Scarborough Borough Council Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 Scarborough Borough Local Development Framework

Consultation Statement

Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2012

This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been prepared in compliance with Section 12 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

The revised draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document was approved for consultation at the 2nd February Planning and Development Committee and at Cabinet on 14th February. The document was published for consultation on 17th February for six weeks until 30th March 2012. The draft SPD was advertised within the Local Press, and was published on the Council’s Website. Copies of this document were deposited within the Council Offices at Scarborough, Whitby and Filey and in Local Libraries and published on the Council’s website. Paper and/or electronic copies were sent to key stakeholders, and all interested parties on the Council’s LDF consultation database were informed of the documents publication.

A total of 77 consultation responses were received. A summary and analysis of each of these is below. There are no substantive changes to the SPD although some minor textural changes are shown below.

In assessing more detailed comments on the draft SPD, a series of very minor changes to the document are suggested. These do not amend the overall direction of the document, but seek to address minor matters of clarification identified by consultees. A schedule setting out the proposed changes to the draft SPD follows the table of comments.

Planning and Development considered the SPD responses on the 14th June 2012. Cabinet considered the SPD responses on the 19th June 2012. Full Council considered the responses and agreed the adoption of the SPD on the 2nd July 2012.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPD 2012 Schedule of Comments and Officer Recommendations

Affordable Housing SPD 2012 Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Policy Support is noted and welcomed. The County Council recognises that the lack of Development Mr Affordable affordable housing for local people in North Team Manager Housing Yorkshire is a major concern and has consistently (Planning & Malcolm Supplementary supported measures aimed at addressing the Countryside Unit) Planning issue. The County Council therefore supports the

Spittle Document 2012 proposed SPD aimed at increasing the supply of North Yorkshire affordable homes in Scarborough. County Council The North York Moors National Park Authority is Support is noted and welcomed. Affordable currently revising it’s affordable housing target Caroline Housing through the Housing DPD. The Housing DPD has

NYMNP Supplementary been supported by a viability assessment which Skelly Planning shows that an affordable housing target of 40% Document 2012 on developments of 2 or more units is appropriate within the National Park.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations

The Scarborough Affordable Housing SPD Consultation Draft proposes a range of affordable housing targets dependent on different levels of development. These levels differ from those proposed for the National Park Authority area which is an area of development restraint but are considered appropriate for the scale of development which is likely to be delivered in Scarborough Borough.

For these reasons the North York Moors National Park Authority supports the proposed changes set out in the Affordable Housing SPD Consultation Draft 2012.

Please note these are the views of Officers only. Mrs The Government stance is that sites have to Affordable Deputy Clerk The Parish Council states that the lack of Social be viable and targets mustt be set but there Housing Nicola Housing is due to the fact Scarborough Borough is a need to be flexible in relation to site Supplementary Hunmanby Parish Council sets thresholds and yet they are never specific issues. No change recommended. Planning Hayden Clerk adhered to. Document 2012 Craggs If the Council persists with the SPD in its present The targets suggested within the SPD have form, it is highly unlikely that any applications will been produced in line with the robust Planning be submitted for affordable housing at the level evidence base within the Affordable Housing Mr Manager Affordable proposed within it, as the targets are unrealistic. Economic Viability Assessment. In the Housing Our Client therefore considers that the SPD will majority of areas this has resulted in the

Paul Barratt Homes & Supplementary not have any positive impact on increasing the percentage of on-site requirements below David Wilson Planning provision of affordable housing as its approach that of the existing SPD. Whilst they are Butler Homes Yorkshire Document 2012 will only serve to continue the status quo, with targets there will be flexibility where sites are East Division applications being submitted under the target to shown to be not viable. No change be determined on the basis of an open-book recommended. viability assessment.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations NPPF was published after the consultation Affordable draft but the SPD still reflects the policy Housing approach and has reduced targets to reduce Provincial Land Should be redrafted to reflect NPPF policy, Supplementary the burden on developers and thereby Developments including reference to Paragraph 173. Planning encourage development. Recommend Document 2012 amendments to SPD text to reflect NPPF and remove reference to PPSs. Mrs Parish Clerk Affordable This comment relates to a specific site issue Housing Why building was proposed on the outskirts when rather than the SPD. No change

