) the Housing LIN data suggests a requirement for some 10,745 additional units of accommodation specifically for older people by 2030 – 597 per annum. This is about 16% of the total housing requirement as estimated by our projection linked to the SNPP (updated).
Table 58: Estimated Need for Specialist Housing Current need Additional need Total need (to 2030) Sheltered – affordable -697 4,465 3,768 Sheltered – market 804 3,176 3,980 Extra care – affordable 1,620 1,278 2,898 Extra care – market 52 46 98 Registered care 2,325 5,824 8,148 TOTAL 4,103 14,789 18,893 Source: Housing LIN
10.25 Whilst this analysis should be treated as indicative given the number of assumptions feeding into it there is clearly a case for the Councils seeking to provide additional ‘specialist’ accommodation for older persons as the population ages.
Key Findings related to Older Persons Needs
10.26 The older person population of PUSH is about average when compared with national figures although it is projected to increase significantly in the future.
10.27 Older persons are more likely to under-occupy homes. In the affordable sector, there may be potential to reduce (or seek to limit potential growth in) under-occupation and the Council may wish to consider providing support and incentives to social housing occupiers to downsize. This will help to release larger affordable homes for younger households. An analysis of older person households suggest that they are more likely to live in social rented housing (especially single pensioner households). With the projected increases in older persons there may therefore be additional pressure on the affordable housing stock from such households.
10.28 Our analysis also suggests that the growing older population (particularly in the oldest age groups) will result in growth in households with specialist housing needs. Typically the greatest support needs are for alterations to properties (such as to bathrooms, showers and toilets, provision of emergency alarms or help maintaining homes). Many of these can be resolved in situ through adaptations to existing properties and the resource implications of this will need to be planned for.
GL Hearn Page 155 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.29 The growing older population will however likely lead to some increase in requirements for specialist housing solutions. The analysis above suggests an 84% growth in older population with dementia, and a 77% increase in the older population with mobility problems. From a planning point of view, some of these people will require specialist housing such as sheltered or extra care provision. Increasing numbers of older people with health problems will also require joint-working between housing and health (Council and NHS). Analysis of Housing LIN data suggests a need for around 16% of additional housing units to be specialist accommodation to meet the needs of the older person population.
People with Disabilities
10.30 This section concentrates on the housing situation of people/households that contain someone with some form of disability. We have again drawn on Census data although at the time of writing the level of available Census data was quite limited. It should also be recognised that an analysis of people with disabilities is very strongly linked with the above analysis about older people.
10.31 Table 59 below shows the proportion of people with a long-term health problem or disability (LTHPD) and the proportion of households where at least one person has a LTHPD. The data suggests that across PUSH some 24.8% of households contain someone with a LTHPD. This figure is slightly higher than the level for the region but below the national average. The figures for the population with a LTHPD again show a similar trend when compared with regional and national figures (an estimated 16.5% of the population of PUSH have a LTHPD).
10.32 Differences between the two HMAs are relatively slight although the analysis does suggest a slightly higher incidence of LTHPD in the Portsmouth HMA when compared with the Southampton HMA.
Table 59: Households and people with Long-Term Health Problem or Disability (2011) Area Households containing Population with health someone with health problem problem Number % Number % Southampton HMA 52,949 23.9% 83,930 15.7% Portsmouth HMA 56,098 25.6% 89,891 17.3% PUSH 109,047 24.8% 173,821 16.5% South East 839,086 23.6% 1,356,204 15.7% England 5,659,606 25.7% 9,352,586 17.6% Source: Census (2011)
10.33 It is likely that the age profile of the area will heavily impact upon the numbers of people with a LTHPD, as older people tend to be more likely to have a LTHPD. Therefore Figure 43 shows the
GL Hearn Page 156 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
age bands of people with a LTHPD. It is clear from this analysis that those people in the oldest age bands are more likely to have a LTHPD – for example some 81% of people aged 85 and over have a LTHPD. It should be noted that the base for the figure below is slightly different to the above table in that it excludes people living in communal establishments.
Figure 43: Population with LTHPD in each Age Band
Age 0 to 15 3.9%
Age 16 to 24 4.9%
Age 25 to 34 6.2%
Age 35 to 49 11.1%
Age 50 to 64 20.1%
Age 65 to 74 34.9%
Age 75 to 84 57.9%
Age 85 and over 81.4%
All ages 16.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
LTHPD
Source: Census (2011)
10.34 The age-specific prevalence rates shown above can be applied to the demographic data to estimate the likely increase over time of the number of people with a LTHPD. In applying this information to our projection linked to the SNPP it is estimated that the number of people with a LTHPD will increase by around 59,000 (a 34% increase) in the period from 2011 to 2031. The vast majority of this increase (93%) is expected to be in age groups aged 65 and over.
Key Findings related to People with Disabilities
10.35 Currently 25% of households contain someone with a long-term health problem or disability. Demographic trends are expected to lead to a significant growth in the population and number of households with disabilities over the period to 2031. Housing support services, including provision of adaptations to properties, will need to be adequately resourced to take account of this.
Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) Households
10.36 Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) households, as a group, are quite often found to have distinct characteristics in terms of their housing needs, or may be disadvantaged in some way.
GL Hearn Page 157 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.37 From 2011 Census data we find that around 11% of the population of PUSH came from a non- White (British/Irish) background. This figure is slightly lower than found across the region and notably lower than the figure for England (of 19%). The key BME group in PUSH is Other-White (which is likely to contain a number of Eastern European migrants). The Other-White population makes up 3.4% of all people in the PUSH area, which is significantly higher than any other BME group.
10.38 When comparing the two HMAs it is apparent that the BME population is notably higher in the Southampton HMA (13%) than in the Portsmouth HMA (9%). The difference between the two areas is seen across many of the different groups studied with particularly large differences seen in the proportions of the White: Other and Indian populations.
Table 60: Black and Minority Ethnic Population (2011) Ethnic Group Southamp Portsmout PUSH South England -ton HMA h HMA East White: British 86.2% 90.7% 88.4% 85.2% 79.8% White: Irish 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% White: Other White 4.4% 2.4% 3.4% 4.4% 4.6% Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% Mixed: White and Black African 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Mixed: White and Asian 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% Mixed: Other Mixed 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% Asian: Indian 1.9% 0.8% 1.4% 1.8% 2.6% Asian: Pakistani 0.6% 0.1% 0.4% 1.1% 2.1% Asian: Bangladeshi 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% Asian: Chinese 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% Asian: Other Asian 1.2% 0.7% 1.0% 1.4% 1.5% Black: African 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.8% Black: Caribbean 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 1.1% Black: Other Black 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% Other ethnic group: Arab 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% Any other ethnic group 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total population 533,027 520,428 1,053,455 8,634,750 53,012,456 % non-White (British/Irish) 13.2% 8.9% 11.1% 13.9% 19.3% Source: ONS (2011 Census)
10.39 Since 2001 the BME population in the PUSH area can be seen to have increased significantly as can be seen in the table below. We have condensed some categories together, due to a slightly different list of potential groups being used in the 2011 Census when compared with 2001 data. The
GL Hearn Page 158 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
data shows that whilst the overall population of the PUSH area has risen by 67,845 over the 10- year period the increase in BME groups (all groups other than White (British/Irish)) has been 62,760 (93% of the total). The White (British/Irish) population has increased by 0.5% compared to an increase of 117% in BME groups (all combined).
10.40 Looking at particular BME groups we see that the largest rise in terms of population has been for Asian people – increasing by 21,500 over the ten years; although in proportionate terms it is the black population which has seen the biggest increase (up by 179%).
Table 61: Change in BME groups 2001 to 2011 (PUSH) Ethnic Group 2001 2011 Change % change White (British/Irish) 931,850 936,935 5,085 0.5% White - Other 16,804 36,935 20,131 119.8% Mixed 8,572 18,576 10,004 116.7% Asian or Asian British 21,464 42,917 21,453 99.9% Black or Black British 4,092 11,423 7,331 179.2% Chinese and other 2,828 6,669 3,841 135.8% Total 985,610 1,053,455 67,845 6.9% Source: Census 2001 and 2011
BME Household Characteristics
10.41 Census data can also be used to provide some broad information about the household and housing characteristics of the BME population in the PUSH area. The figure below looks at the population age structure of six broad age groups using data from the 2011 Census.
10.42 The age profile of the BME population is striking when compared with White: British/Irish people. All BME groups are considerably younger than the White (British/Irish) group with people from a Mixed background being particularly likely to be aged under 15 when compared with any other group. The proportions of older persons are also notable with 25% of White; British/Irish people being age 60 or over compared with all BME groups showing proportions of no more than 8%.
GL Hearn Page 159 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 44: Population Age Profile by Ethnic Group, PUSH Area (2011)
Source: Census (2011)
10.43 We have used 2011 Census data to provide an indication of the characteristics of BME households. Table 62 shows estimates of the number of households in each BME group. Whilst the data broadly follows the patterns for population it is notable that BME households make up a lower proportion of total households when compared with population proportions. This suggests higher average household sizes for BME groups (as shown in the last column of the table).
Table 62: Number of Households by Ethnic Group (2011) and average Household Size Ethnic Group Households Population Average No. % No. % hh size White: British/Irish 402,720 91.4% 936,935 88.9% 2.33 White: Other White 13,995 3.2% 36,935 3.5% 2.64 Mixed 4,119 0.9% 18,576 1.8% 4.51 Asian 12,951 2.9% 42,917 4.1% 3.31 Black 4,283 1.0% 11,423 1.1% 2.67 Other ethnic group 2,392 0.5% 6,669 0.6% 2.79 Total 440,460 100.0% 1,053,455 100.0% 2.39 Source: Census (2011)
10.44 There are notable differences between the household characteristics of BME households as against the White: British population. Figure 45 indicates that all BME groups are significantly less likely to be owner-occupiers and far more likely to live in private rented accommodation. Arguably the starkest trend is the 52% of White (Other) households living in the Private Rented Sector.
GL Hearn Page 160 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 45: Tenure by Ethnic Group in PUSH
Source: 2011 Census data (from NOMIS)
10.45 The strong representation of BME households in the Private Rented Sector means that they are more likely to be affected by the changes discussed to Local Housing Allowance (particularly as the sector in the area shows a strong representation of LHA Claimants).
10.46 As BME communities mature over time, the level of owner occupation may increase. The pace at which this happens may be influenced by economic opportunities available as well as the level of enterprise within the local community. For some communities there may be support mechanisms which can work within the community, such as availability of interest free loans or support raising a deposit to buy a home, depending on cultural factors.
10.47 Figure 46 shows ‘occupancy ratings’ by BME group; this is based on the bedroom standard where a positive figure indicates under-occupancy and negative figures suggest some degree of over- crowding. BME groups are more likely to be overcrowded (i.e. have a negative occupancy rating) than White (British) households. In particular, the Census data suggests that around 14% of Asian households are overcrowded - this compares with only 3% of the White (British) group. Levels of under-occupancy amongst BME communities are generally low.
GL Hearn Page 161 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 46: Occupancy rating by ethnic group in PUSH
Source: 2011 Census data (from NOMIS)
Key Findings related to Black and Minority Ethnic Households
10.48 The BME population in PUSH has grown strongly since 2001. The 2011 Census shows that BME groups make up 11% of the area’s population. The Asian and White: Other populations (which includes Eastern European migrants) have both grown notably.
10.49 BME households appear to be typically younger and less likely to be owner occupiers than the White (British/Irish) population; there is also a greater reliance on the private rented sector. BME households are also more likely to be overcrowded and less likely to under-occupy dwellings.
10.50 The implications of this are more for housing strategy than planning, and suggest a need to consider particularly how the needs of different groups are met within the local housing market, to explore the reasons for higher levels of overcrowding in BME communities and how this can be addressed. It will also be important to consider the role which the Private Rented Sector plays in meeting needs of new migrant communities and the standards of housing in this sector. Investigating these issues in greater detail may assist development of strategic housing policies.
Households with Children (Family Households)
10.51 The number of families in PUSH (defined for the purpose of this assessment as any household which contains at least one dependent child) currently totals 124,800 accounting for 28.3% of households. The demographic projection (linked to the SNPP (updated PROJ2)) suggests that the
GL Hearn Page 162 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
number of children (aged Under 15) is expected to increase markedly from 2011 to 2031 (an increase of over 17,000 – about 11% of all population growth).
Table 63: Households with Dependent Children (2011) Household type Southampton HMA Portsmouth HMA PUSH Number % Number % Number % Married couple 35,201 15.9% 31,545 14.4% 66,746 15.2% Cohabiting couple 8,490 3.8% 9,317 4.2% 17,807 4.0% Lone parent 14,078 6.4% 16,361 7.5% 30,439 6.9% Other households 4,934 2.2% 4,831 2.2% 9,765 2.2% All other households (no dependent children) 158,503 71.7% 157,200 71.7% 315,703 71.7% Total 221,206 100.0% 219,254 100.0% 440,460 100.0% Total with dependent children 62,703 28.3% 62,054 28.3% 124,757 28.3% Source: ONS (2011 Census)
10.52 The figure below shows the current tenure of households with dependent children. There are some considerable differences by household type with lone parents having a very high proportion living in the social rented sector and also in private rented accommodation. Less than a third of lone parent households are owner-occupiers compared with over three-quarters of married couples with children.
Figure 47: Tenure of Households with Dependent Children - PUSH
100% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% 12.8% 90% 20.6% 19.1% 16.3% 17.1% 25.1% 28.8% 80% 10.3% 14.8% 16.4% 70% 20.2% 20.6% 60% 26.1% 28.5% 50% 40.2% 35.3% 40% 67.9% 44.8% 52.4% 30% 44.7% % of households of % groupin 20% 39.3% 25.4% 30.2% 10% 8.6% 13.6% 7.3% 0% 3.6% 4.6% Married couple Cohabiting Lone parent Other All other PUSH All households couple households households (no with dependent dependent children children) Owner-occupied (no mortgage) Owner-occupied (with mortgage) Social rented Private rented Other
Source: 2011 Census
10.53 Overcrowding is often a key theme when looking at the housing needs of households with children although at the current time 2011 Census data has not been published to analyse this in any detail. However, recognising that levels of overcrowding are typically highest in the social and private rented sectors the data above (about tenure) does point to the likelihood of high levels of overcrowding, particularly amongst lone parent households.
GL Hearn Page 163 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.54 Overall, the somewhat limited data available about family households suggests that this group may be quite polarised. Whilst married couple households have high levels of owner-occupation and may well be slightly better off than the general population, the data does point to potentially the lone parent households being more disadvantaged. Given that households with children should be seen as a priority for the Councils, this points towards ensuring that the housing offer meets the needs of such households and in particular the need to ensure a reasonable quality of housing in the private rented sector.
Young People
10.55 Providing for the needs of younger person households is an important consideration. Given ageing populations, the ability to retain young people in an area can assist in providing a more balanced demographic profile as well as providing a vital part of the local workforce. Young people may however find barriers to accessing housing given typically low incomes and potential difficulties in securing mortgage finance due to deposit requirements.
10.56 The demographic projections (linked to the SNPP) suggest that in 2011 there were around 81,900 households headed by someone aged under 35 and that this is set to increase by around 2,800 over the period from 2011 to 2031.
10.57 As well as households headed by a younger person, there will be others living as part of another household (typically with parents). The table below shows the number of households in the PUSH area with non-dependent children. In total, some 9% of households (about 40,000) contain non- dependent children. This may to some degree highlight the difficulties faced by young people in accessing housing. Ineligibility for social housing, lower household incomes and the unaffordability of owner occupation for such age groups all contribute to the current trend for young people moving in with or continuing to live with parents.
Table 64: Households with Non-Dependent Children (2011) Household type Southampton HMA Portsmouth HMA PUSH Number % Number % Number % Married couple 11,996 5.4% 11,795 5.4% 23,791 5.4% Cohabiting couple 1,051 0.5% 1,141 0.5% 2,192 0.5% Lone parent 6,679 3.0% 7,163 3.3% 13,842 3.1% All other households 201,480 91.1% 199,155 90.8% 400,635 91.0% Total 221,206 100.0% 219,254 100.0% 440,460 100.0% Total with non-dependent children 19,726 8.9% 20,099 9.2% 39,825 9.0% Source: ONS (2011 Census)
GL Hearn Page 164 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.58 Moving back to study households that are currently headed by a younger person (taken for this analysis as being aged under 34) we can use Census data to look at some key characteristics. The figure below shows the tenure groups of these households (compared with other age groups). The data clearly shows that very few younger households are owner-occupiers with a particular reliance on the Private Rented Sector and to a lesser degree social rented housing.
Figure 48: Tenure by Age of HRP - PUSH
100% 2.6% 1.4% 1.7% 2.4% 4.0% 2.8% 6.5% 5.4% 7.6% 3.8% 2.5% 2.6% 90% 15.8% 15.3% 15.9% 17.0% 14.0% 21.0% 80% 35.6% 16.5% 10.8% 6.4% 16.4% 70% 4.7% 60% 62.1% 42.0% 50% 18.0% 35.3% 40% 56.9% 67.9% 71.7% 67.6%
30% % of households of % groupin 20% 20.1% 37.9% 35.0% 30.2% 10% 8.6% 8.1% 0% 2.6% 3.2% Age 24 and Age 25 to 34 Age 35 to 49 Age 50 to 64 Age 65 to 74 Age 75 to 84 Age 85 and All under over households Owner-occupied (no mortgage) Owner-occupied (with mortgage) Social rented Private rented Other
Source: 2011 Census
10.59 Census data can also be used to look at economic activity rates; including employment and unemployment levels. Data about this is shown in Figure 50 (again based on the head of household/household reference person age). The data shows that whilst the vast majority of HRPs aged 16 to 34 are in employment there are a notable proportion unemployed or not economically active. A total of 5.5% of HRPs aged 16-34 are unemployed compared with a PUSH-wide figure of just 2.7%.
10.60 The figure however does not tell the full story around unemployment as the data is based on people who are already living in their own household (or in this case are considered as the HRP or head of household). Additional Census data shows that of the population aged 16-24 who are economically active some 17% are unemployed.
GL Hearn Page 165 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 49: Economic Activity by age of HRP - PUSH
100% 8.7% 7.1% 0.5% 17.0% 90% 5.5% 3.3% 5.5% 0.1% 31.1% 80% 2.4% 70% 2.7%1.2% 60% 87.5% 50% 89.1% 40% 80.3% 80.6%
30% 65.1% % of households of % groupin 20% 10% 12.2% 0% Age 16 to 34 Age 35 to 49 Age 50 to 64 Age 65 and over All households Working Unemployed Student Other
Source: 2011 Census
Key Findings related to Young People
10.61 Analysis of younger person households shows a high reliance on rented housing. Younger age cohorts may therefore be forced into private rented (including shared) housing as the only means of meeting their housing needs, aside from residing with parents, where they would not form a head of household. Factors such as a balanced approach to housing in terms of bedroom sizes and property types, increased housing supply along with high standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) will help younger households to access housing.
Students
10.62 The housing needs of student populations are particularly relevant to the cities of Southampton and Portsmouth. To analyse issues related to student housing needs, information has been collated on trends in student numbers and the future plans of universities in terms of growth in student numbers and student bed spaces. This has been based on analysis of the universities’ websites and through consultation of the University of Portsmouth and University of Southampton.
10.63 It is acknowledged that there are a number of other further and higher education institutes in the PUSH area. This includes Southampton Solent University (a university of 17,000 students based in Southampton).
GL Hearn Page 166 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
University of Southampton
10.64 The University of Southampton is the largest university in the South East comprising 23,000 students (7,000 post graduates and 17,000 undergraduates).
10.65 Over recent years, the University has seen increasing demand for student accommodation:
“…demand for places in halls has risen and we are exploring options to increase the number of rooms available for students, taking pressure off the city’s private housing market. We believe that this demand is strong enough for the University to invest further in its own provision of student residences and explore other options with other partners.” (Southampton University – website)
10.66 Since 2008, student numbers have indeed increased from around 21,300 to 23,700. The number of full time students has increased by 15% from 2008 levels. However the number of part-time students has decreased.
Figure 50: Part Time and Full Time Students at the University of Southampton
Source: HESA
10.67 The proportion of overseas students has increased at a greater rate since 2000 than numbers of UK students.
GL Hearn Page 167 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 51: UK and Non UK Students at the University of Southampton
Source: HESA
10.68 The University currently has over 5,000 places at University-owned halls of residence, spread over two main complexes and several other smaller halls all located within a couple of miles from the University. University accommodation is available for first year, MSc and international students. The existing student halls are outlined below.
Table 65: Student Accommodation - University of Southampton Bed spaces Glen Eyre Halls 2,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students Archers Road Halls 1, 000 students Bencraft Hall Highfield Hall Shaftesbury Avenue Wessex Lane Complex 1,700 residents Liberty Point 309 Erasmus Park - Winchester 381 bedrooms
Source: Southampton University
10.69 In addition to student halls, a number of students live in the Private Rented Sector. There is an accreditation scheme in place for students renting in the private rented sector: The Southampton Accreditation Scheme for Student Housing (SASSH).
GL Hearn Page 168 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.70 Looking forward, the University Strategy plans to aspire to be a world-leading research university, clearly ranked top 10 in the UK. Its core objectives include the following:
“We will develop our facilities to meet the needs of our growing student population and changing student profile and expectations. We will continue to provide excellent learning resources, improve the range and quality of residential accommodation, and actively support variety in social and recreational opportunities, as well as the needs of all faiths and cultures.” (University Strategy – University of Southampton).