Julia Newby and Supplementary central government was encouraging less vehicle recommended. Scalby Parish Planning usage. Marley Council Document The general thrust of this revised planning Support is noted and welcomed. guidance for the provision of affordable housing is welcomed. It pays attention to emerging national Mr What is the guidance and in particular is more flexible than justification for Chartered the previous approach, better reflecting the Richard requiring 1 Surveyor current economic downturn where the viability of Affordable housing development has often been in doubt. In Dixon Housing? some cases affordable housing requirements have been a serious impediment to delivering good quality market housing developments. The general thrust of this revised planning Support is noted and welcomed. guidance for the provision of affordable housing is welcomed. It pays attention to emerging national What is the guidance and in particular is more flexible than Philip justification for Philip Parker the previous approach, better reflecting the requiring 1 Planning Services current economic downturn where the viability of Parker Affordable housing development has often been in doubt. In Housing? some cases affordable housing requirements have been a serious impediment to delivering good quality market housing developments. Mrs Deputy Clerk & Paragraph 1.1 One "decent home" does not mean that an The introduction of the financial contribution

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Civic Officer existing home becomes less decent! Should look will facilitate the provision of a pool of A at improving the existing housing stock. funding, which potentially could be used to Whitby Town improve existing stock and make them Cowey Council available for affordable housing. No change recommended. Local occupancy criteria would normally only apply for exception sites outside development limits.

There are also legal requirements for allocation policies to ensure that reasonable preference is given to categories of people in housing need Whitby can't provide "a decent home" for Mrs Deputy Clerk & everyone who wants to live there. Whitby has a Civic Officer Consideration is being given to having a finite amount of land available for homes, being A Paragraph 1.2 Local Lettings Agreement for the Helredale/ surrounded on three sides by NYMNP and on the Whitby Town St Peters Road affordable housing fourth by the sea. Preference should be given to Cowey Council development to give some extra priority to local people and people who work within the area. local people in housing need

Lettings through the North Yorkshire Homechoice for the allocation of social rented housing to date have shown that the vast majority (approx. 95%) have gone to people with a local connection. No change recommended. Whilst we recognise there is a need for affordable This is designed as an alteration of the housing in Scarborough, as in all parts of the existing SPD to reflect change in the Mr Strategic Planner country, we would like to raise a number of economy and potential viability of sites. It is

concerns regarding the detail within the Affordable intended to fill the policy vacuum until the Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 1.2 Housing SPD. local plan is produced which will have a Homes specific policy relating to affordable housing Abbott (Yorkshire) We consider that planning policies such as provision which will be examined. It is felt affordable housing mix should not be presented this revised SPD produces greater clarity for

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations and considered simply as a SPD. Such policies applicants in that it prevents site by site could potentially have a considerable impact on debate and reduces the financial burden developments and their viability and therefore overall and therefore conforms with should be examined independently as a paragraph 153 of the NPPF. No change Development Plan Document (DPD). recommended. Consequently, this document is seeking to make policy by an SPD, which has no statutory plan policy basis contrary to government policy as set out in the recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) at paragraph 153. It is understood that the independent planning The SPD reflects the proven local need as officer assessment of the Y&HRSS was never evidenced in the North Yorkshire Strategic Mrs Deputy Clerk & completed, it is therefore questionable that we Housing Market Assessment 2011. It also Civic Officer should be using it to inform the Development reflects the viability work carried out in the A Paragraph 1.7 Plan. Further to this it would appear to be not the Affordable Housing Economic Viability Whitby Town best value to develop a policy based on a Assessment 2011 so it is based on an up to Cowey Council document which has less than 9 months to be date evidence base. No change valid. recommended.. The SPD relates to development proposals Mrs Deputy Clerk & Need should be mitigated by capacity. The area so it is only applied to sites which are Civic Officer should not be over developed - there does not coming forward, it does not relate to the A Paragraph 1.8 appear to be any appreciation of the lack of allocation of sites. The Local Plan will deal Whitby Town available land within Whitby. with the issues of site allocations and overall Cowey Council provision. No change recommended. With the reduction of Government grant to The Y&H RSS recognised that Whitby requires build affordable housing it is less likely that Mrs Deputy Clerk & 90% of new homes developed to be affordable. any affordable homes will be built unless Civic Officer The percentage of affordable homes appears to alongside market housing. This SPD would A Paragraph 1.9 vary with each development - due to lack of not stop a scheme for affordable housing Whitby Town available land there should be one development coming forward but would supplement any Cowey Council for affordable housing as opposed to mixed use provision by that means. No change estates. recommended.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations It is noted that the SPD seeks to build upon the Paragraph 215 of the NPPF allows for due policy framework as set out in the Scarborough weight to be given to policies in existing Borough Local Plan of 1999. It is noted that this plans. It is considered that this SPD Plan is now well over a decade old, such that it is conforms with the NPPF. Paragraph 50 of very out-of-date. It cannot form a robust policy the NPPF states: basis for this SPD as it was only intended to run Where they have identified that affordable until 2006. Whilst the Council adopted an Interim housing is needed, LPA’s set policies for Housing Position Paper in 2010, this has not been meeting this need on site, unless off-site Planning subject to Public Examination. Our Client provision or a financial contribution of Mr Manager therefore considers that there is a policy vacuum, broadly equivalent value can be robustly

particularly in the case of housing and affordable justified (for example to improve or make Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 1.12 housing. Whilst it is acknowledged that the more effective use of the existing housing David Wilson Council should properly plan for the provision of stock) and the agreed approach contributes Butler Homes Yorkshire affordable housing, it is important that the SPD is to the objective of creating mixed and East Division tied to an adopted policy document that has been balanced communities. Such policies should subject to Examination in Public. On this basis, be sufficiently flexible to take account of our Client recommends that the adoption of this changing market conditions over time. The SPD is delayed until the Local Plan (formerly the approach in the SPD reflects up to date LDF) has been adopted and that the existing evidence on both need and viability, it would adopted Affordable Housing SPD (September be remiss to ignore this evidence. No 2007) should continue to be used to guide change recommended. affordable housing provision in the Borough. The Affordable Housing SPD is intended to As stated earlier this revised SPD is supplement and provide further guidance as to designed to reflect current circumstances the operation of the Council’s existing policies based on up to date evidence bases. The relating to affordable housing (as set out in the operation of this SPD will inform future Local Mr Strategic Planner Scarborough Borough Local Plan, 1999). Given Plan policy. No change recommended. the Affordable Housing SPD ought also to be Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 1.12 dependent upon emerging Core Strategy and Homes relevant development control policies we consider Abbott (Yorkshire) its publication now is premature and it should be afforded little weight. Alternatively, the Council could aim to produce Interim Policy, which expresses its position on affordable housing, but will obviously only have the very limited weight of

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations a document of such status. We recognise that a Sub-Regional Strategic The issue of the scale of housing provision Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has been will be addressed in the forthcoming Local recently undertaken throughout the North Plan and is not a matter for this SPD. No Mr Strategic Planner Yorkshire sub-region published in November change recommended. 2011, including Scarborough. The SHMA sets out Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 1.13 an annual need of 457 affordable homes across Homes the Borough over the next five years (i.e. to clear Abbott (Yorkshire) waiting lists and meet future household need). On this basis the Council will need to significantly increase its supply of new housing (market and affordable). Lettings through the North Yorkshire Mrs Deputy Clerk & How many of the "bidding" would satisfy local Homechoice for the allocation of social Civic Officer occupancy conditions i.e. how many bidders are rented housing to date have shown that the A Paragraph 1.16 currently residents in the community or are vast majority (approx. 95%) have gone to Whitby Town employed within the community, there needs to people with a local connection. No change Cowey Council be a measured need. recommended. Mrs Deputy Clerk & The attractiveness of the area leads to the high The planning system cannot intervene in the Civic Officer level of second home ownership/holiday lets nature of who purchases market housing, A Paragraph 1.17 which also play a part in creating the high but the SPD can help in providing affordable Whitby Town cost/high demand problems - the proximity to the housing in all areas. No change Cowey Council National Park increases demand. recommended. Mrs Deputy Clerk & Comment is noted. The SPD seeks to set Civic Officer The number of 'unaffordable' homes has been targets that will strike a balance between A Paragraph 1.18 considerably higher than the number of affordable viability of development and the open Whitby Town homes. market/affordable mix. No change Cowey Council recommended. Why is it The revised approach towards affordable housing Support is noted and welcomed. Philip Philip Parker necessary to reflects the new National Planning Policy 2 Planning Services change the Framework, where in paragraph 50 for example, it Parker approach towards states that affordable housing policies should be