10.71 Within the city, the City Council is concerned about concentrations of student lettings and the impact on neighbourhood sustainability. It implemented Article 4 Direction which came into force in March 2012 whereby planning permission is required for change of use of C3 housing within the city to C4 HMOs.
10.72 The University of Southampton has suggested to GL Hearn that there is a shortage of student accommodation, with its initial analysis showing the need for an additional 1,000 student rooms. Following further analysis of student needs and numbers, the University is now planning to deliver 1,500 rooms through two new student accommodation developments. These schemes are detailed below:
Mayflower Plaza - will comprise over 1,100 student rooms over three towers 16 storeys high. It is hoped this will be completed by October 2014. City Gateway - will provide around 360 high quality student rooms. Occupation is anticipated in October 2014.
10.73 In addition, the University plans redevelopment of the existing Chamberlain Hall (built in circa the 1960s) and Bassett House sites. The development will comprise around 400 rooms and has planning consent. It is believed that work will begin on site in the near future.
10.74 In addition to delivery of student accommodation by the University, it is anticipated that student development by private providers will contribute to meeting needs.
10.75 The analysis overall does not point towards student demand in the city in the immediate term placing particular pressure on the housing market; but the balance of growth in student numbers and delivery of additional bedspaces should be kept under review.
GL Hearn Page 169 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
The University of Portsmouth
10.76 The University of Portsmouth comprises approximately 22,000 students and has three main halls of residence:
Guildhall Halls Rees and Burrell Langstone Student Village
Table 66: Student Accommodation – University of Portsmouth
Bed spaces
Margaret Rule Hall 342 city centre rooms in self-contained flats for 3 to 8 students each. Harry Law Hall 302 city centre rooms along corridors, with kitchens shared between 8 or 9 students James Watson Hall 688 city centre rooms in self-contained flats for 4 to 6 students each Langstone Flats 192 rooms in halls overlooking the harbour in self-contained flats for 8 students each Trafalgar Hall 288 city centre rooms in self-contained flats for 6 students each
Trafalgar Hall Studio Flats 40 self-contained studio flats prioritised for postgraduate students Bateson Hall 281 city centre rooms in self-contained single-sex flats accommodating 5 to 6 students Bateson Hall Large Rooms 287 city centre rooms in self-contained single-sex flats accommodating 5 to 6 students Trust Hall 62 rooms in self-contained flats accommodating 8 students overlooking the harbour. Additional self-contained flats near the harbour for 4 to 6 students, close to Trust Hall Burrell House 132 rooms close to the seafront. Arranged corridor style, all meals taken in Rees Hall Rees Hall 267 en suite rooms close to the seafront. Arranged corridor style with 2 communal TV lounges. QEQM Hall 330 en suite rooms mainly in mixed-sex blocks and floors.
10.77 A key aim of the University Strategy 2012 – 2017 is to for the University to have first class estate, facilities and services.
10.78 The University of Portsmouth’s Estates Strategy 2011 - 2015 was published in June 2010. Regarding residential accommodation, the 2006–2010 Estate Strategy highlights the following:
Applications for halls places have exceeded available places in recent years and therefore additional spaces are being progressed in conjunction with third party providers. When developments referred to above come online, serious consideration will be given to the disposal of Burrell House.
GL Hearn Page 170 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
10.79 The 2011- 2015 Estates Strategy concludes that there is a significant and persistent unmet demand for student residential accommodation. The current Victoria development will meet a proportion of this demand but the University will be open to the provision of further bedrooms through partnership arrangements.
10.80 The University has acquired the swimming pool site in Victoria Park to provide approximately 600 bedrooms of student residential accommodation.
10.81 Between 2008/9 to 2011/12 student numbers at the University grew by 11%, driven by a 15% increased in full-time students.
Figure 52: Part Time and Full Time Students at the University of Portsmouth
Source: HESA
10.82 Since 2008, the number of EU and non–EU students has increased more than the proportion of UK students.
GL Hearn Page 171 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Figure 53: UK and Non UK Students at the University of Portsmouth
Source: HESA
10.83 As in Southampton, an Article 4 Direction has been implemented seeking to manage growth in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). This can be expected to manage the impact of future student growth on the Private Rented Sector.
10.84 Moving forward, the balance of growth in student numbers and delivery of additional bedspaces – either by the University or private providers – should be kept under review. This will influence the impact of student growth on the wider housing market.
10.85 In both Southampton and Portsmouth, the Councils are currently planning for delivery of significant new student accommodation. The South Hampshire Strategy (2012) anticipates that this will potentially release 750 market homes across the two cities to non-student households.
Drawing the Analysis Together
10.86 Drawing together the preceding analysis we can draw out the following key issues:
Older Persons – the key challenge here will be to meet the needs of an ageing population with the number of people aged 65 and above expected to increase by 63,000 (21%) from 2011 to 2021 along with further strong increases post-2021. Demographic change is likely to see a requirement for additional levels of care/support along with provision of some specialist accommodation in both the market and affordable sectors.
People with Disabilities – the number of people with disabilities is closely related to the age of the population and many of the conclusions related to older persons are relevant for this group. Demographic projections suggest a 45% increase in the population aged over 85 from 2011 to 2021 with Census data suggesting that 81% of this age group have some level of disability.
GL Hearn Page 172 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
BME Groups – the BME population of PUSH is relatively small but has grown significantly over the past decade. Characteristics of BME groups (including tenure profiles and occupancy patterns) suggest that such households may be disadvantaged in the housing market. The Councils might consider advice to BME groups and in particular ensure that accommodation quality (particularly in the private rented sector) can meet the needs of such households which are disproportionately likely to contain children.
Family Households – data about family households suggests that lone parents are particularly disadvantaged with a high reliance on rented housing. Projections suggest an increase in the number of children in the area over the next few years and if past trends are repeated this will also see a notable increase in the number of lone parents. Again advice about housing options and maintaining a good quality of accommodation will be critical to ensure that such households’ needs are best met and that children are provided with a full range of opportunities (e.g. education) as they grow up.
Young person households – young people (aged under 35) are important for any area due to the long-term economic potential they can bring. As with other groups there are some indications of this group being disadvantaged with a reliance on rented accommodation and high levels of unemployment. Given that the housing options for young people may be more limited than for other groups it will be important to monitor the accommodation quality – this will need to focus on HMOs given general trends of an increase in house sharing over time. Increasing housing supply may also help younger households to get on the housing ladder.
Students – there is a sizeable student population in both Portsmouth and Southampton. In the longer-term the balance between delivery of student accommodation and growth in students will include the impact of student lettings on the wider housing market.
GL Hearn Page 173 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
GL Hearn Page 174 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
11 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 The focus of this Strategic Housing Market Assessment has been to define the extent of the relevant housing market areas (HMAs) covering the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) area and then to consider the objectively-assessed need for housing within them. The report has considered the overall need for housing, the need for different types of homes, and the housing needs of different groups within the community. In this final section of the report we draw together the preceding analysis to draw out key conclusions regarding housing need.
Housing Market Areas
11.2 The analysis within this report points to the existence of two housing market areas (HMAs) which cover the majority of the PUSH Sub-Region, with the Isle of Wight functioning as its own separate housing market area. The report defines a PUSH West Housing Market Area, focused on Southampton (the Southampton HMA); and a PUSH East Housing Market Area, focused on Portsmouth (the Portsmouth HMA).
11.3 There is a degree of overlap between these two Housing Market Areas, particularly within Fareham Borough and the southern parts of Winchester City Council’s area; but also some interactions with surrounding areas around the boundaries of the PUSH area. This includes with Lymington and the New Forest National Park in the west; Chichester and Bognor Regis to the east, and towards Winchester and Petersfield to the north. The implications of this are significant, as housing development of a significant scale (or shortfall in housing provision) in these areas will impact on the housing market within the PUSH area (and vice-versa).
11.4 However the analysis undertaken in this SHMA concludes that the PUSH area remains a sensible basis for strategic planning for housing provision based on the information currently available. This is also recognised by Government through its designation of the Solent LEP area. The geography of the HMA should be reviewed once detailed commuting and migration data from the 2011 Census is released in 2014.
Assessment of Housing Need
11.5 The NPPF sets out that plans should be prepared on the basis of meeting full needs for market and affordable housing. It sets out that SHMAs should consider housing needs, taking account of relevant market signals and economic evidence. The SHMA provides an assessment of need for housing. It does not set out policy targets.
11.6 The Government issued draft Planning Practice Guidance on Assessment of Housing and Economic Development Needs in August 2013. The conclusions have been framed by this draft
GL Hearn Page 175 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Guidance and the approach described therein to assessing housing need. The conclusions need to be defensible set against the framework provided by the NPPF and associated Practice Guidance.
11.7 The draft Guidance outlines that “the starting point” is the latest set of household projections published by CLG – in this case the 2011-based Interim Household Projections. It sets out that these may require adjustment to take account of the latest evidence and to consider need over longer-term timeframes for strategic planning. In accordance with the draft Planning Practice Guidance, the 2011-based SNPP and related CLG Household Projections have formed the starting point for our assessment. The CLG projections only run to 2021; however, we have projected these forward to 2036. This has been done in the development of PROJ 1 in this report, which takes into account the latest demographic evidence. This indicates a need for 1,655 homes per annum within the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA and 1,935 homes per annum (rounded to the nearest 5) in the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA to 2036.
11.8 However, in line with the Planning Practice Guidance, our evidence shows there is justification to deviate from some of the assumptions underpinning the ONS/CLG work, particularly having taken account of the latest evidence of migration. This leads us to PROJ 2. This projection is linked to the SNPP but, in line with the draft Guidance, incorporates migration inputs which have been moderated to reflect the latest available demographic information. This indicates a requirement for 1,935 homes per annum across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA and 1,845 homes per annum across the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA over the period to 2036.
11.9 The draft Planning Practice Guidance then effectively sets out a number of tests which need to be considered. We can paraphrase these as follows:
Is there evidence that household formation has been constrained? Do market signals suggest a need to increase housing supply to improve affordability? Will the projected housing need be capable of meeting affordable housing needs? Should higher housing numbers be considered to increase delivery of affordable housing? Will the housing numbers support expected growth in jobs, or is there a need to consider increasing housing supply to support economic growth?
11.10 These three tests effectively provide a basis for considering whether it would be appropriate to make an upward adjustment, in the case of this report to the housing figures derived from the PROJ 2 projections. We have considered these issues for the PUSH area and for constituent authorities or part-authorities within it in order to derive conclusions regarding the need for housing.
GL Hearn Page 176 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Considering Housing Requirements at for the PUSH Sub-Region
Test 1: Has household formation been constrained? Is there a market rationale to increase supply?
11.11 The first of the above tests relates to whether there is evidence that household formation rates in the projections have been constrained. The headship rates in the 2011-based projections are based on trends between 2001 and 2011 – a period during which house prices rose substantially and affordability worsened across the South East but also in the PUSH area in particular.
11.12 The evidence does suggest that over the 2001-11 decade (and most likely within the latter years of this period), market characteristics did lead to a level of supressed household formation relative to longer-term trends. It would not be appropriate to plan on the basis that this continues over the longer-term to 2036.
11.13 To provide some indicative quantification of the impact of household suppression on requirements we have therefore run a sensitivity analysis on the baseline projection (PROJ 2) applying the 2008 based headship rate (household formation) assumptions to the PROJ 2 figures. This increases the projected housing requirement across the PUSH area to 4,537 homes per annum to 2036. This represents a 20% uplift on the PROJ 2 figures. However it is estimated through national research led by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research that around half of this differential relates to economic and market conditions constraining household formation and the other half to different household structures within migrant communities.
11.14 On this basis it would be sensible to plan moving forwards for household formation rates to lie midway between those in the 2008- and 2011-based projections. This results in a housing need for 2,045 homes per annum across the Southampton (PUSH West) HMA and 2,115 homes per annum across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) HMA.
11.15 Housing market conditions at the time of writing of the SHMA are subdued, interest rates are low and the SHMA evidence does not provide a particular rationale for seeking to increase housing supply above demographic projections in order to improve affordability.
Test 2: Is overall housing supply capable of meeting affordable housing needs?
11.16 The second test is to consider the ability of overall housing numbers to ensure affordable housing needs can be satisfied. Following the approach advocated by the draft Guidance, the net affordable housing need identified across the PUSH area is substantial –equivalent to 1,661 households per annum across the Southampton HMA and 1,684 per annum across the Portsmouth HMA if all households who couldn’t afford market housing without subsidy were to be provided with an
GL Hearn Page 177 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
affordable home. It is therefore clear that authorities across the PUSH area are justified in seeking to secure the maximum viable level of affordable housing in future.
11.17 However, whilst a significant quantitative shortfall is identified, there are in reality two key factors against which the assessment must be put into context. Firstly, the assessment is sensitive to the income threshold adopted. Across the PUSH area, there are likely to be some households paying more than the 30% threshold adopted in the study but equally some who are only able to pay less. Our sensitivity testing demonstrates that at an income threshold of 35%, affordable housing need over the plan period falls from 3,345 households to around 2,680 households per annum across the PUSH area.
11.18 Secondly, our evidence shows that across the PUSH area the private rented sector makes a potentially significant contribution to meeting affordable housing needs with an estimated 2,700 lettings per annum to households supported by LHA. The extent to which the Councils wish to see the private rented sector being used to make up for shortages of affordable housing is plainly a local policy decision which is outside the scope of this study. However, assuming the role continues (but does not grow further, given the potential impact of the Government’s welfare reforms), our analysis indicates a need to deliver at least 650 new affordable homes per annum across the PUSH area (at least 400 per annum in the Southampton HMA and 240 per annum across the Portsmouth HMA).
11.19 In our view, and considering the proposed affordable housing requirements set out in the various adopted and emerging plans in the PUSH area, there is therefore no need at the strategic PUSH- wide level to increase housing provision above the levels indicated in the demographic projections to ensure that the needs of households with an affordable housing need are met in full.
Test 3: Will the housing numbers support expected growth in jobs, or is there a need to consider increasing housing supply to support economic growth?
11.20 The final test relates to the ability for planned housing supply to support expected economic and employment growth within the PUSH area. The SHMA has considered this issue initially and at a high level, taking account of ‘off the shelf’ Experian economic forecasts. These should be treated with caution for the reasons explained in Section 7.
11.21 The initial evidence based on modelling baseline Experian forecasts is that, across the PUSH area as a whole, meeting economic aspirations could in theory generate upward pressure on housing provision; but that this balance is sensitive to future changes in productivity, economic participation and commuting as well as the overall scale of economic growth. The forecasts do not however take
GL Hearn Page 178 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
account of special downside factors in the economy such as the likelihood of continued public sector contraction in south Hampshire and the prolonged impact of recent shocks such as the BAe and Ford closures.
11.22 The development of a set of scenarios for economic growth has been commissioned by the Solent LEP . These will need to inform consideration in the review of the South Hampshire Strategy of the alignment of the strategies for housing and employment growth. The outputs of the economic forecasting work being undertaken will ultimately need to feed into and inform conclusions on housing need.
Overall Strategic Conclusion on Housing Needs – PUSH wide
11.23 The SHMA concludes that provision of 4,160 homes per annum across the PUSH area would represent a robust basis for forward planning based on the demographic evidence and market signals. This is split between the two housing market areas with an assessed need for:
2,115 homes per annum across the Portsmouth (PUSH East) Housing Market Area to 2036; and 2,045 homes per annum in the Southampton (PUSH West) Housing Market Area.
11.24 It should be recognised that this is an objective, policy-off analysis and takes no account of land supply or development constraints within the PUSH area; or ‘Policy-On’ aspirations for economic growth. The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that SHMAs should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need such as issues related to land supply, infrastructure or environmental constraints.
11.25 The authorities in working together to review the South Hampshire Strategy and developing their respective local plans will need to consider what scale of development can be sustainably accommodated, the interaction between the strategy for housing provision and economic growth and potential levels of affordable housing delivery. Economic forecasts have been commissioned by the LEP to support this. In considering how affordable housing needs can be met, it will be important to take account of available funding, what level can viably be delivered through mixed tenure schemes and the degree to which needs can be met in part through private rented sector lettings. The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that these may provide a basis for adjusting upwards the assessment of housing need. This however will need to be balanced against consideration of the deliverability of higher housing numbers.
11.26 How housing provision is ultimately distributed and met across the two housing market areas and the PUSH area as a whole should reasonably be decided at the local level and through dialogue between the authorities within the PUSH Partnership, taking account of constraints and land availability, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and other policy aspirations (such as regeneration). The SHMA analysis is thus intended to provide a ‘starting point’ and input to
GL Hearn Page 179 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
this which is to be taken forward through the development and review of the South Hampshire Strategy and authorities’ development plans.
Housing Mix
11.27 The analysis in the SHMA indicates that the various constituent parts of the two PUSH HMAs play a somewhat complementary relationship to one another in respect of housing mix. In the two cores of Portsmouth and Southampton (and to a lesser extent Gosport), the housing offer is focussed towards smaller properties, serving professional, small family and student markets. The more suburban and rural areas provide the “family” offer within the PUSH area, in particular parts of East Hampshire, Test Valley and Winchester, all of which have high representations of properties with three or more bedrooms.
11.28 Our evidence indicates that overcrowding across the PUSH area is slightly below the regional average. This conclusion is consistent across for both the PUSH East and PUSH West areas and in both cases, it is the main urban areas (Portsmouth and Southampton) where renting is highest. This is perhaps unsurprising given the smaller stock profile; however, it may also be driven in part by the strong student market in these areas, younger population and levels of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) which provide entry-level housing for a diverse range of groups. Under- occupation similarly varies, but in some areas within the PUSH Area, such as the parts of Winchester and East Hampshire Districts which fall in the PUSH area, it rises to in excess of 80%. Given the demographic profile of these areas, this is likely to be driven by “empty nesters” and retirees and may point to some strategic need for quality and broader choice at the smaller end of the market in these areas, rather than a need to substantially increase the supply of smaller units.
11.29 The analysis overall indicates that around a quarter of affordable housing need within the PUSH area could be met through provision of intermediate housing, with three-quarters of the need for social or affordable rented homes. Within the rented element, the assessment favours social rented provision; however, this will clearly need to be balanced against viability and the realities of funding for affordable housing.
11.30 The analysis points to a higher potential need for intermediate housing in those parts of Winchester and Test, as well as Fareham Borough and Southampton. However in the short-term it should be recognised that need for shared ownership and equity housing is likely to be influenced by access to mortgage finance.
11.31 In terms of mix, the SHMA indicates that across both the PUSH East and PUSH West areas more than three quarters of the net affordable housing need is for homes with one or two bedrooms:
1-bedroom properties: 35-40%
GL Hearn Page 180 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
2-bedroom properties: 30-35% 3-bedroom properties: 20-25% 4-bedroom properties: 5-10%
11.32 This analysis is based on a longer-term view of requirements for affordable housing: it does not reflect any specific priorities such as family households in need or the impacts in the short-term of benefit reforms which are likely to increase need for smaller properties.
11.33 In the market sector, we would expect the demand profile to be focussed on two and three bedroom properties. Across the Southampton and Portsmouth HMAs as a whole, the following size mix for market housing could be appropriate:
1-bedroom properties: 5-10% 2-bedroom properties: 30-35% 3-bedroom properties: 40-45% 4-bedroom properties: 15-20%
11.34 The specific mix at a more local level, in different authorities (or parts of authorities) will need to be considered taking account of the balance within the current housing offer, local policy aspirations (including to support economic growth) and the nature of the land supply and its suitability to accommodate different forms of development.
11.35 The projections for housing mix are driven by long-term demographic factors, namely ageing population. Over the last decade the analysis points towards a modest shift in the housing mix towards smaller properties, but also a growth in private renting in particular. In Portsmouth and Southampton owner-occupation has fallen; and there is potentially some case for seeking to diversify the housing mix to offer a greater supply of family homes.
11.36 Whilst we consider the above mix to be a sound basis for planning across the PUSH area, decisions on local mix policy should be made by individual authorities in conjunction with PUSH neighbours. These should take into account:
Balance in the existing housing mix, including recognition of the role and function which different parts of the PUSH area play as part of the sub-regional housing market; The findings of the affordable housing needs analysis, local evidence regarding pressures within the affordable needs sector and the impact of benefit reforms; The needs of specific groups within the population, as considered within this report; The likely availability of land in different areas to deliver different types of homes; and Local policy objectives, including aspirations to focus on meeting the needs of particular groups within the population or to support economic growth.
GL Hearn Page 181 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
Meeting the Needs of Particular Groups
11.37 The SHMA indicates that a particular driver of housing need over the period to 2036 will be a growing population of older persons. The number of people aged 65 and above expected to increase by 63,000 (21%) from 2011 to 2021 along with further strong increases post-2021. Demographic change is likely to see a requirement for additional levels of care/support along with provision of some specialist accommodation in both the market and affordable sectors.
11.38 Many older persons will however seek to remain living in mainstream housing. Some may require support to do so, including adaptations to properties to meet their changing needs. We can also expect some older households to consider downsizing, particularly in the market sector to release equity within their homes and potentially reduce the costs associated with maintaining a home. Planning for and accommodating this will be important, such as through provision of smaller homes (albeit often with more than 1 bedroom) in accessible locations to meet localised needs.