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations negotiating sufficiently flexible to take account of changing Affordable market conditions over time. This flexibility will Housing? assist in meeting the core planning principle of supporting sustainable economic development, and help to remove potential barriers to investment. The revised approach towards affordable housing Support is noted and welcomed. reflects the new National Planning Policy Why is it Framework, where in paragraph 50 for example, it Mr necessary to states that affordable housing policies should be change the Chartered sufficiently flexible to take account of changing Richard approach towards 2 Surveyor market conditions over time. This flexibility will negotiating assist in meeting the core planning principle of Dixon Affordable supporting sustainable economic development, Housing? and help to remove potential barriers to investment. Our Client disagrees with this and conversely By lowering the threshold the number of believes that lowering the threshold, particularly in sites that can contribute to affordable the absence of a robust policy framework, has an housing provision is increased. The SPD increased potential to frustrate the aim of building has also removed the requirement for some more affordable housing. Lowered thresholds for sites to provide on-site provision, therefore affordable housing could discourage housing reducing the need for RP engagement. This Planning building (especially as paragraph 2.3 notes that with the reduction in overall % requirement Mr Manager the majority of sites typically coming forward in should help sites come forward for

the Borough are ‘smaller’) and no house building development. No change recommended. Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 2.1 equals no affordable housing. David Wilson

Butler Homes Yorkshire In addition, paragraph 2.1 states that the SPD East Division “will be replaced by policies contained within the Local Plan when adopted”. Our Client therefore questions the need for this SPD given that its guidance will be replaced shortly and that there is an existing adopted Affordable Housing SPD. Furthermore, this sentence seems to suggest that

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations the SPD will be a ‘policy’ document for use prior to adoption of the Local Plan. The role of SPDs is to provide greater detail on policies contained within DPDs and should not be prepared with the aim of avoiding the need for examination of policy. Our Client therefore repeats its request for the SPD to be delayed until a proper policy framework is in place. Due to the high demands and inflexibility of the The SPD is to replace the existing SPD proposed requirements, the Draft SPD will which was written at a time of economic inevitably diminish economic growth at a time boom and without economic viability input. when growth is paramount. This SPD reflects the current economic climate and is backed up by economic In paragraph 2.3 of the Draft SPD, the Council viability work. Overall the SPD reduces the cites one of the reasons for proposing the change affordable housing requirements on in affordable housing requirements as being the developers, which can help stimulate need to reflect the economic downturn. Also, development. Paragraph 4.3 of the SPD paragraph 1.17 makes it clear that one of the states that the targets can be reduced main reasons for such high levels of current where it is demonstrated that they would Mr housing need in the Borough is the shortage of make the development unviable. No change housing supply. The solution recommended to recommended. D C H Architect/ Agent Paragraph 2.3 both of these issues is encouragement for growth and a corresponding increase in housing supply, Chapman and yet instead the Draft SPD proposes mandatory affordable housing requirements that will have the opposite effect. The requirements will reduce the viability of investment and the deliverability of new housing development and will therefore have the unintended effect of discouraging rather than encouraging growth, and diminishing rather than increasing the rate of housing supply. Quite simply, the Draft SPD will have the converse of the desired effect in the current economic climate.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Central Government is unequivocal about the need to encourage growth:

Sir Bob Kerslake, the Civil Service head and permanent secretary to the Department of Communities and Local Government, told the British Property Federation annual residential property dinner recently that there would be no rowing back “on the presumption in favour of sustainable development” because “economic growth is paramount across every aspect of the government’s policies”.

This has subsequently been borne out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It states in paragraph 19 that “the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”

It must be equally true that economic growth should be paramount across every aspect of Scarborough Borough Council’s planning policies. Whilst it will take time for the new Local Plan to reflect that position, the Council should adopt a responsible attitude by drafting policy that emerges in the meantime in a way that reflects Government guidance and stimulates growth.

In this context, we contend that the Draft SPD is fundamentally flawed. Instead of applying

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations mandatory requirements, the Council could usefully be using this opportunity to stimulate growth in housing. That will help to bring house prices down by increasing supply, and will deliver a proportion of affordable housing, even if that proportion is lower than the Council’s ideal. In current conditions, it is counter-productive to hold onto an unrealistic ideal. In this case, setting an affordable housing bar too high, and restricting the flexibility on how that is applied, will prevent growth and no matter what the ideal proportion of affordable housing recommended, very few affordable units will be built if there is very little new housing development.