11.39 Linked partly to the growing older population, the SHMA estimates that we can expect to see an increase in the number of people with disabilities. Demographic projections suggest a 45% increase in the population aged over 85 from 2011 to 2021 in each of the HMAs with Census data suggesting that 81% of this age group have some level of disability. Housing support services, including provision of adaptations to properties, will need to be adequately resourced to take account of this.
11.40 The SHMA has also considered the needs of Black and Minority Ethnic Groups. The BME population of the PUSH Area is relatively small but has grown significantly over the past decade. Characteristics of BME groups (including tenure profiles and occupancy patterns) suggest that such households may be disadvantaged in the housing market. Accommodation quality (particularly in the Private Rented Sector) is a relevant issue for these groups.
11.41 Analysis of the needs of family households suggests that lone parents are particularly disadvantaged with a high reliance on rented housing. Projections suggest an increase in the number of children in the area over the next few years and if past trends are repeated this will also see a notable increase in the number of lone parents. Advice about housing options and maintaining a good quality of accommodation will be critical to ensure that such households’ needs are best met and that children are provided with a full range of opportunities (e.g. education) as they grow up.
11.42 The SHMA provides evidence that young persons under 35 within the PUSH Area have some difficulty in accessing home ownership; with a reliance on rented accommodation and high levels of unemployment. Given that the housing options for young people may be more limited than for other
GL Hearn Page 182 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, January 2014
groups it will be important to monitor the accommodation quality – this will need to focus on HMOs given general trends of an increase in house sharing over time. Increasing housing supply may also help to improve affordability and access to home ownership over the longer-term.
11.43 Finally, both Portsmouth and Southampton contain notable student populations. Both the City Councils have implemented Article 4 Directions seeking to manage the impact of student lettings on the sustainability of local neighbourhoods. In managing growth in student populations moving forward, it will be important that growth in student numbers and delivery of new student bedspaces are monitored, as any imbalance between these will influence the impact on the wider housing market.
GL Hearn Page 183 of 183 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\South Hampshire SHMA Final Report (16.1.14).doc
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Partnership for Urban South Hampshire
Final Report: Appendices
Version 1: January 2014
Prepared by
GL Hearn Limited 20 Soho Square London W1D 3QW
T +44 (0)20 7851 4900 F +44 (0)20 7851 4910 glhearn.com
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX A: WARDS IN SELECTED AUTHORITIES FALLING WITHIN THE PUSH SUB- REGION
Local Authority Wards
East Hampshire Horndean Downs Horndean Catherington and Lovedean Horndean Hazleton and Blendworth Horndean Murray Horndean Kings Rowlands Castle Clanfield and Finchdean Ward New Forest Totton North Totton East Totton South Totton West Totton Central Marchwood Dibden and Hythe East Hythe West and Langdown Butts Ash and Dibden Purlieu Furzedown and Hardley Holbury and North Blackfield Fawley, Blackfield and Langley Ward
Test Valley Romsey Extra Cupernham Abbey Tadburn North Baddesley Valley Park Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams Ampfield and Braishfield
Winchester Colden Common and Twyford Owslebury and Curdridge Bishops Waltham Shedfield Whiteley Denmead Boarhunt and Southwick Swanmore and Newtown Wickham
GL Hearn Page 2 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX B: DEFINITION OF THE PORTSMOUTH HMA (PUSH EAST)
Local Authority Wards
Gosport All
Havant All
Portsmouth All
Fareham (East Wards) Porchester East Porchester West Fareham East Fareham North Fareham North West Fareham West Fareham South Stubbington Hill Head Tichfield*
East Hampshire (Part) Horndean Downs Horndean Catherington and Lovedean Horndean Hazleton and Blendworth Horndean Murray Horndean Kings Rowlands Castle Clanfield and Finchdean Ward
Winchester (East Wards) Denmead Boarhunt and Southwick Swanmore and Newtown* Wickham
GL Hearn Page 3 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX C: DEFINITION OF THE SOUTHAMPTON HMA (PUSH WEST)
Local Authority Wards
Eastleigh All
Southampton All
Fareham (West Wards) Warsash Titchfield Common Locks Heath Park Gate Sarisbury
New Forest (Part) Totton North Totton East Totton South Totton West Totton Central Marchwood Dibden and Hythe East Hythe West and Langdown Butts Ash and Dibden Purlieu Furzedown and Hardley Holbury and North Blackfield Fawley, Blackfield and Langley Ward
Test Valley Romsey Extra Cupernham Abbey Tadburn North Baddesley Valley Park Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams Ampfield and Braishfield
Winchester (West Wards) Colden Common and Twyford Owslebury and Curdridge Bishops Waltham Shedfield Whiteley
GL Hearn Page 4 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX D: PRICES FOR A STANDARD PROPERTY, SUMMER 2013
Zoopla Z Index House Prices Gosport £160,453 Hythe £242,928 Eastleigh £246,725 Portsmouth £172,078 Bursledon £248,295 Cosham £180,356 Hayling Island £249,457 Southsea £180,846 Havant £190,760 Hilsea £251,193 Cowplain £199,556 Horndean £256,449 Stubbington £257,869 Totton £205,270 Wickham £267,539 Portchester £207,158 Titchfield £271,516 Park Gate £212,594 Botley £273,105 Southampton £216,815 Bishops Waltham £286,338 Southwick £222,354 Chandlers Ford £290,066
Hedge End £227,471 Waltham Chase £300,047 Fawley £228,522 Emsworth £301,190 Fareham £230,928 Romsey £330,233 Waterlooville £230,928 Burridge £497,866 Curdridge £568,324
GL Hearn Page 5 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX E: PREDOMINANT HOUSE TYPE (WARD LEVEL)
GL Hearn Page 6 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX F: PROPERTIES IN COUNCIL TAX BANDS A & B (WARD LEVELS)
GL Hearn Page 7 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX G: ACORN MOSAIC GROUPS, WEST OF PUSH AREA
GL Hearn Page 8 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX H: ACORN MOSAIC GROUPS, CENTRAL PART OF PUSH AREA
GL Hearn Page 9 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX I: ACORN MOSAIC GROUPS, EAST OF PUSH AREA
GL Hearn Page 10 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX J: POPULATION AGED 16-24 IN 2011 (WARD LEVEL)
GL Hearn Page 11 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX K: POPULATION AGED OVER 60, 2011 (WARD LEVEL)
GL Hearn Page 12 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX L: UNEMPLOYMENT, 2011
GL Hearn Page 13 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX M: DEPRIVATION IN THE PORTSMOUTH HMA, 2010
GL Hearn Page 14 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX N: DEPRIVATION IN THE SOUTHAMPTON HMA, 2010
GL Hearn Page 15 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX O: DETAILED TENURE PROFILE (DISTRICTS, 2011)
Shared Social Private Living Rent Owned Ownership Rented Rented Free East Hampshire (Part) 83.5% 0.4% 7.3% 7.8% 1.0% New Forest (Part) 74.1% 0.7% 13.1% 11.2% 0.9% Test Valley (Part) 78.7% 0.4% 9.4% 10.3% 1.1% Winchester (Part) 75.2% 0.8% 10.2% 12.0% 1.7% Eastleigh 73.5% 1.1% 12.3% 12.3% 0.8% Fareham 80.4% 0.6% 8.1% 10.0% 0.9% Gosport 65.2% 1.1% 16.4% 16.3% 1.0% Havant 69.0% 0.5% 19.6% 9.9% 1.0% Portsmouth 54.9% 1.0% 18.3% 24.7% 1.2% Southampton 49.7% 1.0% 23.3% 24.9% 1.1% PUSH area 64.6% 0.9% 16.4% 17.1% 1.0% PUSH East HMA 65.1% 0.8% 16.3% 16.7% 1.1% PUSH West HMA 64.1% 0.9% 16.5% 17.5% 1.0% Hampshire 71.5% 0.9% 13.8% 12.5% 1.2% South East 67.6% 1.1% 13.7% 16.3% 1.3% England 63.3% 0.8% 17.7% 16.8% 1.3% Source: 2011 Census
GL Hearn Page 16 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX P: HOUSE TYPES (DISTRICTS, 2011)
Detached Semi -Detached Terraced Flats East Hampshire (Part) 55.9% 24.0% 11.6% 8.1% New Forest (Part) 37.1% 28.4% 21.9% 11.4% Test Valley (Part) 43.0% 23.1% 21.9% 11.1% Winchester (Part) 44.3% 25.1% 18.2% 10.3% Eastleigh 33.7% 27.8% 22.0% 15.7% Fareham 36.4% 32.1% 18.8% 12.3% Gosport 13.4% 26.7% 36.6% 23.0% Havant 28.3% 28.7% 24.1% 18.6% Portsmouth 4.2% 15.8% 45.2% 33.9% Southampton 13.2% 26.0% 21.2% 38.7% PUSH Area 22.8% 25.2% 27.1% 24.1% PUSH East HMA 18.2% 24.3% 33.1% 23.9% Push West HMA 27.4% 26.2% 21.1% 24.3% Hampshire 34.5% 26.8% 22.5% 15.4% South East 28.2% 28.1% 22.5% 20.3% England 22.4% 31.2% 24.5% 21.2% Source: 2011 Census
GL Hearn Page 17 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX Q: NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (DISTRICT)
5 or more 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms bedrooms East Hampshire (Part) 5.8% 19.4% 38.8% 29.2% 6.6% New Forest (Part) 8.4% 25.2% 47.4% 16.0% 2.9% Test Valley (Part) 7.8% 19.7% 41.0% 24.9% 6.4% Winchester (Part) 7.8% 21.5% 36.1% 25.5% 9.0% Eastleigh 9.0% 25.6% 42.2% 18.6% 4.3% Fareham 7.6% 22.6% 43.3% 21.7% 4.7% Gosport 12.2% 29.2% 45.0% 10.8% 2.6% Havant 10.6% 26.2% 44.5% 15.1% 3.2% Portsmouth 15.3% 29.2% 41.8% 9.8% 3.6% Southampton 12.9% 26.6% 41.6% 14.6% 4.1% PUSH area 12.9% 26.6% 41.6% 14.6% 4.1% PUSH East HMA 12.1% 27.1% 43.3% 13.7% 3.6% PUSH West HMA 13.7% 26.1% 40.0% 15.4% 4.5% Hampshire 9.3% 24.1% 41.3% 19.6% 5.6% South East 11.6% 26.2% 38.9% 17.0% 6.0% England 11.8% 27.9% 41.2% 14.4% 4.6% Source: 2011 Census1
1 ‘No bedrooms’ has not been included in the table.
GL Hearn Page 18 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX R: HOUSE PRICES BY TYPE (DISTRICTS, Apr 2012 – Mar 2013)
Detached Semi - Detached Terraced Flat
East Hampshire (Part) £290,000 £215,750 £170,000 £123,000 New Forest (Part) £249,999 £191,000 £165,000 £139,000 Test Valley (Part) £346,250 £227,475 £206,667 £210,000 Winchester £387,167 £231,000 £210,750 £140,167 Eastleigh £300,000 £205,875 £177,000 £138,000 Fareham £293,125 £208,744 £168,248 £126,100 Gosport £277,000 £165,500 £130,500 £106,687 Havant £295,500 £195,667 £150,050 £110,500 Portsmouth £318,750 £182,250 £149,467 £120,800 Southampton £219,583 £177,125 £147,667 £125,600
Source: GLH Analysis of HMLR Data
GL Hearn Page 19 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX S: HOUSING SALES (DISTRICTS, Apr 2012 – Mar 2013)
Detached Semi - Detached Terraced Flat East Hampshire 69 35 22 11
New Forest (Part) 166 99 136 79
Test Valley (Part) 136 52 82 26
Winchester 87 52 83 29
Eastleigh 259 191 221 113
Fareham 315 255 192 94
Gosport 78 136 220 152
Havant 192 164 172 107
Portsmouth 30 122 515 237
Southampton 175 286 279 427
Source: GLH Analysis of HMLR Data
GL Hearn Page 20 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX T: PROJECTION METHODOLOGY, INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Overview of Methodology
1.1 Our methodology used to determine population and household growth and housing needs is based on fairly standard population projection methodology consistent with the methodology used by ONS and CLG in their population and household projections. Essentially the method establishes the current population and how will this change in the period from 2011 to 2036. This requires us to work out how likely it is that women will give birth (the fertility rate); how likely it is that people will die (the death rate) and how likely it is that people will move into or out of each District. These are the principal components of population change and are used to construct our principal trend-based population projections.
1.2 Figure 1 below shows the key stages of the projection analysis through to the assessment of overall housing needs.
Figure 1: Overview of Methodology
GL Hearn Page 21 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
1.3 Much of the data for the projections draws on ONS information contained within the 2010- and 2011-based Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP) and the 2011-based CLG Household Projections. In particular we have used the SNPP to look at fertility rates, mortality rates and the profile of in- and out-migrants (by age and sex).
1.4 There are a total of ten local authorities covered by the PUSH area. In addition to the six whole Council areas (Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth and Southampton) there are parts of four other areas. Projections for partial authorities are based on District- wide projections with a proportion of the growth being taken forward in to the total PUSH figures based on existing population (as follows):
East Hampshire – 17% New Forest – 40% Test Valley – 35% Winchester – 31%
1.5 The sections below dicuss in detail the assumptions and inputs underpinning th demographic modelling. These should be read in conjunction with the Assessing Future Housing Needs section (Section 7) in the main report.
GL Hearn Page 22 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Baseline Population
1.6 The baseline for our projections is taken to be 2011 with the projection run for each year over the period up to 2036. The estimated population profile as of 2011 has been taken from the 2011-based SNPP. The overall population in 2011 was estimated to be 1,045,393 with slightly more females than males.
Figure 2: Population of PUSH Sub-Region – 2011
Age group Female Male Ages 85+ -0.8% 1.7%
Ages 80-84 Ages 85+ 17,336 8,597 -1.1% 1.5% Ages 80-84 15,662 11,138 Ages 75-79 -1.5% 1.8% Ages 75-79 18,720 15,479 Ages 70-74 -1.8% 2.1% Ages 70-74 21,091 18,848 Ages 65-69 -2.4% 2.6% Ages 65-69 26,259 24,534 Ages 60-64 -2.9% 3.0% Ages 60-64 31,353 30,122 Ages 55-59 -2.8% 2.8% Ages 55-59 29,005 28,625 Ages 50-54 -3.3% 3.2% Ages 50-54 33,492 34,017 Ages 45-49 -3.6% 3.6% Ages 45-49 37,942 37,282 Ages 40-44 -3.4% 3.5% Ages 40-44 36,654 35,999 Ages 35-39 -3.1% 3.1% Ages 35-39 33,010 33,102 Ages 30-34 -3.1% 3.0% Ages 30-34 32,135 32,789 Ages 25-29 -3.4% 3.2% Ages 25-29 34,572 36,091 Ages 20-24 -4.1% 3.8% Ages 20-24 41,111 44,593 Ages 15-19 -3.4% 3.2% Ages 15-19 33,425 35,389 Ages 10-14 Ages 10-14 28,117 29,874 -2.9% 2.7% Ages 5-9 27,032 28,743 Ages 5-9 -2.7% 2.6% Ages 0-4 30,687 32,567 Ages 0-4 -3.1% 2.9% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% All Ages 517,790 527,603 Female Male Source: 2011-Mid-Year Population Estimates
1.7 Table 1 and Figure 3 below show the population distribution in each local authority area in broad 15-year age categories. The data shows the highest population (of around 236,000) to be in Southampton with the smallest population (of about 15,000) being in the East Hampshire part of PUSH.
1.8 When looking at the population age structure the data shows a very similar profile overall to the national average. There are however some notable differences within different local authorities. Portsmouth and Southampton in particular have a young population with around 45% of the population aged under 30 (compared with a sub-regional average of 38%). In contrast New Forest and to a lesser extent Fareham and Havant have much older populations.
GL Hearn Page 23 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 1: Comparison of Population Profile in different Local Authorities (2011) Under 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75+ Total 15 East Hampshire (part) 2,596 2,351 2,754 3,382 2,620 1,378 15,081 Eastleigh 22,338 22,175 25,956 26,347 19,030 10,006 125,852 Fareham 18,088 17,940 21,002 24,092 19,735 11,074 111,931 Gosport 15,087 15,441 16,250 16,508 12,441 6,942 82,669 Havant 20,290 20,899 20,797 25,011 21,166 12,620 120,783 New Forest (part) 10,695 10,261 11,605 14,833 14,173 9,148 70,716 Portsmouth 35,576 55,460 41,723 35,385 23,700 13,589 205,433 Southampton 39,012 67,629 48,909 38,469 26,454 15,397 235,870 Test Valley (part) 7,131 6,425 7,887 8,939 7,005 3,458 40,844 Winchester (part) 6,208 6,600 6,806 7,396 5,883 3,320 36,214 PUSH total 177,021 225,181 203,689 200,362 152,208 86,931 1,045,393 Source: 2011-Mid-Year population estimates
Figure 3: Population Age Profile (2011)
East Hampshire (part) 17.2% 15.6% 18.3% 22.4% 17.4% 9.1% Eastleigh 17.7% 17.6% 20.6% 20.9% 15.1% 8.0% Fareham 16.2% 16.0% 18.8% 21.5% 17.6% 9.9% Gosport 18.2% 18.7% 19.7% 20.0% 15.0% 8.4% Havant 16.8% 17.3% 17.2% 20.7% 17.5% 10.4% New Forest (part) 15.1% 14.5% 16.4% 21.0% 20.0% 12.9% Portsmouth 17.3% 27.0% 20.3% 17.2% 11.5% 6.6% Southampton 16.5% 28.7% 20.7% 16.3% 11.2% 6.5% Test Valley (part) 17.5% 15.7% 19.3% 21.9% 17.2% 8.5% Winchester (part) 17.1% 18.2% 18.8% 20.4% 16.2% 9.2% Sub-region 16.9% 21.5% 19.5% 19.2% 14.6% 8.3% England 17.7% 19.9% 20.6% 19.4% 14.6% 7.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under 15 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75 and over Source: 2011-Mid-Year Population Estimates
1.9 Understanding the age structure and how this will change over time is important in developing the demographic projections as this will influence trends in migration in and out of an area, as well as household structures. In particular older persons are more likely to live within smaller households and less likely to move relative to younger households.
GL Hearn Page 24 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Fertility and Mortality Rate Assumptions
1.10 For modelling of fertility we have used the rates contained within the ONS 2010-based Sub- National Population Projections (SNPP). In all areas fertility rates are expected to increase very slightly in the short-term before dropping quite notably moving towards the end of the projection period. ONS expects birth rates to fall in the medium-term. We also interrogated the ONS 2010-based SNPP with regard to death rates which suggested that life expectancy is expected to increase over time for both males and females.
1.11 The expected figures changes in fertility and mortality (birth and death rates) in the sub- region in the ONS projections are consistent with past trend data and future expected patterns as published by ONS on a national basis.
1.12 The 2011-based SNPP is known at the national level to slightly over-estimate numbers of births. However in regard to projections of housing need, birth rates have a limited impact on housing numbers as there are few people who will be borne in the projection period who might become a head of a household over the period to 20362. The projections of housing need are more sensitive to improvements in life expectancy as this can mean people living in their homes for longer into their old age, and often in smaller households. However trends in life expectancy are much less variable than for other indicators (e.g. migration).
Levels of Migration
Initial Demographic Projections (PROJ 1)
1.13 Figure 4 shows the levels of net migration assumed in the ONS Projections (2010- and 2011- based) from 2011/12 to 2030/31 in each of the ten areas. For the PUSH area as a whole the projections start in 2011/12 with a net in-migration figure of around 4,800 per annum. This is expected to decrease over time to reach a net in-migration of around 2,500 people per annum in 2020/21 before rising again to reach about 4,100 per annum at the end of the projection period. For the projection period studied as a whole, the average level of net migration is an in-migration of 3,600 people per annum.
1.14 For individual areas however the figures are quite different. Portsmouth and Southampton are expected to start with significant levels of net in-migration with these falling rapidly to 2020/21 before increasing to 2026/27 and levelling off thereafter. In most other areas levels of net in-migration are expected to increase slightly over time although year-on-year changes are not as stark as is projected for Portsmouth and Southampton. Eastleigh is however expected to a general decline in net migration over the period studied.
2 A sensitivity analysis indicates that the impact of this is most prevalent in Southampton, Eastleigh and Fareham where a reduction in fertility by 10% would reduce housing need by 0.2% over the 2011-31 period and by 1.8% over the period to 2036. Whilst there is a downside risk on this basis, ONS project that birth rates will fall over the projection period and there is an upside risk that this will not occur as projected.
GL Hearn Page 25 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 4: ONS Migration Assumptions – Net Migration 2011/12 to 2035/36
1,500
1,000
500 Net Net migration 0
East Hampshire (part) -500 Eastleigh Fareham Gosport Havant New Forest (part) -1,000 Portsmouth Southampton Year Test Valley (part)
Source: ONS 2010- and 2011-based Sub-National Population Projections
1.15 It should be noted that the net migration data shown is made up of gross in-migration minus gross out-migration. Both of the gross figures are significantly larger than the net migration data and hence small changes in either in- or out-migration can have a significant impact on net migration figures. This can be seen most clearly in the case of Portsmouth and Southampton where gross migration is particularly significant (in excess of 15,000 people each year for both in- and out-migration in Portsmouth and over 20,000 in the case of Southampton).
1.16 The year-on-year changes are also strongly linked to the population age structure in an area and in areas which typically generate in-migrants to specific locations. Again focussing on Portsmouth and Southampton the data shows reducing levels of net in-migration followed by some ‘recovery’. Such a pattern can be linked (at least in part) to national population projections which show a projected decline in younger adults who are typically student in- migrants in the period to 2021 (hence there is a smaller potential pool of in-migrants and so net migration declines), with recovery and growth within these age groups thereafter.
1.17 In Havant ONS is projecting that levels of net migration will increase. This is a function of both an increase in gross in-migration and a reduction in gross out-migration (which together serve to increase the level of net migration). The changing levels of gross migration (both in- and out-) are to a large degree reflective of a changing age structure in Havant and also in areas which see migration to the Borough.
GL Hearn Page 26 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
1.18 For other areas, wider population profile changes are also having an impact on levels of in- migration whilst a changing population structure within each area will also influence patterns of out-migration (e.g. an ageing population may see reductions in out-migration as older age groups tend to be less migratory).
Adjusted SNPP (PROJ 2)
1.19 Table 2 below shows the levels of migration estimated by ONS at the time of its work on the 2011 SNPP and the revised estimated produced following the Census rebasing. Data for the five years to 2011 has been used.
1.20 Across the PUSH Area the most recent data suggested that migration was under-recorded by around 434 people per annum with over recording in Fareham, New Forest and Southampton and an under-recording in all other areas (figures for the partial authorities have been scaled down in line with proportions presented above).
1.21 Compared to many areas across the Country (and indeed the in- and out-flows) the levels of over- and under-estimation are pretty moderate. Whilst the reasons for problems with population estimates are unknown, it is the case that migration is notoriously difficult to accurately measure given that there is no formal method of registration of moves from one area to another. The issues with migration data are most likely to result from inaccuracies in the modelling of interational migration and poor data regarding movement of younger persons, particularly students.
Table 2: Pre- and Post-Census Migration Estimates (2006-2011) Estimated Migration Actual Migration Difference Difference (Pre-Census (Revised Post- Per annum Estimates) Census Figures) East Hampshire 486 560 74 15 Eastleigh 3,216 4,122 906 181 Fareham 4,325 3,304 -1,021 -204 Gosport 328 1,540 1,212 242 Havant 840 2,547 1,707 341 New Forest 2,689 2,208 -481 -96 Portsmouth 3,913 4,546 633 127 Southampton 2,967 1,732 -1,235 -247 Test Valley 381 637 256 51 Winchester 1,521 1,642 122 24 TOTAL 20,666 22,838 2,172 434 Source: ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates
1.22 In line with the guidance, we have therefore prepared an adjusted projection which adjusts the level of net migration in the SNPP projection on a year-by-year basis using the annual difference shown in Table 2. We anticipate that this adjusted SNPP projection will be broadly
GL Hearn Page 27 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
reflective of an ONS projection would show, if one were carried out on the basis of the new data published since April 2013.
5 and 10 Year Migration Trends
1.23 Figure 3 below shows estimated net migration into the sub-region (and each local authority area) from 2001/2 to 2010/11. The figures have been taken from the revised ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates.
Table 3: Past Trends in Net In-Migration Year EH East- Fare- Gos- Havant NF Ports- South- TV Winc’r Sub- (part) leigh ham port (part) mouth ampto (part) (part) region n 2001/2 28 35 298 111 417 631 241 497 117 194 2,569 2002/3 -7 128 133 677 262 493 1,625 1,028 258 214 4,811 2003/4 47 141 -105 385 46 400 2,850 997 211 216 5,188 2004/5 57 861 -472 435 201 516 2,316 2,417 183 184 6,697 2005/6 67 888 371 761 243 511 -1,006 -859 161 145 1,282 2006/7 137 854 955 763 387 460 -1,835 -617 251 335 1,690 2007/8 102 400 697 689 684 391 170 -153 125 399 3,505 2008/9 126 559 605 -1 306 531 1,911 156 -30 338 4,500 2009/10 122 1,307 552 -23 597 494 2,622 1,502 93 320 7,585 2010/11 73 1,002 495 112 573 333 1,678 844 197 250 5,558 Average (last 75 618 353 391 372 476 1,057 581 157 259 4,339 ten years) Average (last 112 824 661 308 509 442 909 346 127 328 4,568 five years) Source: ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates
1.24 The data shows that the figures can be somewhat variable over time – particularly for individual districts. Variation could be linked to a number of factors such as completions levels (which could inhibit or provide greater opportunities for migration) or year-on-year changes to specific parts of the population such as students. Additionally, given the difficultly of measuring migration accurately, it is possible that year-on-year changes are influenced by recording issues. Overall, for the full decade studied it is however considered that the figures in the table above are of the right order of magnitude as these have been calibrated to take account of Census data (in both 2001 and 2011).
1.25 Generally the highest estimated levels of migration have been over the past five years, including a net in-migration of 7,600 people in 2009/10. This contrasts with some much lower levels of net in-migration in 2005/6 and 2006/7 (1,300 and 1,700 people respectively).
Age Profile of Migrants
1.26 For the purposes of understanding the profile of migrants we have again drawn on the ONS 2010-and 2011-based Sub-National Population Projections. Over the period from 2011 to 2036 the ONS figures show an average annual level of net in-migration of 3,642 people to
GL Hearn Page 28 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
the PUSH Area. The data (shown below) clearly shows that the most important age groups are from 15 to 24. The high level of net in-migration of those aged 15-19 is driven by in- migration to Portsmouth and Southampton – driven by the student population. All other areas actually show a net out-migration of the population aged 15 to 19. Data in Appendix X shows figures for in- and out-migration by age group for each of the full local authority areas.
1.27 When projecting migration for the various projection scenarios we have used the migration data from the SNPP (PROJ 1 or PROJ 2) and adjusted levels of in-migration to match the requirements of our scenario (e.g. when testing what level of migration is required to support a workforce of a particular size). Out-migration is not adjusted. This approach has consistently been adopted across all analysis.
Figure 5: Estimated Annual Net Migration by Five-Year Age Band (2011-2036)
8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+ 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84
Estimatedannual of level migration (people) -2,000 -3,000 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based Population Projections
Employment Rate Assumptions
1.28 With the change in demographic structure will come changes in the number of people who are working (as the population of people of working age changes). The next stage of the projection process was therefore to make estimates about how numbers of people in work (labour supply) would change in each projection.
1.29 The first stage of the process was to establish employment rates in each local authority. The figure below, Figure 6, shows data on the proportion of people living in each area who were in employment (based on the proportion of the population aged 16-64 who are working). This latter data has also been provided for the South East and Great Britain.
GL Hearn Page 29 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
1.30 The data shows that overall the proportion of people working has been quite variable over time but generally the trend has been downward (linked to the impact of the recent recession). Overall, it is quite difficult to pick out a real trend from the district-level data. In both the South East and Great Britain employment rates can more clearly be seen to have dropped along with a very slight improvement through 2012.
Figure 6: Proportion of Population Working
90%
85%
80%
75%
64 64 who working are -
70% East Hampshire (part) Eastleigh Fareham 65% Gosport Havant New Forest (part) Portsmouth Southampton Test Valley (part) Winchester (part) South East Great Britain
% of % those aged 16 60% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: Annual Population Survey
1.31 Part of the problem with the Annual Population Survey source used above is that data is based on only a sample of the population and therefore figures can be quite variable at a local authority level.
1.32 We have therefore also drawn on data about unemployment to give an indication of how employment rates may have changed over the past few years. In all areas this analysis shows a clearer trend towards increased unemployment with figures going up in all areas (increases in unemployment typically in the range of 2%-3.5% depending on area). The unemployment rate describes the proportion of people 16-64 who are unemployed.
GL Hearn Page 30 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 7: Changes in Unemployment, 2004-12
9% 8% 7%
6%
5% 4% 3%
2% % unemployed % 1% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
East Hampshire (part) Eastleigh Fareham Gosport Havant New Forest (part) Portsmouth Southampton Test Valley (part) Winchester (part) South East Great Britain
Source: Annual Population Survey (modelled data)
1.33 Using the above data to provide us with an overall picture of working patterns, we also drew on 2001 and 2011 Census data and information from the Annual Population Survey to model the distribution of residents in employment by age and sex.
1.34 In projecting forward we have assumed that there is a latent labour force that could be brought back into work as a result of reducing unemployment. This improvement is assumed to occur fairly consistently through the projection period to 2036.
1.35 The modelling also includes provision for potential increases in employment rates due to changes in pensionable age. These additional changes have been based on studying the age-specific ‘drop-off’ in employment as people get older.
1.36 The modelled improvement to employment rates will have the effect of reducing unemployment over time, and increasing employment rates amongst older age groups over the projection period.
1.37 Figure 8 below shows how employment rates are projected to change over the period studied. This is the percentage of people 16-64 in employment. In all of the authorities the data shows a short-term improvement to about 2019 – this is mainly due to changes in pensionable age. Following this the rate levels off or drops down slightly – this is due to age structure changes with a greater number of people expected to be in some of the older ‘working’ age groups which typically have lower employment rates. Beyond this, about 2027, there is expected to be some increase in employment rates – this is again linked to
GL Hearn Page 31 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
demographic change with all areas expected to see population increases in some of the key working age groups.
1.38 Overall employment rates are highest in Eastleigh and lowest in Portsmouth and Southampton. Relative differences in employment rates between the local authorities are largely expected to remain throughout the projection period.
Figure 8: Projected changes in Employment Rates
85%
80%
2036) -
75%
70%
65%
Employment Employment rate (2011 60%
2015 2023 2011 2013 2017 2019 2021 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
East Hampshire (part) Eastleigh Fareham Gosport Havant New Forest (part) Portsmouth Southampton Test Valley (part) Winchester (part) South East Great Britain
Source: JGC
1.39 By applying these employment rates to our population figures it is estimated that in mid-2011 there were 506,500 people in employment across the sub-region. This figure has been derived by analysis of 2011 Census data and is consistent with recent figures provided in the Annual Population Survey.
Assumptions in Economic-Driven Projections
1.40 Two economic-driven projections are developed, PROJ A and PROJ B. The assumptions on employment growth levels (workplace jobs) in these are derived from Experian econometric forecasts from Summer 2013. The table below shows the estimated increase in the number of residents in employment in each area.
1.41 The Solent LEP has commissioned the preparation of detailed economic scenarios to consider future economic performance. The analysis herein should be regarded as indiciative as it is not based on a detailed assessment of drivers, opportunities and risks associated with future economic performance across the sub-region.
GL Hearn Page 32 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
1.42 It should also be borne in mind that economic forecasting is not an exact science and is more difficult to undertake accurately than projections for future population growth. How the economy might perform over the next 20+ years is somewhat uncertain.
1.43 Table 4 below summarises the forecasts for employment growth derived from the Experian Model (May 2013). It also shows what this represents in terms of growth in economic output (GVA) per annum. The forecasts indicate employment growth of between 0.7-0.9% per annum on average over the 2011-31 period.
Table 4: Experian Forecasts for Economic Growth, 2011-31 % Growth in % Growth, Employment % per Annum Employment, 2011-31 Growth Per GVA Growth 2011-31 Annum East Hampshire 9500 17% 0.9 2.1 Eastleigh 12900 18% 0.8 2.3 Fareham 10500 18% 0.8 2.4 Gosport 3800 18% 0.7 2.3 Havant 6900 15% 0.7 2.5 New Forest 14000 18% 0.8 2.1 Portsmouth 19500 17% 0.8 2.0 Southampton 23800 19% 0.8 2.0 Test Valley 8800 15% 0.7 2.2 Winchester 15400 19% 0.9 2.4
Hampshire 168480 19% 0.8 2.3 South East 831537 19% 0.9 2.3 United Kingdom 4389790 14% 0.6 2.0
Source: Experian
1.44 Overall the level of employment growth forecast across the PUSH authorities falls moderately below that forecast across Hampshire and the South East, but is notably above that forecast nationally as Figure 9 indicates.
GL Hearn Page 33 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 9: Forecast Employment Growth across PUSH Authorities, 2011-31
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05 PUSH Authorities Hampshire 1 South East
Index Index (2011=1) 0.95 United Kingdom 0.9
0.85
0.8
2015 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 1997
Source: Experian
1.45 The Experian forecasts run only to 2031. To provide an indication of employment growth over the 2031-36 period we have assumed that the rate of growth in total employment over the 2026-31 period continues thereafter.
1.46 Relating economic performance to housing need is also not straightforward, and will be influenced by a range of factors including:
Future economic and employment growth;
Potential changes to commuting patterns;
The relationship between growth in employment and the workforce; and
The proportion of people (in different age groups) who are in work.
1.47 The projections in the SHMA are based on a single set of econometric projections for Experian; pending detailed economic scenario development work which is being undertaken by the Solent LEP.
1.48 The assumptions on changes to employment rates are described above. The projections assume a 1:1 relationship between growth in jobs (in net terms) and in people in work. No assumptions are made for ‘double-jobbing’ which could have a modest impact on reducing the level of population growth and housing need derived from the projections.
1.49 In relating jobs and population/ housing need the projections are however particularly sensitive to assumptions on commuting which describe the relationship between where
GL Hearn Page 34 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
people live and work. Two projections have therefore been developed to provide some quantification of the impact which commuting has.
1.50 PROJ A assumes that there is a 1:1 relationship between growth in residents in employment and forecast growth in jobs in each authority. PROJ 2 assumes that historical commuting patterns occur (and hold true) based on 2001 Census data.
1.51 The difference between PROJ A and PROJ B relates wholely to the assumptions made on commuting. In PROJ A it is assumed that there is a commuting ratio of 1 (i.e. we see a consistent growth in workforce to jobs moving forwards). In PROJ B we have applied the following commuting ratios. A commuting ratio of over 1.0 assumes net out-commuting from the area; whilst a ratio of under 1.0 assumes that some employment growth will be supported by in-commuting. The ratios are based on 2001 Census data.
Table 5: Commuting Ratios used in PROJ B Live in area (and Work in the Area Commuting ratio are working) East Hampshire 54,814 43,146 1.27 Eastleigh 60,362 57,043 1.06 Fareham 53,797 46,363 1.16 Gosport 36,681 26,805 1.37 Havant 52,805 41,651 1.27 New Forest 76,786 64,124 1.20 Portsmouth 86,163 105,075 0.82 Southampton 97,962 111,076 0.88 Test Valley 56,995 52,920 1.08 Winchester 52,974 64,002 0.83
Source: 2001 Census
1.52 Table 6 below indicates the resultant assumptions on growth in residents in emplyoment made in each of the economic-driven scenarios.
GL Hearn Page 35 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 6: Employment Growth Assumptions used in Modelling Period PROJ A – Jobs Baseline PROJ B – Residents in Net Jobs Growth, 2011-36 Employment Net Growth, 2011-36
Total 2011-36 112,035 112,268 EH (part) 1,849 2,349 Eastleigh 15,149 16,031 Fareham 12,590 14,609 Gosport 4,816 6,591 Havant 8,385 10,631 NF (part) 6,588 7,889 Portsmouth 23,968 19,654 Southampton 29,337 25,873 TV (part) 3,616 3,894 Winc’r (part) 5,735 4,747 Source: Experian 2013, GL Hearn
1.53 Looking at the individual local authorities, Experian expects stronger growth in Portsmouth and Southampton than any other area although this will to a large part be influenced by a larger population in the Cities than in any of the districts. Differences between PROJ A and PROJ B are most marked in Gosport due to a higher proportion of residents who currently commute out of the Borough to work relative to the numbers who commute into Gosport. The opposite is the case for Portsmouth, Southampton and Winchester.
Completions Trend Projection (PROJ Z)
1.54 PROJ Z is based on projecting forward past completions. This projection is not a projection of ‘housing need’ but seeks to demonstrate the population, employment growth and household growth which would arise if past trends in housing delivery (based on average completions over the past 10-years) were to continue into the future.
1.55 It is important to note that this projection is indicative – it does not take account of future arising needs and thus is not an approach upon which future planning should be based. It does not represent an assessment of “housing need.”
1.56 Based on the completions data provided by Hampshire County Council, we have used the delivery figures set out in Table 7 below in developing PROJ Z.
GL Hearn Page 36 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 7: Past Completion Figures used for Projection Per annum 2011-2036 East Hampshire (part) 40.3 1,008 Eastleigh 514.5 12,863 Fareham 338.1 8,453 Gosport 297.8 7,445 Havant 241 6,025 New Forest (part) 138.5 3,463 Portsmouth 616.5 15,413 Southampton 866.8 21,670 Test Valley (part) 113.6 2,840 Winchester (part) 181.7 4,543 TOTAL 3,348.8 83,720 Source: Hampshire County Council
Headship Rate Assumptions
1.57 Headship rates are used in the projections to relate changes in the population size and structure to growth in households. Headship rates can be described in their most simple terms as the number of people who are counted as heads of households (or in this case the more widely used Household Reference Person (HRP)).
1.58 For the purposes of this analysis we have used information contained in the 2011-based CLG Household Projections about the relationship between the total population in an age group and the number of household reference persons (HRPs) in that age group.
1.59 By applying headship rates to the population projections we project growth in households. The effect of changes in the age structure of the population, and of expected household structures, is to result in a reduction in average household sizes within the population over the period to 2036. This is a way of summarising the impact of headship rate assumptions.
1.60 Figure 10 below shows the estimated average household size from 2011 to 2036 derived from CLG projections when applied to PROJ 1. The data shows in all areas that household sizes are expected to decline moving forward. For the purposes of the projection across the whole sub-region it is assumed that average household sizes start at about 2.39 in 2011 and reduce down to 2.33 in 2036 (although exact figures do vary depending on the projection being run).
1.61 Average household sizes are particularly expected to fall as the population of older persons is expected to grow, and older households are typically smaller. This is an important influence on the need for additional housing.
GL Hearn Page 37 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 10: Projected trends in Average Household Size
2.50
2.45 2.40 2.35 2.30 2.25
2.20 Average Average household size 2.15
2.10
2021 2029 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2023 2025 2027 2031 2033 2035
East Hampshire (part) Eastleigh Fareham Gosport Havant New Forest (part) Portsmouth Southampton Test Valley (part) Winchester (part)
Source: Derived from 2011-based CLG Household Projections
1.62 When applying headship rates to the population data we derive an estimated number of households in mid-2011 of 437,700. This figure is consistent with the number of households shown in the 2011 Census and the 2011-based CLG Household Projections.
1.63 The main projections in the SHMA are based on the headship rate assumptions in the 2011- based Household Projections from Government. A sensitivity analysis is however run to PROJ 2 based on applying the headship rates in the CLG 2008-based Household Projections. The results of this are presented in the main report.
Relating Growth in Households to Dwellings
1.64 In converting an estimated number of households into requirements for additional dwellings we have also factored in a small vacancy/second home allowance which is normal to allow for movement of households between properties. For the analysis we have assumed that around 3% of additional stock will comprise vacant and second homes. This is reflective of what should be achievable within new stock (where there is not a requirement for extensive repair/ upgrading).
1.65 Table 8 summarises the key assumptions within the demographic projections.
GL Hearn Page 38 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 8: TABLE OF KEY INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS
Residents 10-year 5-year Zero Past SNPP SNPP in Zero net Projection SNPP migration migration Jobs employmen completion (updated) (08- (updated) employmen migration trends trends t growth s based rates) t Baseline A 2011-baseline population is taken from the Census 2011-based mid-year Population estimates produced by ONS. This population is split by single year of population age and gender.
Fertility and Fertility and mortality rates are applied to the projections based on the using projected fertility/mortality rates and differentials for the individual authorities mortaility within the PUSH area, taken from ONS 2010-based SNPP rates Migration Profile of migration taken from 2010-based SNPP updated to take account of differences shown in the 2011-based SNPP. Figures are consolidated to ensure profile population exactly matches those shown in the 2011-based SNPP with consolidation factors taken forward into other projections. Migration is assessed by sex and single year of age as well as separately for in- and out-migraiton for each of internal, cross-border and international migration. Where adjustments are made to migration it is assumed (for modelling purposes) that this will be an increase or decrease in in-migration with out-migration held constant for all projections.
Headship 2011-based CLG household projections headship rates have been used to 2021. Beyond 2021 a linear trend has been used drawing on 2008-based rates figures for 2011 and 2021. CLG headship rates – rebased to 2011 household estimate
Employment Data is based on proportion of residents in employment by age and sex in 5-year age bands from 16 to 74 (the 16-19 age band is only four years). Figures rates moving forward take account of potential reductions in unemployment (based on specific local data from NOMIS) and increases in older people working due to changes in pensionable age.
Vacancy rate Assumed to be 3% - i.e. dwelling requirement to be 3% higher than projected growth in households
Main All As per Projection Projection Projection Links to Projects the Projects the Projects As per the scenario assumptions previous based on based on takes an previous population population population second specific as per 2011- projection average average Experian projection growth, growth and and projection but assumptions based but with level of level of forecast and but also housing housing employment with headship SNPP. some migration migration projects takes into requirement requirement growth of rates taken from
GL Hearn Page 39 of 82 J:\Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Beyond adjustment over the over the required account s and s of there housing the 2008-based 2021 the to take past 10- past 5-years population commuting employment being no provision in CLG household figures use account of years (to (to mid- change for patterns (as growth of change in line with projections. data from over- or mid-2011). 2011). the number evidenced in there being the number past the 2010- under- of residents the 2001 no net of residents completions based SNPP recording of in Census). A migration in (2003-13). rebased to migration in employment commuting over the employment 2021 figures the past (as to increase ratio is projection over the shown in the evidenced by the calculated period projection 2011-based through forecast and period data 2011 mid- amount. assumed to year be constant population throughout estimates). the projection.