So the SPD should be adopting a different approach – one that stimulates investment in line with the NPPF requirement that “Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth.” (paragraph19).

We believe that the Council has an excellent opportunity to adopt this more progressive planning approach. Paragraph 2.1 refers to the interim nature of this SPD – between the saved Local Plan and new Local Plan. The Council should use that interim situation to kick start growth by temporarily introducing MORE flexibility into the system, in the knowledge that it can then use the new Local Plan to contain that flexibility in the mid-term if it sees the need. That is a far more proactive and creative approach to planning and genuinely responds to the changed economic conditions.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations

If the Council cannot bring itself to take that positive planning approach, it at least needs to introduce considerably more flexibility to the application of its SPD requirements since the current Draft’s blanket approach does not incorporate sufficient flexibility.

In their Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment that has been used by the Council to inform the Draft SPD content, Dixon Searle themselves recommend in their Executive Summary that its affordable housing findings be “practically applied as targets” and that flexibility is built into policy. “The policy development and wording ultimately chosen will need to be accompanied with a clear recognition that flexibility will be necessary as sites come forward, where developers demonstrate development viability issues that require discussion with the Council. In such cases, affordable housing may not be the only issue – usually there are a wide range of factors involved, including market conditions, the varying nature of sites and the collective costs including wider planning objectives and obligations.”

The SPD does not set out that economic growth is paramount at this time, nor does it include sufficient recognition of the wide range of factors that affect viability, nor does it reflect the fundamental importance of viability itself. The Council must have the means to reduce or even remove affordable housing requirements to reflect local market conditions, local issues, community

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations opinion and priorities, infrastructure requirements, site conditions, etc, all of which affect viability and economic growth.

The NPPF states in paragraph 173 that, “to ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing…should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.” At the very least that demands a level of flexibility in the application of affordable housing requirements by the Council to take account of the current and foreseeable difficult market conditions.

We consider that the definition of affordable The definition of affordable housing housing needs greater clarity and should include conforms with the one provided in the the following categories: Glossary to the NPPF. The Glossary goes Mr Strategic Planner on to specifically exclude ‘low cost market • Social Rented rent’. It states: Homes that do not meet the Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 3.1 above definition of affordable housing, such Homes • Shared Equity as “low cost market” housing, may not be Abbott (Yorkshire) considered as affordable housing for • Key Worker planning purposes. No change recommended. • Low Cost Market Mr On which sites Market reality The revision of the SPD is to reflect the will Affordable current market conditions. The methodology Architect/ Agent 4 D C H Housing be It has been all too evident over the past 2-3 years used by the consultants in the Economic expected? that house building is a vulnerable business. Viability Assessment is robust and has been

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Chapman There seems to be an assumption that housing examined and upheld at examinations and developers are somehow immune to the effects of inquiries across the country. The economic fluctuation, yet the very substantial loss assumptions within that study contained a of jobs and restructuring within the industry over recognised element of developer profit as recent years is evidence of the fact that house part of that methodology. building is heavily influenced by the wider economy and is very susceptible to factors that In relation to the Inspector’s comments on impact upon development viability. affordable housing and Middle Deepdale. The objector infers that the Inspector was The long periods before any return is made on suggesting that there was no requirement investment make it particularly vulnerable to for affordable housing in Middle Deepdale. uncertainty in economic conditions. Whilst many This interpretation is in fact incorrect and the assume that developers can divide up the price of Inspector accepted the need for affordable each unit sold (e.g. 20% profit) - so if you sell a housing when allowing the adoption of house for £100,000, you make £20,000 profit – Policy H2 of the Local Plan. but this is simply not true! If profit is 20% and a developer builds 5 houses and sells each for The objector claims that people will buy £100,000, all profit is in the last house. A market properties to rent and this will bring developer does not make any money at all until the rent down. It has already been the last house is completed and sold. established in the SHMA that there is a need for affordable housing and the Government The same principal prevails no matter how many clearly state that low cost market rent are houses are built or whatever the level of not considered as affordable housing in anticipated profit. Even if the profit is a massive planning terms so the argument is irrelevant. 50%, a developer building a 1,200 house estate could expect no profit until he has sold 600 No change recommended. houses; which means, of course, with an ambitious build rate of 100 houses per year, it is not until year 7 at least that he can anticipate any return on money invested. It is little wonder that difficult economic conditions and planning uncertainties have had such a downward effect on the rate of house building in the UK.