GL Hearn Page 40 of 82 J:\Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX U: DETAILED PROJECTION OUTPUTS (PUSH WIDE)
Introduction
1.1 This section provides detailed outputs of the modelling under each of the nine scenarios run to look at population growth, employment change and housing needs. All the projections look at the period from 2011 to 2036 with outputs available for each year of the projection (although these have generally been summarised for five year periods). The projections run are summarised in table 9 below.
Table 9: Description of Projections used for Demographic Modelling Projection Description PROJ 1 Linked to 2010- and 2011-based SNPP PROJ 2 Linked to SNPP with adjusted migration PROJ 3 10-year migration trends PROJ 4 5-year migration trends PROJ A Jobs baseline PROJ B Residents in employment PROJ X Zero net migration PROJ Y Zero employment Growth PROJ Z Past Completions
Population Projections
1.2 Table 10 and Figure 11 below show the expected growth in population under each of the nine projection runs.The projections are for the PUSH area as a whole.
GL Hearn Page 41 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 10: Population Estimates 2011 to 2036 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 PROJ 1 (SNPP) 1,050,034 1,090,762 1,123,952 1,158,311 1,192,885 1,224,502 0.0% 3.9% 7.0% 10.3% 13.6% 16.6% PROJ 2 (SNPP 1,050,034 1,093,052 1,128,733 1,165,712 1,202,971 1,237,340 adjusted) 0.0% 4.1% 7.5% 11.0% 14.6% 17.8% PROJ 3 (10-year 1,050,034 1,093,823 1,136,568 1,177,376 1,215,084 1,249,807 migration trends) 0.0% 4.2% 8.2% 12.1% 15.7% 19.0% PROJ 4 (5-year 1,050,034 1,095,054 1,139,074 1,181,150 1,220,089 1,256,038 migration trends) 0.0% 4.3% 8.5% 12.5% 16.2% 19.6% PROJ A (Jobs 1,050,034 1,111,891 1,178,075 1,239,159 1,291,968 1,342,323 baseline) 0.0% 5.9% 12.2% 18.0% 23.0% 27.8% PROJ B (Residents 1,050,034 1,113,003 1,179,299 1,240,540 1,293,172 1,343,324 in employment) 0.0% 6.0% 12.3% 18.1% 23.2% 27.9% PROJ X (Zero net 1,050,034 1,071,121 1,088,868 1,102,727 1,112,327 1,118,306 migration) 0.0% 2.0% 3.7% 5.0% 5.9% 6.5% PROJ Y (Zero 1,050,034 1,064,644 1,084,084 1,105,056 1,119,450 1,134,163 employment growth) 0.0% 1.4% 3.2% 5.2% 6.6% 8.0%
Figure 11: Population Change, 2011 – 2036
1,350,000 PROJ 1 (SNPP) PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 1,300,000 PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 1,250,000 PROJ A (Jobs baseline) PROJ B (Residents in employment)
PROJ X (Zero net migration) 1,200,000 PROJ Y (Zero employment growth)
1,150,000 Population 1,100,000
1,050,000
1,000,000
Year
GL Hearn Page 42 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Impact on Population Age Structure
1.3 With the changes shown above there will also be a change in the age/sex profile of the population. We have therefore looked in a bit more detail at population change under PROJ 2 (linked to the adjusted SNPP). The figure below shows population pyramids for 2011 and 2036.
1.4 The ‘pyramids’ show the growth in population overall and highlight the ageing of the population with a greater proportion of the population expected to be in age groups aged 60 and over (and even more so for older age groups) - in particular the oldest age group (85+) shows an increase from 26,061 people to 68,980.
Figure 12: Distribution of Population 2011 and 2036 (PROJ 2) 2011 2036
Ages 85+ 8,638 17,423 Ages 85+ 29,972 39,008 Ages 80-84 11,192 15,737 Ages 80-84 19,503 22,819 Ages 75-79 15,557 18,808 Ages 75-79 26,702 29,133 Ages 70-74 18,943 21,202 Ages 70-74 32,317 35,284 Ages 65-69 24,666 26,399 Ages 65-69 32,690 35,478 Ages 60-64 30,283 31,522 Ages 60-64 30,581 32,556 Ages 55-59 28,777 29,155 Ages 55-59 30,134 32,134 Ages 50-54 34,193 33,669 Ages 50-54 32,458 34,079 Ages 45-49 37,465 38,143 Ages 45-49 35,646 36,375 Ages 40-44 36,166 36,837 Ages 40-44 37,903 37,472 Ages 35-39 33,236 33,154 Ages 35-39 36,590 35,517 Ages 30-34 32,893 32,252 Ages 30-34 36,388 34,533 Ages 25-29 36,196 34,670 Ages 25-29 41,664 39,222 Ages 20-24 44,707 41,214 Ages 20-24 52,822 48,747 Ages 15-19 35,548 33,571 Ages 15-19 38,363 36,874 Ages 10-14 30,022 28,260 Ages 10-14 33,271 31,969 Ages 5-9 28,877 27,159 Ages 5-9 32,879 31,450 Ages 0-4 32,692 30,810 Ages 0-4 33,212 31,596 80000 40000 0 40000 80000 80000 40000 0 40000 80000
Female Male Female Male
1.5 Table 11 below summarises the findings for key (15 year) age groups. The largest growth will be in people aged over 60. In 2036 it is estimated that there will be 366,000 people aged 60 and over. This is an increase of 125,700 from 2011, representing growth of 52%. The population aged 75 and over is projected to increase by an even greater proportion, 91%.
1.6 The growth in the older population is an important driver of housing needs, in particular as older households typically are smaller than those in younger age groups.
GL Hearn Page 43 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
1.7 Looking at the other end of the age spectrum we can see that there are projected to be around 9% more people aged under 15 with increases seen for the 15-29 and 30-44 age groups. The 45-59 age group is expected to see a small decline in population.
Table 11: Population Change 2011 to 2036 by Fifteen Year Age Bands (PROJ 2) Age group Population 2011 Population 2036 Change in % change from population 2011 Under 15 177,820 194,377 16,558 9.3% 15-29 225,905 257,690 31,785 14.1% 30-44 204,537 218,405 13,868 6.8% 45-59 201,403 200,827 -576 -0.3% 60-74 153,014 198,906 45,892 30.0% 75+ 87,355 167,135 79,780 91.3% Total 1,050,034 1,237,340 187,306 17.8%
1.8 Figure 13 below shows the percentage changes for each five year age group. The most stark trend is the increase in the population aged 85 and over (up 165%) which may have implications for future housing delivery as many of this group may require some form of specialist housing. In contrast we see only moderate increases (and some decreases) in most age groups up to age 65. The large projected growth in population in the oldest age groups is linked to projected improvements in life expectancy.
Figure 13: Forecast Population Change by Age Group 2011 – 2036
210%
2036
- 165% 160%
110%
68% 62%57% 60% 33% 18% 15%12% 14% 9% 9% 9% -5%- 2% 7%
10% 2% 3% 2%
%age population %age population change 2011
20-24 50-54 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+
-40%
GL Hearn Page 44 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Employment Changes
1.9 The table and figure below show the estimated number of people living in the PUSH Area who are working under each of our eight projections. The figures are thus for ‘residents in employment.’
Table 12: Employment Estimates 2011 to 2036
2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 PROJ 1 (SNPP) 508,825 523,835 531,498 537,856 548,717 558,533 0.0% 2.9% 4.5% 5.7% 7.8% 9.8% PROJ 2 (SNPP 508,825 525,001 533,786 541,300 553,473 564,701 adjusted) 0.0% 3.2% 4.9% 6.4% 8.8% 11.0% PROJ 3 (10-year 508,825 525,277 538,274 548,340 560,581 571,753 migration trends) 0.0% 3.2% 5.8% 7.8% 10.2% 12.4% PROJ 4 (5-year 508,825 526,057 539,709 550,419 563,362 575,260 migration trends) 0.0% 3.4% 6.1% 8.2% 10.7% 13.1% PROJ A (Jobs 508,825 535,957 561,540 581,700 601,296 620,859 baseline) 0.0% 5.3% 10.4% 14.3% 18.2% 22.0% PROJ B (Residents in 508,825 536,584 562,018 582,104 601,615 621,093 employment) 0.0% 5.5% 10.5% 14.4% 18.2% 22.1% PROJ X (Zero net 508,825 512,391 511,748 507,971 505,571 501,193 migration) 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% -0.2% -0.6% -1.5% PROJ Y (Zero 508,825 508,825 508,825 508,825 508,825 508,825 employment growth) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Figure 14: Employment Change, 2011 – 2036
630,000 PROJ 1 (SNPP) PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 610,000 PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends)
PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 590,000 PROJ A (Jobs baseline) PROJ B (Residents in employment) PROJ X (Zero net migration) 570,000 PROJ Y (Zero employment growth)
550,000
530,000 Numberof people working 510,000
490,000
Year
GL Hearn Page 45 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Household Growth
1.10 The table and figure below show the projected growth in the number of households under each of the main eight scenarios.
Table 13: Household Estimates 2011 to 2036
2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 PROJ 1 (SNPP) 439,639 458,286 475,815 492,922 510,479 526,744 0.0% 4.2% 8.2% 12.1% 16.1% 19.8% PROJ 2 (SNPP 439,639 459,173 477,588 495,590 514,086 531,369 adjusted) 0.0% 4.4% 8.6% 12.7% 16.9% 20.9% PROJ 3 (10-year 439,639 459,253 480,257 500,350 519,656 537,437 migration trends) 0.0% 4.5% 9.2% 13.8% 18.2% 22.2% PROJ 4 (5-year 439,639 459,685 481,043 501,465 521,099 539,228 migration trends) 0.0% 4.6% 9.4% 14.1% 18.5% 22.7% PROJ A (Jobs 439,639 465,711 495,009 522,490 547,359 571,147 baseline) 0.0% 5.9% 12.6% 18.8% 24.5% 29.9% PROJ B (Residents in 439,639 466,202 495,480 522,879 547,592 571,250 employment) 0.0% 6.0% 12.7% 18.9% 24.6% 29.9% PROJ X (Zero net 439,639 451,269 462,887 472,785 481,360 487,897 migration) 0.0% 2.6% 5.3% 7.5% 9.5% 11.0% PROJ Y (Zero 439,639 449,102 460,768 472,683 482,565 491,880 employment growth) 0.0% 2.2% 4.8% 7.5% 9.8% 11.9%
Figure 15: Household Change, 2011 – 2036
570,000 PROJ 1 (SNPP) PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 550,000 PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 530,000 PROJ B (Residents in employment) PROJ X (Zero net migration) PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 510,000
490,000 Households
470,000
450,000
430,000
2011 2017 2028 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
GL Hearn Page 46 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Dwelling Growth
1.11 The analysis above concentrated on the number of additional households. In reality there are always likely to be some vacant homes in the area and so the number of properties required to house all of these households will be slightly greater than the projected household numbers. We have therefore added a vacancy allowance of 3% to all of the above figures to make estimated housing requirements with figures shown in the table below.
Table 14: Estimated Housing Numbers with 3% Vacant & Second Home Allowance (to 2036) Projection variant Annual Annual Requirement household requirement with over 25-years growth vacancy allowance PROJ 1 (SNPP) 3,484 3,589 89,719 PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 3,669 3,779 94,482 PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 3,912 4,029 100,732 PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 3,984 4,103 102,576 PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 5,260 5,418 135,453 PROJ B (Residents in employment) 5,264 5,422 135,559 PROJ X (Zero net migration) 1,930 1,988 49,706 PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 2,090 2,152 53,809
Demographic Projections at the Local Authority Level
1.12 The discussion and analysis above has concentrated upon the housing need generated across the PUSH area as a whole from the various projections. We now turn to consider the outcomes of the various projections for housing requirements at the individual district (or part district) level, focussing particularly on the following projections:
PROJ 2 – Adjusted SNPP
PROJ 2A – Adjusted SNPP with 2008 headship rate assumptions
PROJ A – Jobs Baseline
PROJ B – Residents in employment
1.13 Detailed outputs for population, employment and household growth for all of the projection scenarios are set out in Appendix T.
1.14 We have described the outputs for key projections below; before moving onto provide tables summarising key outputs for each local authority.
GL Hearn Page 47 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
PROJ 2 – Adjusted SNPP
1.15 Table 15 below sets out the housing needs and annual growth rate for each local authority area (and part area) within the PUSH Area arising from the adjusted SNPP PROJ 2 projection.
Table 15: District Housing Needs – PROJ 2 Implied Annual Housing Need (2011- Housing Need per Growth Rate in Area 2036) Annum Housing (% per Annum) East Hampshire (part) 2,025 81 1.0% Eastleigh 13,898 556 1.0% Fareham 9,108 364 0.8% Gosport 10,364 415 1.1% Havant 10,367 415 0.8% New Forest (part) 6,880 275 0.9% Portsmouth 17,411 696 0.8% Southampton 17,689 708 0.7% Test Valley (part) 3,550 142 0.8% Winchester (part) 3,180 127 0.8%
PROJ 2A – Adjusted SNPP with 2008 Headship Rates
1.16 Table 16 below sets out the housing need and annual growth rate for each authority (and part authority) within the PUSH area arising from the adjusted SNPP PROJ 2A projection if 2008-based headship rates are used. These are based on longer-term trends in household formation dating back to 1971 and take less account of trends over the 2001-11 decade.
1.17 The impact of using the 2008 headship rates is to increase the projected household growth relative to those based on the 2011-based headship rates.
Table 16: District Housing Needs – PROJ 2A Implied Annual Housing Need (2011- Growth Rate in Area Housing Need per Annum 2036) Housing (% per Annum) East Hampshire (part) 2,325 93 1.1% Eastleigh 16,937 677 1.3% Fareham 10,653 426 0.9% Gosport 11,918 477 1.3% Havant 12,519 501 0.9% New Forest (part) 8,185 327 1.0% Portsmouth 21,479 859 1.0% Southampton 22,029 881 0.9% Test Valley (part) 4,209 168 1.0% Winchester (part) 3,763 151 1.0%
GL Hearn Page 48 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
PROJ A – Jobs Baseline
1.18 Table 17 below sets out the housing requirement and annual growth rate for each authority (and part authority) within the PUSH area arising from the adjusted SNPP PROJ A – Jobs Baseline projection. Across all areas we can see that meeting economic and employment trends could generate upward pressure on housing needs when compared to the PROJ 2 projection (although the same caveats apply as set out above regarding economic-driven projections as set out in the main report).
1.19 In particular, the PROJ A outputs show a particularly strong upward pressure on Winchester, Fareham, Southampton and New Forest. With the exception of Southampton this reflects the older population structure in these areas. In Southampton it would however be reasonable to assume that employment growth is partly supported by net inward commuting (consistent with past trends) as modelled in PROJ B.
Table 17: District Housing Needs – PROJ A Implied Annual Housing Need (2011- Growth Rate in Area Housing Need per Annum 2036) Housing (% per Annum) East Hampshire (part) 2,725 109 1.3% Eastleigh 16,159 646 1.2% Fareham 16,246 650 1.4% Gosport 9,460 378 1.0% Havant 14,164 567 1.1% New Forest (part) 10,570 423 1.3% Portsmouth 24,578 983 1.1% Southampton 29,968 1,199 1.2% Test Valley (part) 5,326 213 1.2% Winchester (part) 6,270 251 1.7%
PROJ B – Residents in Employment
1.20 The table below sets out the housing requirement and annual growth rate for each authority (and part authority) within the PUSH area arising from the PROJ B projection. Again, we can see that economic and employment trends could create pressure on housing need when compared to PROJ 2.
1.21 It is particularly interesting to note the differences between PROJ B and PROJ A, which are driven by the commuting patterns and dynamics of each authority. In Southampton, Portsmouth and Winchester, taking account of commuting serves to reduce the housing need identified compared to
GL Hearn Page 49 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
PROJ A. In all other authorities, commuting patterns serve to increase the housing requirement compared to PROJ A.
Table 18: District Housing Needs – PROJ B Implied Annual Housing Need (2011- Housing Need per Growth Rate in Area 2036) Annum Housing (% per Annum) East Hampshire (part) 3,050 122 1.5% Eastleigh 16,756 670 1.2% Fareham 17,608 704 1.5% Gosport 10,834 433 1.2% Havant 15,926 637 1.2% New Forest (part) 11,565 463 1.5% Portsmouth 21,320 853 1.0% Southampton 27,358 1,094 1.1% Test Valley (part) 5,514 221 1.3% Winchester (part) 5,633 225 1.5%
PROJ 2 – Midpoint Headship
1.22 As described in the main report, the 2011-based Headship Rates project forward a degree of suppressed household formation. However not all of the difference between the results in Tables 15 and 16 above can be attributed to suppressed household formation; some is more likely to relate to international migration and the impact of household structures within migrant households.
1.23 As set out in the main report, it is reasonable to project forward on the basis that headship rates will fall around midway between those implied in the 2008- and 2011-based CLG Household Projections. This results in a housing need for each of the authorities as shown in Table 19 below. This has been calculated by identifying the midpoint annual requirement based on the figures derived in Tables 15 and 16 above.
GL Hearn Page 50 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 19: Housing Need based on Demographic Trends (Midpoint Headship)
Annual Housing Need 2011-36 (PROJ 2)
Midpoint of 2011-based and 2008-based Headship East Hampshire (Part) 85 Eastleigh 615 Fareham 395 Gosport 445 Havant 455 New Forest (Part) 300 Portsmouth 775 Southampton 795 Test Valley 155 Winchester 140
Winchester East 58 Winchester West 81
Fareham East 296 Fareham West 99
PUSH East (Portsmouth) HMA 2115 PUSH West (Southampton) HMA 2045 PUSH Total 4160
1.24 The identified needs in this table for each authority correspond to the conclusions regarding housing need in the main report. We consider that this projection represents a robust basis for forward planning based on the demographic evidence and market signals.
1.25 The figures for individual local authorities or part authorities should however be used with caution. They are based on past demographic trends which have been influenced in part by past policies on housing distribution and relative rates of housing delivery, which feed through into the projections.
1.26 It should be recognised that the figures are derived on policy-off basis and takes no account of land supply or development constraints within the PUSH area; nor ‘Policy-On’ aspirations for economic growth. The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that SHMAs should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need such as issues related to land supply, infrastructure or environmental constraints. It should be noted that in some districts that when the annual housing need is aggregated over a plan period it would result in housing land requirements that cannot be met within that district. For example in Gosport, apart from the sites that have already been identified for development, physically there is a very limited amount of land that would be available for development notwithstanding other policy constraints and infrastructure requirements.
GL Hearn Page 51 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
1.27 The figures for individual authorities are influenced by, and project forward to some extent, previous policies (which in particular impact on levels of migration). It is important therefore that they are considered in the context of the wider evidence. The wider evidence from the SHMA indicates that:
Past relative housing delivery has been stronger in Gosport and Eastleigh, and weaker in Havant and that this influences the projections. In Gosport this is influenced by the release of former MOD properties and land onto the market; The affordable housing needs evidence provides some evidence of a need to consider higher housing provision (relative to the above figures), particularly in Eastleigh, East Hampshire, Fareham and Test Valley albeit that there are policy choices here; The level of growth in the workforce which might be expected is influenced in part by the population age structure, with the parts of New Forest, East Hampshire, Test Valley and Winchester – as well as Fareham and Havant – having an older age structure than other areas. However the relationship between housing/ population growth and the economy is sensitive to changes in employment rates and commuting.
1.28 These are relevant factors in considering the Policy-ON distribution of housing provision across the HMA, alongside issues related to land supply, infrastructure, development constraints and other strategy issues which will be undertaken through joint working at the PUSH level.
1.29 The authorities in working together to review the South Hampshire Strategy and developing their respective local plans will need to consider what scale of development can be sustainably accommodated, the interaction between the strategy for housing provision and economic growth and potential levels of affordable housing delivery. Economic forecasts have been commissioned by the LEP to support this. In considering how affordable housing needs can be met, it will be important to take account of available funding, what level can viably be delivered through mixed tenure schemes and the degree to which needs can be met in part through private rented sector lettings. The draft Planning Practice Guidance indicates that these may provide a basis for adjusting upwards the assessment of housing need.
1.30 How housing provision is ultimately distributed and met across the two housing market areas and the PUSH area as a whole should reasonably be decided at the local level and through dialogue between the authorities within the PUSH Partnership, taking account of constraints and land availability, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and other policy aspirations (such as regeneration). The SHMA analysis is thus intended to provide a ‘starting point’ and input to this which is to be taken forward through the development and review of the South Hampshire Strategy and authorities’ development plans.
What Homes Where?
1.31 If the projections herein are compared with findings from the What Homes Where Toolkit on the How Many Homes website (www.howmanyhomes.org) it is important to bear in mind that the Toolkit currently (at the time of writing in 2013) uses the CLG’s 2008-based Household Projections. These
GL Hearn Page 52 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
pre-date the release of information from the 2011 Census. The projections herein have sought to consider and update projections based on the latest demographic information.
GL Hearn Page 53 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX V: DETAILED PROJECTION OUTPUTS (INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT)
1.32 This appendix summarises the demographic projection prepared for each authority (or part authority) within the PUSH Area. It provides figures for the 2011-36 period and on an annual basis, setting out expected population growth, housing need and employment/labour supply growth for each projection run.
Eastleigh
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 1,038 0.8% 474 0.9% 351 0.5% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 1,254 1.0% 556 1.0% 474 0.7% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 1,033 0.8% 472 0.9% 350 0.5% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 1,280 1.0% 566 1.0% 490 0.7% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 1,489 1.2% 646 1.2% 606 0.9% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 1,552 1.2% 670 1.2% 641 1.0% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 296 0.2% 191 0.4% -68 -0.1% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 417 0.3% 237 0.4% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 1,146 0.9% 515 1.0% 416 0.6% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 1,254 1.0% 677 1.3% 474 0.7%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 25,941 20.6% 11,839 21.9% 8,786 13.4% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 31,345 24.9% 13,898 25.7% 11,854 18.0% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 25,825 20.5% 11,795 21.8% 8,752 13.3% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 31,995 25.4% 14,146 26.2% 12,256 18.6% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 37,230 29.6% 16,159 29.9% 15,149 23.0% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 38,790 30.8% 16,756 31.0% 16,031 24.4% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 7,408 5.9% 4,777 8.8% -1,705 -2.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 10,430 8.3% 5,914 10.9% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 28,640 22.8% 12,863 23.8% 10,395 15.8% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 31,345 24.9% 16,937 31.4% 11,854 18.0%
GL Hearn Page 54 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Fareham
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 925 0.8% 452 0.9% 211 0.4% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 690 0.6% 364 0.8% 80 0.1% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 203 0.2% 184 0.4% -193 -0.3% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 557 0.5% 316 0.7% 5 0.0% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 1,450 1.3% 650 1.4% 504 0.9% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 1,595 1.4% 704 1.5% 584 1.0% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -204 -0.2% 32 0.1% -420 -0.7% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 549 0.5% 310 0.6% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 625 0.6% 338 0.7% 46 0.1% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 690 0.6% 426 0.9% 80 0.1%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 23,122 20.7% 11,298 23.5% 5,287 9.4% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 17,240 15.4% 9,108 18.9% 1,997 3.5% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 5,066 4.5% 4,593 9.5% -4,823 -8.5% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 13,935 12.4% 7,894 16.4% 137 0.2% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 36,257 32.4% 16,246 33.8% 12,590 22.3% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 39,870 35.6% 17,608 36.6% 14,609 25.9% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -5,099 -4.6% 809 1.7% -10,507 -18.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 13,732 12.3% 7,756 16.1% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 15,634 14.0% 8,453 17.6% 1,142 2.0% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 17,240 15.4% 10,653 22.1% 1,997 3.5%
GL Hearn Page 55 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Gosport
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 484 0.6% 303 0.8% 96 0.2% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 772 0.9% 415 1.1% 240 0.6% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 673 0.8% 376 1.0% 192 0.5% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 575 0.7% 338 0.9% 142 0.4% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 680 0.8% 378 1.0% 193 0.5% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 823 1.0% 433 1.2% 264 0.7% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 209 0.3% 197 0.5% -41 -0.1% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 294 0.4% 229 0.6% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 470 0.6% 298 0.8% 90 0.2% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 772 0.9% 477 1.3% 240 0.6%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 12,105 14.6% 7,580 20.8% 2,408 6.0% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 19,293 23.3% 10,364 28.4% 6,012 15.0% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 16,823 20.3% 9,412 25.8% 4,788 12.0% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 14,364 17.4% 8,460 23.2% 3,556 8.9% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 17,008 20.6% 9,460 25.9% 4,816 12.0% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 20,564 24.9% 10,834 29.7% 6,591 16.5% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 5,230 6.3% 4,922 13.5% -1,022 -2.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 7,359 8.9% 5,730 15.7% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 11,747 14.2% 7,445 20.4% 2,246 5.6% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 19,293 23.3% 11,918 32.6% 6,012 15.0%
GL Hearn Page 56 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Havant
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 440 0.4% 262 0.5% -51 -0.1% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 837 0.7% 415 0.8% 144 0.3% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 383 0.3% 240 0.5% -80 -0.1% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 543 0.4% 302 0.6% -1 0.0% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 1,232 1.0% 567 1.1% 335 0.6% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 1,415 1.2% 637 1.2% 425 0.8% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -49 0.0% 74 0.1% -292 -0.5% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 548 0.5% 304 0.6% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 385 0.3% 241 0.5% -78 -0.1% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 837 0.7% 501 0.9% 144 0.3%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 11,000 9.1% 6,553 12.4% -1,276 -2.3% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 20,919 17.3% 10,367 19.6% 3,596 6.5% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 9,579 7.9% 6,011 11.4% -1,991 -3.6% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 13,582 11.2% 7,551 14.3% -24 0.0% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 30,795 25.5% 14,164 26.8% 8,385 15.1% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 35,374 29.3% 15,926 30.1% 10,631 19.1% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -1,217 -1.0% 1,860 3.5% -7,294 -13.1% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 13,705 11.3% 7,589 14.4% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 9,629 8.0% 6,025 11.4% -1,940 -3.5% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 20,919 17.3% 12,519 23.7% 3,596 6.5%
GL Hearn Page 57 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Portsmouth
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 1,335 0.6% 633 0.7% 498 0.5% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 1,493 0.7% 696 0.8% 584 0.6% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 2,630 1.3% 1,156 1.3% 1,194 1.2% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 2,445 1.2% 1,081 1.2% 1,094 1.1% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 2,195 1.1% 983 1.1% 959 1.0% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 1,874 0.9% 853 1.0% 786 0.8% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 1,310 0.6% 624 0.7% 481 0.5% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 415 0.2% 259 0.3% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 1,295 0.6% 617 0.7% 476 0.5% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 1,493 0.7% 859 1.0% 584 0.6%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 33,380 16.2% 15,820 17.9% 12,455 12.9% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 37,332 18.2% 17,411 19.7% 14,591 15.1% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 65,742 32.0% 28,892 32.7% 29,858 30.9% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 61,121 29.8% 27,032 30.6% 27,361 28.3% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 54,876 26.7% 24,578 27.9% 23,968 24.8% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 46,859 22.8% 21,320 24.2% 19,654 20.3% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 32,738 15.9% 15,601 17.7% 12,022 12.4% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 10,381 5.1% 6,487 7.4% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 32,373 15.8% 15,413 17.5% 11,911 12.3% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 37,332 18.2% 21,479 24.3% 14,591 15.1%
GL Hearn Page 58 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Southampton
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 1,615 0.7% 836 0.8% 701 0.6% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 1,300 0.6% 708 0.7% 528 0.5% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 2,320 1.0% 1,127 1.1% 1,080 1.0% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 2,021 0.9% 1,005 1.0% 916 0.8% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 2,492 1.1% 1,199 1.2% 1,173 1.0% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 2,238 0.9% 1,094 1.1% 1,035 0.9% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 1,580 0.7% 825 0.8% 674 0.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 341 0.1% 315 0.3% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 1,681 0.7% 867 0.9% 735 0.7% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 1,300 0.6% 881 0.9% 528 0.5%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 40,370 17.1% 20,905 20.7% 17,515 15.6% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 32,504 13.8% 17,689 17.5% 13,197 11.7% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 58,008 24.6% 28,186 27.9% 27,006 24.0% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 50,530 21.4% 25,130 24.9% 22,902 20.3% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 62,308 26.4% 29,968 29.7% 29,337 26.1% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 55,951 23.7% 27,358 27.1% 25,873 23.0% PROJ X (Zero net migration) 39,498 16.7% 20,621 20.4% 16,847 15.0% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 8,526 3.6% 7,872 7.8% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 42,024 17.8% 21,670 21.5% 18,378 16.3% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 32,504 13.8% 22,029 21.8% 13,197 11.7%
GL Hearn Page 59 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
East Hants (part)
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 137 0.7% 73 0.9% 22 0.2% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 160 0.8% 81 1.0% 34 0.3% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 80 0.4% 53 0.6% -8 -0.1% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 137 0.7% 73 0.9% 22 0.2% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 236 1.2% 108 1.3% 74 0.7% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 274 1.4% 122 1.5% 94 0.9% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -37 -0.2% 12 0.1% -70 -0.7% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 96 0.5% 59 0.7% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 43 0.2% 40 0.5% -27 -0.3% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 160 0.8% 93 1.1% 34 0.3%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 3,427 17.4% 1,832 22.1% 552 5.6% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 4,002 20.3% 2,034 24.5% 856 8.6% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 1,994 10.1% 1,332 16.0% -209 -2.1% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 3,419 17.3% 1,832 22.1% 543 5.5% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 5,907 30.0% 2,711 32.6% 1,849 18.6% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 6,858 34.8% 3,047 36.7% 2,349 23.6% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -920 -4.7% 310 3.7% -1,747 -17.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 2,388 12.1% 1,467 17.7% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 1,080 5.5% 1,008 12.1% -676 -6.8% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 4,002 20.3% 2,325 28.0% 856 8.6%
GL Hearn Page 60 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
New Forest (part)
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 587 0.8% 318 1.0% 128 0.4% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 478 0.7% 275 0.9% 72 0.2% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 222 0.3% 173 0.5% -63 -0.2% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 183 0.3% 158 0.5% -84 -0.3% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 848 1.2% 423 1.3% 264 0.8% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 948 1.3% 463 1.5% 316 1.0% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -315 -0.4% -40 -0.1% -344 -1.0% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 343 0.5% 221 0.7% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 135 0.2% 139 0.4% -107 -0.3% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 478 0.7% 327 1.0% 72 0.2%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 14,663 20.7% 7,960 25.1% 3,210 9.7% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 11,949 16.9% 6,880 21.7% 1,789 5.4% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 5,541 7.8% 4,334 13.7% -1,583 -4.8% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 4,574 6.5% 3,950 12.5% -2,089 -6.3% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 21,195 30.0% 10,570 33.3% 6,588 19.8% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 23,689 33.5% 11,565 36.5% 7,889 23.8% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -7,877 -11.1% -1,006 -3.2% -8,609 -25.9% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 8,569 12.1% 5,533 17.5% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 3,374 4.8% 3,463 10.9% -2,675 -8.1% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 11,949 16.9% 8,185 25.8% 1,789 5.4%
GL Hearn Page 61 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Test Valley (part)
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 204 0.5% 120 0.7% 8 0.0% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 264 0.6% 142 0.8% 40 0.2% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 154 0.4% 103 0.6% -20 -0.1% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 119 0.3% 90 0.5% -38 -0.2% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 458 1.1% 213 1.2% 145 0.7% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 478 1.2% 221 1.3% 156 0.7% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -31 -0.1% 36 0.2% -119 -0.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 190 0.5% 116 0.7% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 186 0.5% 114 0.7% -2 0.0% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 264 0.6% 168 1.0% 40 0.2%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 5,097 12.5% 3,008 17.5% 192 0.9% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 6,599 16.2% 3,550 20.6% 1,005 4.8% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 3,839 9.4% 2,572 14.9% -488 -2.3% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 2,976 7.3% 2,260 13.1% -954 -4.6% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 11,440 28.0% 5,326 30.9% 3,616 17.3% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 11,954 29.3% 5,514 32.0% 3,894 18.7% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -767 -1.9% 908 5.3% -2,978 -14.3% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 4,759 11.7% 2,890 16.8% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 4,649 11.4% 2,840 16.5% -41 -0.2% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 6,599 16.2% 4,209 24.5% 1,005 4.8%
GL Hearn Page 62 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Winchester (part)
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – annual Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection Per % Per % Per % annum change annum change annum change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 215 0.6% 117 0.8% 23 0.1% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 245 0.7% 127 0.8% 39 0.2% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 294 0.8% 144 1.0% 65 0.4% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 380 1.1% 173 1.2% 110 0.6% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 611 1.7% 251 1.7% 229 1.3% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 535 1.5% 225 1.5% 190 1.1% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -29 -0.1% 36 0.2% -105 -0.6% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 171 0.5% 103 0.7% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 408 1.1% 182 1.2% 125 0.7% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 245 0.7% 151 1.0% 39 0.2%
Summary of projections 2011 to 2036 – total Population growth Housing numbers Employment growth Projection % % % Total Total Total change change change PROJ 1 (SNPP) 5,363 14.8% 2,926 19.5% 578 3.3% PROJ 2 (SNPP adjusted) 6,122 16.9% 3,180 21.2% 978 5.5% PROJ 3 (10-year migration trends) 7,358 20.3% 3,604 24.0% 1,616 9.1% PROJ 4 (5-year migration trends) 9,508 26.3% 4,322 28.8% 2,747 15.5% PROJ A (Jobs baseline) 15,274 42.2% 6,270 41.8% 5,735 32.3% PROJ B (Residents in employment) 13,380 36.9% 5,633 37.6% 4,747 26.7% PROJ X (Zero net migration) -722 -2.0% 904 6.0% -2,637 -14.8% PROJ Y (Zero employment growth) 4,281 11.8% 2,571 17.1% 0 0.0% PROJ Z (Past completions) 10,198 28.2% 4,543 30.3% 3,123 17.6% PROJ 2A (2008-based headship) 6,122 16.9% 3,763 25.1% 978 5.5%
GL Hearn Page 63 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX X: DETAILED MIGRATION ASSUMPTIONS (FULL AUTHORITIES ONLY)
Figure AX.1: Estimated annual level of migration by five-year age band (2011-2036) – Eastleigh
1,400
1,200 Inflow 1,000 Outflow 800 Balance 600 400 200 0 -200 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+ 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84
Estimatedannual of level migration (people) -400 -600 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based population projections
Figure AX.2: Estimated annual level of migration by five-year age band (2011-2036) – Fareham
1,200
1,000 Inflow Outflow 800 Balance 600
400
200
0 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+ -200
Estimatedannual of level migration (people) 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 -400 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based population projections
GL Hearn Page 64 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure AX.3: Estimated annual level of migration by five-year age band (2011-2036) – Gosport
800
700 Inflow 600 Outflow 500 Balance 400 300 200 100 0 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+
Estimatedannual of level migration (people) -100 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 -200 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based population projections
Figure AX.4: Estimated annual level of migration by five-year age band (2011-2036) – Havant
1,000
800 Inflow Outflow 600 Balance
400
200
0 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+
-200 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 Estimatedannual of level migration (people)
-400 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based population projections
GL Hearn Page 65 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure AX.5: Estimated annual level of migration by five-year age band (2011-2036) – Portsmouth
6,000
5,000 Inflow Outflow 4,000 Balance 3,000
2,000
1,000
0 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+ -1,000
Estimatedannual of level migration (people) 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 -2,000 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based population projections
Figure AX.6: Estimated annual level of migration by five-year age band (2011-2036) – Southampton
10,000
Inflow 8,000 Outflow Balance 6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Estimatedannual of level migration (people) 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85+ -2,000 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 Age group
Source: Derived from ONS 2010-based population projections
GL Hearn Page 66 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
APPENDIX X: DISTRICT LEVEL AFFORDABLE NEEDS ASSESSMENT OUTPUTS
Introduction
This appendix provides the same information as seen in Section 8 of the report but at a smaller area level. For the purposes of this analysis a total of 12 different sub-areas were developed and these are listed below:
Southampton HMA Eastleigh (whole Borough) Fareham (West wards) New Forest (part) Southampton (whole City) Test Valley (part) Winchester (part – West wards)
Portsmouth HMA East Hampshire (part) Fareham (East wards) Gosport (whole Borough) Havant (whole Borough) Portsmouth (whole City) Winchester (part – East wards)
The analysis following simply provides the more local area level information. Details about the methodology employed at each stage of the analysis can be found in Section 8 of the main report.