This point is too readily ignored by those setting

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations policy, but is extremely important when considering how to stimulate growth, not least because housing development is seen by the Government as one of the essential engines of sustained economic recovery.

Doubtless the last Inspector was mindful of these issues and of the Council’s ambition for Middle Deepdale when he said in his report “I make no recommendation for affordable housing” (the emphasis is the Inspector’s, not the author’s). If the Council is to recognise that economic growth is paramount at this time, they will echo the words of the last Inspector and make no recommendation for affordable housing.

After all, gone is the day when new houses to be built will each be sold to an owner/occupier. The fact is that a not insignificant proportion of any new housing being built today - perhaps as high as 50% - will be bought by private landlords to rent, and the greater the number of houses available to rent in the Borough, the more affordable they will become.

If the aim is to create affordable homes, the Council needs to let developers build houses and, under current and foreseeable conditions, that means minimising the factors that have a negative effect on development viability.

On which sites The Housing Market Areas should be reassessed. In line with Government Guidance the Provincial Land will Affordable In particular, the inclusion of Scalby within the SHMA defines housing market areas. The 4 Developments Housing be Northern Parishes area, where 40% affordable work on the economic viability assessment expected? housing is prima facie recommended as opposed also identified that the house values that

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations to Scarborough where 20% is recommended, is could be expected in Scalby indicate a illogical. considerably higher amount of affordable housing would be viable than the rest of Scarborough area, and its characteristics bear more relationship to the northern parishes and Whitby Areas. The SPD is very clearly evidence based in this regard. No change recommended. The percentages have been revised as part The Housing Market Area percentages should be of this SPD taking into account the evidence On which sites re-assessed with flexibility to reflect that certain from the economic viability assessment. As Provincial Land will Affordable 4 sites in high percentage areas are located close mentioned previously there is scope for Developments Housing be to areas where low affordable housing flexibility where site specific circumstances expected? percentages are being suggested. show the development would be unviable. No change recommended. Notwithstanding our comments in relation to lowering the threshold for affordable housing provision above, our Client considers that the words ‘and economic viability’ should be added after ‘site threshold’ in the first sentence of Planning paragraph 4.9 to allow for viability to be taken into Mr Manager consideration in determining whether a site can On which sites make a financial contribution to affordable will Affordable Paul Barratt Homes & 4 housing. Housing be David Wilson expected? Butler Homes Yorkshire Our Client is concerned that section 4 of the SPD East Division does not consider situations in which larger sites may not be able to accommodate affordable housing on-site or off-site, such that a financial contribution may be more appropriate. It is recommended that this section is amended to allow for this. Mrs Deputy Clerk & Paragraph 4.1 Whitby Town Council would want to see a At a 90% affordable threshold no sites

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Civic Officer minimum of 90% affordable homes on all new would be viable, therefore there would be no A homes developments, see comments on 1.9. A house building which would mean no Whitby Town financial contribution is of no use when there is no affordable housing. The letting system will Cowey Council land suitable for its use! We would also wish to ensure that affordable houses are let to local see all new builds carry a local occupancy clause, people generally. The Borough has a which would, in itself, help to ease the supply of negative natural change (i.e. there are more affordable homes. deaths than births and therefore relies on in migration to maintain even a stable population. There is no justification to limit market housing to local people only and this would restrict the market making it unattractive to house builders, further preventing development, and reducing the ability of the area to provide the mix of housing it needs. No change recommended. Focusing on the detail of the threshold We welcome the support for our approach. requirements, table 4.1 sets that the Council will On the question of flexibility of policy we seek at least 20% of homes as affordable on believe paragraph 4.3 allows that flexibility. individual development of 10 or more units in the No change recommended. Scarborough, Filey/Hunmaby/Southern Parishes area and rising to 30% in the Whitby/Northern/Western Parishes area. The national threshold stipulated by NPPF at Mr Strategic Planner paragraph 174 is for local authorities to set their

own local policy for affordable housing. We Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 4.1 support this approach. Homes

Abbott (Yorkshire) The NPPF also requires a local authority plan- wide target for the amount of affordable housing to reflect an informed assessment of the economic viability of any proportions of affordable housing indicated in a plan policy and of any threshold of the number of houses on a site at which the proportion will apply. Also, the likely impact on the “delivery” of housing of setting such

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations figures of affordable housing should be taken into account in arriving at them.