GL Hearn Page 67 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Survey of Local Prices & Rents
Figure 16: Entry-level Purchase Prices, 2013 £306
£350 £296
£282 £282
£280
£273
£264
£263
£254
£253
£243
£300 £235
£221
£210
£207 £207
£202
£199
£197
£250 £188
£183
£179 £179
£176
£176
£169 £169
£168
£160
£156
£150
£149
£146 £146
£144
£141 £141 £141
£200 £135
£129
£127
£122 £122
£118
£113 £113
£108
£103
£94 £94
£150 £94
£90
£86
£85 £85
£82
£80 £80
£77
£75
level purchase price (£'000s) price purchase level
-
£100
Entry £50
£0
1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
GL Hearn Page 68 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 17: Profile of Properties Advertised for Sale
Eastleigh 8.3% 27.4% 38.1% 26.1%
Fareham (West) 8.6% 20.7% 30.6% 40.2%
New Forest (part) 9.4% 23.8% 41.1% 25.7%
Southampton 17.4% 34.4% 34.3% 14.0%
Test Valley (part) 10.9% 22.4% 37.1% 29.6%
Winchester (part-west) 8.9% 23.9% 34.4% 32.8%
SOUTHAMPTON HMA 12.4% 28.7% 35.9% 22.9%
East Hampshire (part) 4.2% 20.7% 30.5% 44.5%
Fareham (East) 9.7% 24.2% 39.7% 26.4%
Gosport 9.7% 38.5% 34.7% 17.1%
Havant 10.3% 23.7% 36.3% 29.6%
Portsmouth 14.7% 33.5% 36.3% 15.5%
Winchester (part-east) 5.7% 18.1% 36.1% 40.0%
PORTSMOUTH HMA 11.0% 29.1% 36.2% 23.7%
PUSH 11.7% 28.9% 36.1% 23.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
GL Hearn Page 69 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 18: Entry-level Private Rents
£1,300
£1,200
£1,150 £1,150 £1,150 £1,150
£1,130
£1,125
£1,115
£1,100 £1,100
£1,400 £1,092
£1,075
£1,000
£1,200
£900
£895
£850 £850 £850
£830
£825
£810
£804
£800 £800
£795
£777
£775 £775
£750 £750
£1,000
£695 £695 £695 £695
£685
£683
£675
£665
£650 £650 £650
£641
£625
£600
£575
£550 £550 £550
£540
£800
£525 £525 £525 £525
£508
£500 £500
£493
£484
£475
£600
£400 Lower quartile rent (per month)(per rent quartile Lower £200
£0
1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
GL Hearn Page 70 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Figure 19: Profile of Properties Advertised to Rent
Eastleigh 21.4% 40.3% 29.2% 9.1%
Fareham (West) 20.0% 44.2% 22.1% 13.7%
New Forest (part) 28.5% 34.3% 32.8% 4.4%
Southampton 36.5% 29.2% 13.4% 20.8%
Test Valley (part) 19.6% 43.0% 24.3% 13.1%
Winchester (part-west) 14.1% 42.3% 36.6% 7.0%
SOUTHAMPTON HMA 32.9% 31.9% 17.2% 18.0%
East Hampshire (part) 7.3% 29.3% 26.8% 36.6%
Fareham (East) 25.4% 44.8% 23.2% 6.6%
Gosport 22.8% 49.8% 22.5% 4.9%
Havant 29.1% 29.1% 32.1% 9.7%
Portsmouth 26.7% 32.4% 19.6% 21.2%
Winchester (part-east) 10.0% 30.0% 40.0% 20.0%
PORTSMOUTH HMA 25.8% 35.1% 22.3% 16.9%
PUSH 29.9% 33.2% 19.3% 17.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms
Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
GL Hearn Page 71 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Cost of Affordable Housing
Table 20: Monthly average social rent levels Area 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3+ bedrooms Eastleigh £405 £440 £490 Fareham (West) £357 £440 £503 New Forest (part) £372 £425 £473 Southampton £345 £374 £421 Test Valley (part) £389 £446 £511 Winchester (part-west) £399 £446 £523 SOUTHAMPTON HMA £362 £397 £447 East Hampshire (part) £383 £454 £527 Fareham (East) £357 £440 £503 Gosport £355 £426 £424 Havant £350 £432 £494 Portsmouth £403 £456 £491 Winchester (part-east) £399 £446 £523 PORTSMOUTH HMA £376 £443 £483 PUSH £369 £420 £465 Source: CORE (2013)
Table 21: Cost of Affordable Rented Housing by Size and Sub-Area (per month) Area 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Eastleigh £420 £556 £680 £920 Fareham (West) £440 £556 £680 £920 New Forest (part) £420 £556 £640 £960 Southampton £380 £540 £660 £900 Test Valley (part) £440 £600 £680 £920 Winchester (part-west) £420 £548 £648 £1,040 SOUTHAMPTON HMA £387 £547 £664 £904 East Hampshire (part) £460 £556 £716 £860 Fareham (East) £440 £520 £636 £800 Gosport £400 £480 £600 £720 Havant £420 £520 £620 £920 Portsmouth £400 £520 £620 £880 Winchester (part-east) £432 £500 £640 £880 PORTSMOUTH HMA £406 £513 £621 £874 PUSH £394 £532 £643 £892 Source: Derived from Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013)
GL Hearn Page 72 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Gaps in the Housing Market
Table 22: Indicative Income required to Purchase/Rent without Additional Subsidy Lower quartile Lower quartile Lower quartile Sub-area Affordable rent purchase price private rent social rent Eastleigh £45,657 £27,000 £21,600 £16,811 Fareham (West) £52,371 £27,000 £21,600 £15,412 New Forest (part) £45,657 £25,000 £20,000 £15,423 Southampton £38,943 £25,000 £20,000 £14,010 Test Valley (part) £51,029 £27,800 £22,240 £16,005 Winchester (part-west) £53,714 £27,000 £21,600 £16,244 SOUTHAMPTON HMA £44,358 £25,333 £20,267 £14,829 East Hampshire (part) £59,086 £32,000 £25,600 £15,988 Fareham (East) £44,314 £24,000 £19,200 £15,412 Gosport £33,571 £22,000 £17,600 £14,300 Havant £41,629 £23,800 £19,040 £14,842 Portsmouth £34,914 £24,000 £19,200 £16,206 Winchester (part-east) £53,177 £28,000 £22,400 £16,244 PORTSMOUTH HMA £40,005 £23,968 £19,175 £15,445 PUSH £42,188 £24,829 £19,863 £15,133 Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013) and CORE
Income levels and Affordability
Table 23: Income levels by Area (Southampton HMA) Income band Eastleigh Fareham New South- Test Wincheste SOUTH- (West) Forest ampton Valley r (part- AMPTON (part) (part) west) HMA Under £10k 2.9% 1.3% 4.9% 10.4% 1.7% 1.5% 6.2% £10k to £20k 24.8% 17.5% 28.0% 30.2% 20.2% 19.3% 26.5% £20k to £30k 18.2% 18.1% 18.9% 19.7% 18.0% 18.0% 18.9% £30k to £40k 14.2% 13.5% 13.7% 13.8% 14.1% 13.9% 13.9% £40k to £50k 10.7% 10.8% 10.8% 8.6% 10.4% 10.5% 9.8% £50k to £60k 8.2% 8.7% 6.6% 4.9% 8.9% 9.0% 6.7% £60k to £80k 8.5% 12.1% 7.0% 5.6% 10.8% 11.2% 7.6% £80k to £100k 4.4% 6.0% 4.2% 4.0% 5.3% 5.5% 4.4% Over £100k 8.2% 12.1% 6.0% 2.9% 10.7% 11.1% 6.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mean £42,809 £52,286 £38,145 £32,001 £48,788 £49,900 £38,806 Median £32,560 £39,768 £29,013 £24,340 £37,107 £37,953 £28,961 Source: Derived from ASHE, Experian, SHE, CACI and ONS data
GL Hearn Page 73 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 24: Income levels by Area (Portsmouth HMA) Income band East Fareham Gosport Havant Ports- Winchester PORTS- Hampshire (East) mouth (part-east) MOUTH (part) HMA Under £10k 2.1% 3.7% 6.9% 6.7% 9.3% 1.8% 6.9% £10k to £20k 22.1% 26.3% 29.2% 29.1% 30.0% 20.6% 28.5% £20k to £30k 18.0% 18.4% 19.5% 19.4% 19.6% 18.1% 19.3% £30k to £40k 14.3% 14.0% 13.5% 13.5% 13.8% 14.1% 13.7% £40k to £50k 10.4% 10.9% 10.1% 10.2% 9.1% 10.4% 9.9% £50k to £60k 8.8% 7.5% 5.8% 5.9% 5.1% 8.9% 6.0% £60k to £80k 9.8% 7.8% 6.3% 6.3% 5.7% 10.6% 6.6% £80k to £100k 4.9% 4.3% 4.1% 4.2% 4.1% 5.2% 4.2% Over £100k 9.7% 7.2% 4.6% 4.8% 3.4% 10.4% 4.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mean £46,319 £40,700 £35,434 £35,714 £32,952 £48,188 £36,114 Median £35,230 £30,956 £26,951 £27,164 £25,063 £36,651 £27,236 Source: Derived from ASHE, Experian, SHE, CACI and ONS data
Table 25: Estimated Proportion of Household Unable to Afford Market Housing without Subsidy Sub-area Income required Number unable Estimated % of to access to afford households households market (2013) unable to afford Eastleigh £27,000 21,978 53,670 41.0% Fareham (West) £27,000 4,794 14,912 32.2% New Forest (part) £25,000 12,828 30,007 42.7% Southampton £25,000 51,102 99,516 51.4% Test Valley (part) £27,800 6,371 17,430 36.5% Winchester (part-west) £27,000 3,310 9,663 34.2% SOUTHAMPTON HMA - 100,382 225,199 44.6% East Hampshire (part) £32,000 3,877 8,586 45.2% Fareham (East) £24,000 12,445 32,706 38.1% Gosport £22,000 14,605 36,287 40.3% Havant £23,800 22,633 52,090 43.5% Portsmouth £24,000 41,551 87,018 47.8% Winchester (part-east) £28,000 2,566 6,870 37.4% PORTSMOUTH HMA - 97,677 223,557 43.7% PUSH - 198,059 448,755 44.1% Source: Online Estate and Letting Agents Survey (June 2013) and Income modelling
GL Hearn Page 74 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Current Housing Need (Backlog)
Table 26: Estimated number of households in unsuitable housing In unsuitable Total number of % in unsuitable housing households housing Eastleigh 1,000 53,670 1.9% Fareham (West) 213 14,912 1.4% New Forest (part) 543 30,007 1.8% Southampton 4,008 99,516 4.0% Test Valley (part) 267 17,430 1.5% Winchester (part-west) 168 9,663 1.7% SOUTHAMPTON HMA 6,200 225,199 2.8% East Hampshire (part) 107 8,586 1.2% Fareham (East) 504 32,706 1.5% Gosport 932 36,287 2.6% Havant 938 52,090 1.8% Portsmouth 3,255 87,018 3.7% Winchester (part-east) 128 6,870 1.9% PORTSMOUTH HMA 5,864 223,557 2.6% PUSH 12,064 448,755 2.7% Source: Census (2011) and data modelling
Table 27: Estimated Backlog Need by Sub-Area In unsuitable % Unable to Revised Gross housing Afford Need (including Affordability) Eastleigh 1,000 59.1% 591 Fareham (West) 213 49.1% 105 New Forest (part) 543 60.7% 330 Southampton 4,008 69.2% 2,775 Test Valley (part) 267 54.2% 145 Winchester (part-west) 168 51.6% 87 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 6,200 65.0% 4,033 East Hampshire (part) 107 63.3% 68 Fareham (East) 504 56.0% 282 Gosport 932 58.4% 544 Havant 938 61.6% 577 Portsmouth 3,255 65.7% 2,140 Winchester (part-east) 128 55.3% 71 PORTSMOUTH HMA 5,864 62.8% 3,682 PUSH 12,064 63.9% 7,714 Source: Census (2011), data modelling and income analysis
GL Hearn Page 75 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Newly-Arising Need
Table 28: Estimated Level of Housing Need from Newly Forming Households (2013-2036) Number of new % unable to Total in need households afford Eastleigh 25,341 49.4% 12,519 Fareham (West) 6,592 39.8% 2,624 New Forest (part) 11,528 51.3% 5,914 Southampton 44,422 59.9% 26,609 Test Valley (part) 6,201 44.3% 2,747 Winchester (part-west) 3,662 42.0% 1,538 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 97,745 53.1% 51,903 East Hampshire (part) 3,169 54.1% 1,715 Fareham (East) 11,845 46.0% 5,449 Gosport 14,292 48.6% 6,946 Havant 17,793 52.3% 9,306 Portsmouth 39,601 56.7% 22,454 Winchester (part-east) 2,548 45.3% 1,154 PORTSMOUTH HMA 89,249 52.6% 46,945 PUSH 186,995 52.9% 98,920 Source: Projection Modelling/Income analysis
Table 29: Estimated level of Housing Need from Existing Households (2013-36) Number of Existing % of Need Households falling into Need Eastleigh 4,020 8.6% Fareham (West) 644 1.4% New Forest (part) 2,217 4.7% Southampton 18,570 39.8% Test Valley (part) 929 2.0% Winchester (part-west) 612 1.3% SOUTHAMPTON HMA 26,997 57.8% East Hampshire (part) 396 0.8% Fareham (East) 2,318 5.0% Gosport 3,119 6.7% Havant 2,581 5.5% Portsmouth 10,787 23.1% Winchester (part-east) 497 1.1% PORTSMOUTH HMA 19,702 42.2% PUSH 46,699 100.0% Source: CORE/affordability analysis
GL Hearn Page 76 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 30: Estimated Future Housing Need (2013-36) Newly-forming Existing Total Newly- Households in Households Arising Need Need falling into Need 2013-36 Eastleigh 12,519 4,020 16,539 Fareham (West) 2,624 644 3,268 New Forest (part) 5,914 2,217 8,131 Southampton 26,609 18,570 45,179 Test Valley (part) 2,747 929 3,676 Winchester (part-west) 1,538 612 2,150 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 51,903 26,997 78,900 East Hampshire (part) 1,715 396 2,111 Fareham (East) 5,449 2,318 7,767 Gosport 6,946 3,119 10,065 Havant 9,306 2,581 11,887 Portsmouth 22,454 10,787 33,241 Winchester (part-east) 1,154 497 1,651 PORTSMOUTH HMA 46,945 19,702 66,647 PUSH 98,920 46,699 145,619
Supply of Affordable Housing
Table 31: Analysis of past social rented housing supply (past 5 years) – Southampton HMA Eastleigh Fareham New South- Test Winchester SOUTH- (West) Forest ampton Valley (part- AMPTON (part) (part) west) HMA General Total lettings 1,402 242 768 6,002 438 223 9,075 needs % as non-newbuild 56.8% 69.7% 86.6% 87.5% 72.4% 84.2% 81.4% Lettings in existing stock 797 169 666 5,252 317 188 7,388 % non-transfers 73.9% 70.5% 68.6% 56.3% 61.0% 69.1% 60.2% Total lettings to new 589 119 457 2,957 193 130 4,446 tenants Supported Total lettings 859 145 480 5,445 203 169 7,300 % as non-newbuild 93.4% 93.8% 97.9% 97.0% 93.3% 96.6% 96.5% Lettings in existing stock 802 136 469 5,283 189 163 7,043 % non-transfers 61.8% 71.5% 67.6% 68.9% 71.7% 66.3% 68.1% Total lettings to new 495 97 317 3,641 136 108 4,795 tenants Total lettings to new tenants 1,085 216 774 6,598 329 238 9,240
Total lettings per annum 217 43 155 1,320 66 48 1,848
Source: CORE
GL Hearn Page 77 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 32: Analysis of past social rented housing supply (past 5 years) – Portsmouth HMA East Fareha Gospor Havant Ports- Winchest PORTS- Hampshi m t mouth er (part- MOUTH re (part) (East) east) HMA General Total lettings 139 806 1,793 937 1,808 175 5,657 needs % as non-newbuild 71.9% 69.7% 77.9% 78.2% 64.7% 84.2% 72.6% Lettings in existing stock 100 562 1,396 733 1,171 147 4,108 % non-transfers 64.7% 70.5% 55.7% 63.4% 62.5% 69.1% 61.7% Total lettings to new 65 396 778 464 731 102 2,535 tenants Supported Total lettings 117 483 387 659 3,611 132 5,388 % as non-newbuild 98.6% 93.8% 79.9% 94.2% 99.2% 96.6% 96.6% Lettings in existing stock 115 453 309 621 3,581 128 5,207 % non-transfers 69.5% 71.5% 52.7% 67.3% 81.5% 66.3% 76.6% Total lettings to new 80 323 163 418 2,918 85 3,987 tenants Total lettings to new tenants 145 719 941 882 3,649 186 6,522
Total lettings per annum 29 144 188 176 730 37 1,305
Source: CORE
Table 33: Supply of Affordable Housing by Area (2013-2036)
Social rented Intermediate Total supply relets housing ‘relets’ (2013-2036) Eastleigh 4,991 428 5,419 Fareham (West) 989 152 1,141 New Forest (part) 3,565 184 3,749 Southampton 30,360 1,343 31,703 Test Valley (part) 1,518 69 1,587 Winchester (part-west) 1,104 55 1,159 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 42,504 2,231 44,735 East Hampshire (part) 667 37 704 Fareham (East) 3,312 166 3,478 Gosport 4,324 285 4,609 Havant 4,048 115 4,163 Portsmouth 16,790 888 17,678 Winchester (part-east) 851 101 952 PORTSMOUTH HMA 30,015 1,587 31,602 PUSH 72,519 3,818 76,337
GL Hearn Page 78 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Net Housing Need
Table 34: Estimated level of Housing Need (2013-36) excluding Pipeline Sub-area Backlog Newly Existing Total Supply Net Need need forming househol Need per househol ds falling Net Need annum ds into need Eastleigh 591 12,519 4,020 17,130 5,419 11,711 509 Fareham (West) 105 2,624 644 3,373 1,141 2,232 97 New Forest (part) 330 5,914 2,217 8,461 3,749 4,712 205 Southampton 2,775 26,609 18,570 47,954 31,703 16,251 707 Test Valley (part) 145 2,747 929 3,821 1,587 2,234 97 Winchester (part- 87 1,538 612 2,237 1,159 1,078 47 west) SOUTHAMPTON 4,033 51,903 26,997 82,933 44,735 38,198 1,661 HMA East Hampshire 68 1,715 396 2,179 704 1,475 64 (part) Fareham (East) 282 5,449 2,318 8,049 3,478 4,571 199 Gosport 544 6,946 3,119 10,609 4,609 6,000 261 Havant 577 9,306 2,581 12,464 4,163 8,301 361 Portsmouth 2,140 22,454 10,787 35,381 17,678 17,703 770 Winchester (part- 71 1,154 497 1,722 952 770 33 east) PORTSMOUTH HMA 3,682 46,945 19,702 70,329 31,602 38,727 1,684 PUSH 7,714 98,920 46,699 153,333 76,337 76,996 3,348 Source: Census (2011)/CORE/Projection Modelling and affordability analysis
GL Hearn Page 79 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Role of the Private Rented Sector in Meeting Housing Need
Table 35: Number of People claiming LHA in Private Rented Sector (Feb 2011 and Feb 2013) February February Absolute % change 2011 2013 change Eastleigh 1,710 1,888 178 10.4% Fareham (West) 425 481 57 13.3% New Forest (part) 1,100 1,158 57 5.2% Southampton 7,140 7,974 834 11.7% Test Valley (part) 412 412 0 0.0% Winchester (part-west) 216 216 0 0.2% SOUTHAMPTON HMA 11,003 12,129 1,126 10.2% East Hampshire (part) 140 144 4 3.2% Fareham (East) 845 958 112 13.3% Gosport 2,060 2,089 29 1.4% Havant 2,370 2,480 110 4.6% Portsmouth 7,590 8,063 473 6.2% Winchester (part-east) 171 171 0 0.2% PORTSMOUTH HMA 13,176 13,905 729 5.5% PUSH 24,178 26,034 1,856 7.7% Source: Department of Work and Pensions
GL Hearn Page 80 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Table 36: Private Rented Sector LHA claimants by Area (per annum) Estimated LHA Claimants Estimated Households lettings to claimants as % of lettings per in PRS LHA in PRS households annum households Eastleigh 1,888 6,438 29.3% 837 196 Fareham (West) 481 1,554 31.0% 202 50 New Forest (part) 1,158 3,320 34.9% 432 121 Southampton 7,974 24,449 32.6% 3,178 829 Test Valley (part) 412 1,765 23.3% 229 43 Winchester (part-west) 216 1,087 19.9% 141 22 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 12,129 38,613 31.4% 5,020 1,261 East Hampshire (part) 144 653 22.1% 85 15 Fareham (East) 958 3,091 31.0% 402 100 Gosport 2,089 5,777 36.2% 751 217 Havant 2,480 5,087 48.8% 661 258 Portsmouth 8,063 21,098 38.2% 2,743 838 Winchester (part-east) 171 861 19.9% 112 18 PORTSMOUTH HMA 13,905 36,567 38.0% 4,754 1,445 PUSH 26,034 75,180 34.6% 9,773 2,705 Source: Census (2011), DWP
GL Hearn Page 81 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Version 1: January 2014 Appendices
Need for Different Types of Affordable Housing
Table 37: Estimated level of Housing Need (2013-36) by Type of Affordable Housing (Numbers) Sub-area Intermediate Social/affordable rented Total Supply Net need Total Supply Net need need need Eastleigh 3,227 428 2,799 13,903 4,991 8,912 Fareham (West) 765 152 613 2,608 989 1,619 New Forest (part) 1,528 184 1,344 6,933 3,565 3,368 Southampton 6,771 1,343 5,428 41,183 30,360 10,823 Test Valley (part) 776 69 707 3,045 1,518 1,527 Winchester (part-west) 469 55 414 1,768 1,104 664 SOUTHAMPTON HMA 13,459 2,231 11,228 69,474 42,504 26,970 East Hampshire (part) 397 37 360 1,782 667 1,115 Fareham (East) 1,561 166 1,395 6,488 3,312 3,176 Gosport 1,966 285 1,681 8,643 4,324 4,319 Havant 2,296 115 2,181 10,168 4,048 6,120 Portsmouth 5,669 888 4,781 29,712 16,790 12,922 Winchester (part-east) 337 101 236 1,385 851 534 PORTSMOUTH HMA 12,187 1,587 10,600 58,142 30,015 28,127 PUSH 25,660 3,818 21,842 127,673 72,519 55,154 Source: Housing Needs Analysis
Table 38: Estimated level of Housing Need (2013-36) by Type of Affordable Housing (Percentages) Sub-area Intermediate Affordable rent Social rent Total Eastleigh 23.9% 19.2% 56.9% 100.0% Fareham (West) 27.5% 32.0% 40.5% 100.0% New Forest (part) 28.5% 17.8% 53.7% 100.0% Southampton 33.4% 18.5% 48.1% 100.0% Test Valley (part) 31.6% 25.3% 43.1% 100.0% Winchester (part-west) 38.4% 20.6% 41.0% 100.0% SOUTHAMPTON HMA 29.4% 19.9% 50.7% 100.0% East Hampshire (part) 24.4% 33.5% 42.1% 100.0% Fareham (East) 30.5% 16.1% 53.4% 100.0% Gosport 28.0% 14.8% 57.1% 100.0% Havant 26.3% 17.7% 56.0% 100.0% Portsmouth 27.0% 10.7% 62.3% 100.0% Winchester (part-east) 30.6% 23.9% 45.5% 100.0% PORTSMOUTH HMA 27.4% 14.1% 58.5% 100.0% PUSH 28.4% 17.3% 54.4% 100.0% Source: Housing Needs Analysis
GL Hearn Page 82 of 82 J: \Planning\Job Files\J029641 - PUSH Strategic HMA\Reports\PUSH Final Report Appendices (20-01-14-nxi).docx
Item 9
Report to the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Joint Committee
Date: 25th March 2014
Report of: Paul Nichols, Head of Planning Transport and Sustainability Southampton City Council
Subject: Spatial Strategy Update
SUMMARY
A new PUSH Spatial Strategy is required because the current version (2012) has a planning horizon of 2026, and a number of PUSH authorities are already preparing Local Plans which extend beyond this date. In addition, the new spatial strategy needs to take account of the latest evidence on our economic prospects, updated evidence of housing need and the emerging Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) of the Solent LEP. The strategy also needs to incorporate the recently expanded PUSH area, including the Isle of Wight
The emerging SEP ( Transforming Solent: Solent Strategic Economic Plan 2014-20 ) provides a new framework for sustainable economic growth across the PUSH area. This includes achieving an additional 15,500 jobs, over and above baseline projections. The new strategy will align with this growth framework up to 2020, but will extend out to a planning horizon of 2036.
This report summarises the proposed approach to the new spatial strategy, to be included in the draft Invitation to Quote which has been prepared for release to consultants. A two phased programme of work is proposed as described below: • The initial phase of consultancy work (preparing the evidence base and options appraisal) will run up to April 2015. Following consideration of the completed options appraisal by the PUSH Joint Committee, there would be a period of wider consultation with the Solent LEP, other interested parties and the wider public in June/July 2015. • The second phase of this commission (September to October 2015) will take the preferred development option and incorporate it into a new draft spatial strategy for the PUSH area. PUSH will then take this draft spatial strategy out to consultation and ultimately adopt the finalised plan.
1 of 9
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED that the Joint Committee NOTE and APPROVE :
1. That officers are authorised to appoint a consultant to undertake the proposed programme of work. The first phase will take place over the period April 2014 to March 2015 and will lead to the preparation of a draft Options Appraisal for consultation with the public and other interested parties, in close consultation with PUSH Leaders and the PUSH Planning Officers Group.
2. That PUSH authorities agree that they will not object to emerging Local Plans in the PUSH area on the basis of their housing numbers, where they are consistent with the PUSH Spatial Strategy 2012, whilst the new spatial strategy to 2036 is being prepared.
3. Agree to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding setting out the agreement in (2) above, as suggested by the Planning Inspectorate.
2 of 9 INTRODUCTION
1. The significant changes in the economic environment and subsequent funding implications in recent years have led to PUSH reviewing its business priorities. Since the establishment of the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), PUSH has been reflecting on its strong delivery track record, acknowledging however, that its focus and strategic direction, whilst distinct from that of the LEP, should complement each other. Going forward therefore, PUSH’s strength and role remain in policy development and co-ordination, facilitating Joint delivery, democratic leadership, simplifying interfaces and raising the profile of the Solent. As local authority member representatives on the Solent LEP Board, the Partnership recognises the need to inform, influence and support the Solent LEP’s economic growth agenda thereby providing a democratic perspective to decisions that will impact on local people. Building on these roles, the broad work agenda of PUSH include: Development and Infrastructure; Energy and the environment; quality of place, housing and spatial planning. Other business priorities previously lead and resourced by PUSH namely, Economic Development, Employment and Skills and Inward Investment have now transferred to the LEP. PUSH however, retains its role as facilitator, enabler and key delivery agent on these matters.