As a result of the Blyth Valley court decision, it is clear that targets and policies in DPDs must be supported by clear evidence, also stated clearly in the NPPF at paragraph 174. In light of the Blyth Valley case, we are concerned that not enough flexibility is afforded to the thresholds as set out in table 4.1 to meet ever challenging market conditions. This is contrary to paragraph 50, bullet point 3 of the NPPF. Mrs Deputy Clerk & The NPPF states that affordable housing Civic Officer policies should be flexible to take into The targets for affordable home provision should A Paragraph 4.3 account of changing market conditions over not be varied downwards for any reason. Whitby Town time. No change recommended. Cowey Council Paragraph 4.3 states that the “Council’s targets On a challenging site it may be that no for on-site provision will only be reduced where it affordable housing is viable or it is a site is demonstrated through an open book viability which there are other sound reasons why it assessment that the recommended affordable should be developed (eg for regeneration housing target makes the development unviable”. purposes) and the only way to facilitate this Planning Our Client recommends that the words ‘or waived’ is with no affordable housing provision. Mr Manager are added after ‘reduced’ in order to ensure Theoretically the provision will be reduced to maximum flexibility. 0. This is considered to reflect the objectors Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 4.3 concerns. No change recommended. David Wilson The same paragraph also requires that the Butler Homes Yorkshire developer/applicant meets reasonable costs The Council will at times require external East Division where the Council “requires independent advice expertise to assess viability appraisals, it to validate a viability appraisal submitted by an would not seek to carry out an appraisal of applicant”. Our Client would query why the that advice. If we had put in the text that all Council would need independent advice to developments would require an independent ‘validate’ a viability appraisal without the need for assessment, it would have been criticised as independent assessment. If the Council is unable there may be developments that do not

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations to validate a viability appraisal without external require an assessment. No change assistance, then how is it able to undertake recommended. assessment of that appraisal? If it is the Council’s intention for all viability assessments to be The text states that reasonable costs be met independently examined by an external assessor, by developer. Text can be changed to then this should be made clear in the text. In suggest these costs are agreed in advance. addition, our Client recommends that any costs to Suggest amendments to the text. be paid for by the developer/applicant should be agreed in advance between the developer/applicant and Council.

Paragraph 4.3 also states that developers “should not expect that the requirement to provide affordable housing will be waived where this has There are appeal decisions where the not been accounted for in the land purchase Inspector has found that it is not the duty of price”. Our Client would question the fairness of the planning system to protect developer this statement given that the SPD proposes to profit and if they bought land at an inflated lower the threshold for affordable housing. For price then that was at their risk. No change example, a developer may have purchased land recommended. some years ago with the intention of providing, say, 10 dwellings. It cannot be reasonably expected that affordable housing provision should have been factored into the price of the land as it would not have been a requirement for that site at the time of purchase. Our Client therefore believes that land purchase price can be a factor in certain circumstances and should be recognised by the Council as such. The policy needs to be realistic and where Mrs Deputy Clerk & the calculation would result in 0.1 of a Civic Officer dwelling it is not realistic to expect a dwelling A Paragraph 4.4 All figures should be rounded up. to be provided. An alternative method would Whitby Town be a financial contribution but this would be Cowey Council complex so a rounding approach was seen as the most transparent, pragmatic and fair

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations approach. No change recommended.