2. PUSH continues to work collaboratively with local businesses through the Solent LEP and is well represented on a number of jointly establishes Boards and Committees namely the Solent LEP Board, Solent Local Growth Panel, Solent Employment and Skills Board, Inward Investment Board, Future Solent and the emerging Solent Local Transport Board.
3. The current South Hampshire Strategy (October 2012) provides a strategic framework for local plan preparation and other decision-making by PUSH authorities and their partners up to 2026. It aims to provide for required growth in employment floorspace and housebuilding across South Hampshire as a whole. In combination, the document’s policies and proposals are helping to maximise economic growth, supporting regeneration in Portsmouth, Southampton and other urban areas, and helping to ensure an adequate supply of affordable homes and good quality jobs.
4. More specifically, the purpose of the current strategy is to:
• help realise the PUSH ambition to create a prosperous economy in a sustainable way • provide a spatial framework for PUSH activities and actions including the allocation of resources, and provide support to bids for external funds • guide and support the preparation of Local Plans and the review of adopted ones • be the means for PUSH authorities to discharge the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities on planning issues • enable PUSH authorities to show they are meeting development requirements across the PUSH area as a whole, including dealing with development needs which cannot wholly be met within one authority’s area.
3 of 9
5. The new PUSH Spatial Strategy to 2036 will be similar in scope to the current strategy, but should reflect the revised forecasts and preferred growth scenario within the LEP’s emerging Solent Strategic Economic Plan, as well as the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessments for South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and a wide range of new evidence to be developed under this commission.
6. Although the new Spatial Strategy will not be a statutory plan in its own right, it will need to satisfy the following tests of soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): • Positively prepared – the plan should be based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities, where it is reasonable to do so, and consistent with achieving sustainable development • Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence • Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities • Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.
PROPOSED APPROACH TO THE REVIEW
7. It is recommended that work commence as soon as possible on the new strategy. The published SHMA report emphasises that housing need estimates at district level cannot be interpreted as allocations. It is therefore important that PUSH progress as rapidly as possible to develop allocations, using the SHMA as part of the evidence base along with a range of other evidence sources including detailed work to assess the availability of land that can sustainably accommodate development, environmental constraints and impacts, economic development and employment analysis, infrastructure capacity and consideration of what new infrastructure might be needed.
8. It is proposed that PUSH commission a consultant to prepare the new spatial strategy. The updated strategy will not be a statutory planning document, but will inform developers and Planning Inspectors of the agreed PUSH thinking on the preferred spatial strategy to deliver the economic priorities for the PUSH area. The updated spatial strategy will work to a 2036 planning horizon.
9. The end product of this commission will be a non-statutory strategy document, similar in scope to the updated South Hampshire Strategy (2012), together with the required portfolio of supporting evidence.
10. The commission is to be completed in two phases:
• Preparing the evidence base and completing the Options Appraisal (April 2014 to April 2015)
4 of 9 • Taking the results of a summer 2015 public consultation on the Options Appraisal report and producing a new draft Spatial Strategy for the PUSH area based on the preferred development option (Sep/Oct 2015).
11. The consultant will lead the technical work and consultation with interested parties to develop the updated spatial planning framework for the enlarged PUSH area (including the Isle of Wight). The consultant will complete this task in close co- operation with both PUSH staff and the PUSH Planning Officers Group.
12. The interested parties to be engaged in the process should include: PUSH Leaders and Chief Executives; the Solent LEP Board and executive; Solent Transport; appropriate business representatives; Highways Agency; Network Rail; Environment Agency; Defra; Natural England; the South Downs and New Forest National Parks and the Marine Management Organisation. Other interested parties may be included as the project progresses.
13. In order to fulfil the duty to co-operate, it will also be necessary to engage constructively and actively with immediately neighbouring areas and authorities to the PUSH area, including those sections of some PUSH local authorities which lie outside the spatial strategy area.
14. It will be important to ensure that the new strategy, once it has been taken through due process, will have value as supporting evidence in the future examination of Local Plans within the PUSH area and will have status as a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. As development options are defined and appraised, it will be necessary to undertake both a strategic environmental assessment and an appropriate assessment, alongside any other appraisals that are considered necessary as part of the work. The emerging spatial strategy options should also address all feedback from consultations with interested parties undertaken as part of the plan preparation process.
15. The core tasks for the consultants are to:
• Review all available technical evidence from the 2012 PUSH Spatial Strategy and, where appropriate, from Local Plans/Core Strategies across the PUSH area • Design and implement a comprehensive programme to complete the necessary technical evidence base required to update the PUSH Spatial Strategy to 2036 • Produce, in collaboration with PUSH local planning authorities, a consistent appraisal of brownfield land development capacity within the two cities and all existing urban and developed areas • Undertake a high level viability assessment of large development sites within the PUSH area, to ensure that the assumptions on their development capacity are realistic • Map and analyse environmental and other development constraints across the PUSH area, including all relevant terrestrial, coastal and marine designations
5 of 9 • Analyse infrastructure provision across the PUSH area – in particular transport, flood risk, green infrastructure, energy and utilities – and appraise infrastructure capacity and future requirements to support development • Develop a set of strategic development options for consultation with interested parties which satisfy the requirements of the evidence base, in particular the strategic housing market assessments for South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight • Define the land and infrastructure requirements to support the delivery of the Solent LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan, in particular considering requirements in the maritime and logistics sectors • Thoroughly test the set of development options for South Hampshire. This should include working with Systra (Solent Transport’s consultants) to apply the Sub Regional Transport Model (SRTM) to test the transport impacts of each option (in close collaboration with Solent Transport) and adjusting options accordingly to mitigate transport impacts • Specify, design and complete all necessary environmental assessments, appropriate assessments, and other appraisals within the plan making programme, to provide a comprehensive evidence base on the impacts of each development option and to assist in the refinement and detailed design of those options • Undertake a programme of stakeholder consultation, to include a series of workshops with PUSH Leaders and Chief Executives on development options. • Produce a PUSH Spatial Strategy Options Appraisal for consultation, which incorporates a set of alternative development options. Each option should meet the range of identified needs for housing, employment land and commercial development, whilst working within the identified development constraints. The options appraisal should include an evidence-based analysis of each option in terms of its: achievement of defined spatial planning goals; social, environmental and economic impacts; infrastructure requirements and deliverability • Once the PUSH authorities have completed their public consultation on the Options Appraisal, prepare a new Spatial Strategy for the PUSH area to 2036, based on PUSH’s preferred development option.
16. Developing a spatial strategy which is deliverable in transport terms, and understanding the transport impacts of each development option, will be critical to the success of this project. The Sub Regional Transport Model (SRTM) will be used to develop a higher level analysis of transport capacity and infrastructure requirements. Systra could undertake this as a discrete piece of work, which would feed into the overall report and would help identify the best locations for additional development from a transport perspective and, at a high level, the transport interventions required to support this. Following consultation on the Options Appraisal, the consultants will prepare a new draft PUSH Spatial Strategy, which will provide a comprehensive policy document to replace the current PUSH Spatial Strategy. The new document should include:
• a revised statement of key priorities of PUSH
6 of 9 • an updated core policy (SH1) setting out the preferred development strategy for the enlarged PUSH area • new policy material relating to the strategic development and regeneration programmes in the two cities and other major urban areas • a revised policy on the scale and location of housing development, incorporating a review of policy for the Strategic Development Areas (SH2 and SH5) • an updated policy on the scale, location and type of employment and commercial development, including the role of regional and town centres (SH3, SH4) • a defined spatial strategy to support the growth of the marine and maritime sector, as defined in the emerging SEP • an updated affordable housing policy, taking account of recent developments in national policy and funding arrangements, as well as new and emerging polices and priorities within each local authority area (SH6) • an infrastructure strategy for the enlarged PUSH area, incorporating a revised transport strategy (SH7) which is consistent with Solent Transport’s delivery plans. This should also incorporate the adopted PUSH Green Infrastructure Strategy. In addition, there is a strong body of evidence on other infrastructure requirements (including flood risk management), which has been prepared for individual Core Strategies and Local Plans and needs to be incorporated. • An updated strategy for environmental sustainability (SH8), informed by new policies and programmes at national level and evidence prepared for individual Core Strategies and Local Plans.
17. The appointed consultants will report to Gloria Ighodaro (PUSH Interim Executive Director) and the Project Sponsor will be Paul Nichols, PUSH Planning theme lead.
PROGRAMME, BUDGET AND RESOURCES
18. The work on the initial phase will commence in May 2014 and conclude by April 2015. Work on the second phase, following public consultation, will take place in autumn 2015.
19. A budget guideline of up to £150,000 has been established for the consultant’s work, to include all necessary work to develop the evidence base and to test development options (including the Systra components). A fixed fee for this work will be agreed with the consultants.
7 of 9 20. Estimated timescales for submission and project delivery are as follows:
Activity Completion Date
Deadline for submission of proposal April 25 th 2014
Interview with shortlisted consultants (if necessary) w/c May 5 th 2014
Confirmation of successful consultants w/c May 12 th 2014
Inception meeting w/c May 19 th 2014
Initial review of issues and evidence May /July 2014
New studies and evidence required June/October 2014
Series of Officer and Member workshops, Oct/Nov 2014 stakeholder discussions
Produce initial set of spatial options for appraisal Nov/Dec 2015
Client review of the draft spatial options, including Jan/Feb 2015 further Officer and Member workshops
Produce full Options Appraisal document with Mar/Apr 2015 supporting evidence
Draft Options Appraisal finalised and approved for June 2015 consultation
PUSH authorities complete public consultation on July/Aug 2015 the Options Appraisal
Production of consultation draft of Spatial Strategy Sep/Oct 2015
PUSH authorities complete public consultation on Nov/Dec 2015 the draft Spatial Strategy
Final amendments and adoption of Strategy Jan/Feb 2016
21. A detailed work plan and timetable will be agreed in the early stages of the commission.
PLANNING OFFICER SUPPORT
22. PUSH requires professional and technical support during the preparation of the new spatial strategy. Gloria Ighodaro (PUSH Interim Executive Director) will have overall programme management responsibility. However, the appointed consultants will require a professional Planning Client with expertise in strategic planning, to manage and steer the delivery of the new spatial strategy at an operational level. As a consequence, a further sum of up to £50,000 has been set aside to fund this support. Paul Nichols will work alongside Gloria Ighodaro to undertake this role (on part-time secondment from Southampton City Council).
8 of 9 PLANNING INSPECTORATE FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLISHED SHMA
23. Following the recent publication of the SHMA, some PUSH authorities have had further discussions with the Planning Inspectorate on the progress of their draft Local Plans.
24. The new SHMA has generally been positively received, as indeed has the 2012 review of our spatial strategy. The emerging position from the Inspectorate is that it will be acceptable for Local Plans entering examination at this stage to conform to the housing numbers in the PUSH Spatial Strategy 2012. This is on condition that there is a commitment to an early review of these Local Plans, on the basis of the new SHMA, once district-level allocations have been agreed.
25. The additional advice received is that PUSH should make a formal statement to confirm that we will not object to one another’s Local Plans on the basis of housing numbers during this inter-regnum, so long as they do conform to the PUSH Spatial Strategy 2012. In the light of this advice, the proposal is that PUSH authorities agree at this meeting to take this position and that we prepare a short Memorandum of Understanding to set this out more formally (see Recommendations ).
RECOMMENDATION
26. It is RECOMMENDED that the Joint Committee NOTE and APPROVE :
• That officers are authorised to appoint a consultant to undertake the proposed programme of work. The first phase will take place over the period April 2014 to March 2015 and will lead to the preparation of a draft Options Appraisal for consultation with the public and other interested parties, in close consultation with PUSH Leaders and the PUSH Planning Officers Group.
• That PUSH authorities agree that they will not object to emerging Local Plans in the PUSH area on the basis of their housing numbers, where they are consistent with the PUSH Spatial Strategy 2012, whilst the new spatial strategy to 2036 is being prepared.
• Agree to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding setting out the agreement in (B) above, as suggested by the Planning Inspectorate.
Background Papers: Spatial Strategy Roll Forward and Final Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) report.
Reference Papers: None
Enquiries: For further information on this report please contact: Paul Nichols (Head of Planning Transport and Sustainability) Southampton City Council Tel. No. 02380 832 553. E-mail: [email protected]
9 of 9
Minutes of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Joint Committee
Minutes of a meeting held on 25 March 2014 in the Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fareham
Members: Authority Represented:
Councillor Seán Woodward Fareham BC Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson Portsmouth CC
Councillor Simon Letts Southampton CC Councillor David Airey Eastleigh BC Councillor Keith Mans Hampshire CC Councillor Tony Briggs Havant BC Councillor Martin Hatley Test Valley BC Councillor Rob Humby Winchester CC Councillor Ian Stephens Isle of Wight Council
Chief Executives: Authority Represented:
Nick Tustian Eastleigh BC Peter Grimwood Fareham BC Ian Lycett Gosport BC Stuart Jarvis (on behalf of Andrew Smith) Hampshire CC Tom Horwood Havant BC & East Hampshire DC Kathy Wadsworth Portsmouth CC Roger Tetstall Test Valley BC Steve Tilbury Winchester CC John Metcalf ( nominated Officer) Isle of Wight Council Dave Yates New Forest DC
Co -opted Members Organisation Represented:
Gary Jeffries Solent Local Enterprise Partnership
For further information please contact Democratic Services at Fareham Borough Council Tel: 01329 824594 [email protected]
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND CHANGES IN JOINT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ferris Cowper – East Hants DC, Councillor Keith House – Eastleigh BC (Councillor David Airey deputising), Councillor Mark Hook – Gosport BC, Councillor Keith Wood – Winchester CC (Councillor Rob Humby deputising), Sandy Hopkins - Havant BC and East Hants BC (Tom Horwood deputising), David Williams – Portsmouth CC (Kathy Wadsworth deputising), Simon Eden – Winchester CC (Steve Tilbury deputising) and James Humphrys – Environment Agency.
2. MINUTES
RESOLVED that the minutes of the PUSH Joint Committee meeting held on 28 January be confirmed as a correct record.
3. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman welcomed Nick Tustian, Chief Executive of Eastleigh Borough Council to his first PUSH Joint Committee.
Solent LTB Update
The Chairman reminded the Committee that at its meeting held in September 2013, they were advised that the Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) had agreed in principle to establish a single strategic transport interface, which would merge the strategic functions and activities of Transport for South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (TfSHIOW) with the Solent LTB.
He confirmed that Solent Transport is now the new name for the Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight partnership. The re-branding of the local authority partnership will make the area of operations clearer for residents, businesses and transport operators and better reflect the strategic transport work that will continue to take place in the Solent area.
The Chairman advised that to date the Partnership has helped secure funding to deliver projects such as the Bus Rapid Transport scheme in Fareham, The Local Sustainable Transport Fund and Better Bus Area Fund. Solent Transport will continue to work closely with the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership, Highways Agency, Network Rail, South Hampshire Bus Operators Association and other parties, to plan and deliver future improvements such as the links between Portsmouth and Southampton. The partnership includes the four statutory highway and transport authorities of Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council and Isle of Wight Council.
Cities Minister speaks at Solent Skills Summit
The Chairman advised the Committee that Greg Clark MP, Minister for Cities, provided the keynote address at the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership's (LEP) Solent Skills Summit held on 11 March 2014.
pjc-140325-mins
The event saw the launch of the Solent Skills Strategy, which aims to tackle the Solent's skills challenges across four priority areas: developing world-class skills; transitions to employment; raising business investment in skills and developing a responsive skills and employment system.
Speakers from local businesses, further education colleges and over 100 attendees joined the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP in welcoming the new strategy at City College Southampton. The focus now shifts towards securing resource through the Growth Deal process with Government and delivering on the recommendations in the strategy.
The Chairman stated that following the event, Greg Clark MP said: "As the national economy recovers and we seek to create employment opportunities through initiatives such as City Deals and Growth Deals, it is going to be increasingly important to ensure that we have a skilled labour market in the UK that can take advantage of this growth. Many of these opportunities will require higher level skills and, increasingly, expertise in STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] subjects, which makes it critically important that we address skills gaps in our workforce as soon as possible. Skills is therefore an issue right at the heart of local growth and I am delighted to see the Solent tackling this head on with the strategy they have published today."
The Solent Skills Strategy has now been published and is available for download at the Solent LEP website.
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
5. DEPUTATIONS
There were no deputations made at this meeting.
6. UPDATES FROM DELIVERY PANEL CHAIRMEN
There were no updates from Delivery Panel Chairmen.
7. PUSH INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
The Joint Committee received a report from the PUSH Programme & Information Manager (acting up as Interim Executive Director) on matters that merit reporting to this Committee, but do not justify a full report in their own right.
RESOLVED that the Joint Committee:
1. AGREES to reinstate PUSH’s SELP membership to a level 3 subscription, at a cost of £6.6K which would commence on 26 March 2014 until further notice;
pjc-140325-mins 2. APPROVES the recommendation to appoint Paul Nichols, Head of Planning Transport and Sustainability at Southampton City Council, on a part-time secondment basis to manage and steer the delivery of the new spatial strategy at an operational level; and
3. NOTES the Matters for Information outlined in Part B of this report.
8. PUSH BUDGET MONITORING REPORT
The Joint Committee received a report on the Capital & Revenue budget for 2013/14 and considered Capital and Revenue forward budgets for 2014/15.
RESOLVED that the Joint Committee:
1. NOTES the spend for the year to date and the forecast outturn for the year, as set out in the report;
2. APPROVES the proposed interim capital and revenue budgets for 2014/15 as set out in the report;
3. APPROVES a carry forward of £251K to 2014/15 for the following forecast revenue budget underspends in 2013/14:
• Economic Development: £122K • Sustainability & Community Infrastructure Panel : £35K • Housing and Planning: £20K • Quality Places: £24K • LEP Contributions : £50K;
4. APPROVES a carry forward to 2014/15 of £580,000 for the following forecast capital budget under spends in 2013/14:
• Hayling Island Access Trails: £20K • Portsmouth Creative Industries: £250K • Progression Studios: £50K • Portsmouth CC Arches: £40K • Cell Block Enterprise: £49K • Gosport Town Centre: £85K • Southampton Northern Quarter: £86K; and
5. NOTES that the forecast under spend to be carried forward from the 2013/14 budgets into 2014/15 are provisional, and may be subject to change when the final outturn position for 2013/14 is known.
9. SPATIAL STRATEGY REVIEW
The Joint Committee received a report which captures the draft specification, timetable and resource requirements for the Spatial Strategy Review.
RESOLVED that the Joint Committee:
pjc-140325-mins 1. APPROVES authorisation in order for officers to appoint a consultant to undertake the proposed programme of work. The first phase will take place over the period April 2014 to March 2015 and will lead to the preparation of a draft Options Appraisal for consultation with the public and other interested parties, in close consultation with PUSH Leaders and the PUSH Planning Officers Group;
2. AGREES that PUSH authorities will not object to emerging Local Plans in the PUSH area on the basis of their housing numbers, where they are consistent with the PUSH Spatial Strategy 2012, whilst the new spatial strategy to 2036 is being prepared; and
3. AGREES to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding setting out the agreement in (2) above, as suggested by the Planning Inspectorate.
10. SOLENT DISTURBANCE AND MITIGATION PROJECT (SDMP)
The Joint Committee received a report on the progress made to date in establishing an Interim arrangement towards securing a SDMP.
RESOLVED that the Joint Committee NOTES and APPROVES :
1. The proposed approach set out in paragraphs 23-29 of the paper for taking forward the work of the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP) as below:
23 The proposed interim approach comprises a number of elements, the details of the framework to be reported back to a future meeting of the committee
24 Project Initiation Officer • Brief for post has been agreed and appointment made, managed by Portsmouth City Council the post will focus on developing the long term strategy • Funding for a period of 22 hours per week for 11 months has been secured • Funding for additional hours/extended period would be funded from the proposed developer contributions.
25 Ranger project • Phased introduction dependent upon availability of funding, commencing with a full time post with additional posts subject to funding being available • Management of posts by Hampshire County Council Countryside Service • Job descriptions to be agreed (including remit for wider education role) • Geographic areas covered to be agreed, in principle concentrate resources in specific areas where visitor pressure having most impact on wildlife
pjc-140325-mins • Operational budget
26 Monitoring • Programme of monitoring to be agreed with NE • Annual reports to be prepared
27 Development contributions • Scale £172 per dwelling, index linked • Development liable to contribute, exceptions be justified, area apply policy 5.6km zone • Contributions to be paid on commencement of development • Mechanisms for securing contributions to be determined locally within an overall framework • Pooling of contributions, one authority to hold the contributions • Process for release of funding to be agreed
28 Project Management • Project board(membership to be agreed) to provide strategic lead and to receive regular (quarterly) reports and reporting to PUSH delivery panel • Officer Steering group, (membership to be agreed) to include non LPA representatives e.g. • Officer working group(membership to be agreed)
29 Period of interim proposals • 2014-2017
Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson expressed his concerns over the policy to apply Development Contributions to a 5.6km zone. It was agreed that his reservations be noted.
(The meeting started at 6:00pm and ended at 7.05pm).
(NB: The next meeting of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Joint Committee will be held on Tuesday 24 June 2014).
pjc-140325-mins