Mrs Deputy Clerk & There must be an allowance for site specific Civic Officer circumstances where a scheme may not A Paragraph 4.5 Remove phrase "without good reason". provide the target and Government Whitby Town Guidance is that there must be flexibility. No Cowey Council change recommended. Mrs Deputy Clerk & A financial contribution can be used to make Civic Officer unfit properties available or it can be used to A financial contribution is of no use when there is A Paragraph 4.7 replace grant on exceptions sites. No no land suitable for its use. Whitby Town change recommended. Cowey Council The on - site thresholds for affordable housing A transparent mechanism will be in place to provision , including the small site financial record how financial contributions are contribution in lieu of on - site provision , are now utilised. An audit of contributions will be considered to be at a more realistic level . It is published annually. A separate paper on the Philip considered that financial contributions in lieu of on management of the financial contributions Philip Parker Paragraph 4.7 - site provision can be better used in the proposed will be prepared. Planning Services Parker ring - fenced Housing Enabling Fund , but it is essential that this mechanism is transparent and timely so that the link between a development site and a particular financial contribution is understood by all parties . The on - site thresholds for affordable housing See above. provision , including the small site financial Mr contribution in lieu of on - site provision , are now considered to be at a more realistic level . It is Chartered Richard Paragraph 4.7 considered that financial contributions in lieu of on Surveyor - site provision can be better used in the proposed Dixon ring - fenced Housing Enabling Fund , but it is essential that this mechanism is transparent and timely so that the link between a development site

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations and a particular financial contribution is understood by all parties. At the outline stage of an application, it is not The Section 106 Agreement has to be in always known what the amount, type and tenure place at the outline stage, and the of the eventual affordable housing provision will suggested way forward allows the flexibility Planning be, such that this requirement is not appropriate. to calculate the affordable levels at reserved Mr Manager In any case, the total number of dwellings, and matters within the formulae suggested. No

hence affordable dwellings, can alter at the change recommended. Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 4.12 Reserved Matters stage, when any calculations David Wilson would have to be re-adjusted. Our Client Butler Homes Yorkshire considers that negotiations throughout the East Division application process will determine the level of affordable housing provision rather than at the submission of an application. In principle we support the publication of an The housing enabling fund will be ring annual monitoring statement regarding monies fenced with a monitoring statement paid into the Housing Enabling Fund however we produced each year. There will be have the following questions: provisions for a refund of S106 monies within that agreement should they not be • What will happen if the finds are not utilised? spent within the agreed time frame. A separate paper on the management of the • If the finds are not utilised within a set timeframe financial contributions will be prepared. Mr & Mrs will there be provision for re-payment? Paragraph 4.13

Simpson • What will the timeframe for repayment be?

• Where will the funds be used? Will they be allocated to the Parishes that they originate from? How will this be secured?

The policy requires satisfactory clarification on the above to be sound. Mrs Deputy Clerk & Paragraph 5.1 Any off-site provision should be refused in Whitby There needs to be flexibility to

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Civic Officer due to the shortage of building land supply. accommodate all eventualities, it may be A that there are good management reasons, Whitby Town for example in a conversion, that on-site Cowey Council provision is not the most appropriate delivery mechanism. No change recommended. Paragraph 5.1 states that “it is anticipated that Paragraph 50 of the NPPF confirms that where a site is suitable for housing development, affordable housing should be met on site it will also be suitable for affordable housing to be unless it can be robustly justified. Suggest a provided on the site”. Our Client disagrees that change in the text to reflect "robustly this is always the case, for example in the case of justified" rather than "very exceptional Planning the provision of executive housing. As such, it is circumstances". Mr Manager considered that there are circumstances where a

site will not always be suitable for the provision of Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.1 affordable housing and the word ‘very’ should be David Wilson deleted where ‘very exceptional circumstances’ Butler Homes Yorkshire are referred to in relation to alternatives to on-site East Division provision. This is confirmed by paragraph 5.2 (off- site provision) where the SPD acknowledges that sites-specific constraints or the housing mix in the locality would suggest the provision of affordable dwellings off-site. Paragraph 5.1 of the Draft SPD states that it The developer would have to justify why on would only be “in very exceptional circumstances” site provision was not appropriate in the first that an alternative to on-site provision of instance, as there is a presumption in favour affordable housing would be considered. The of on site provision. No change Mr Council then goes on in paragraph 5.2 to discuss recommended other than suggested above.

the impact of site specific constraints and local D C H Architect/ Agent Paragraph 5.1 housing mix on the decision to provide on-site or

of-site. Those are not “very exceptional Chapman circumstances”, they are everyday circumstances and so the paragraphs are not mutually compatible. A presumption in favour of on-site provision would be a more reasonable term to

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations use. It would probably not be realistic to expect to Our Client objects to the third bullet point of have an agreement with a specific RP in paragraph 5.3 which requires an agreement for place prior to submission of the planning sale with an RP is in place (amongst other application in every occasion. However, requirements) before the Council will consider off- Planning there would be a requirement for some level site provision of affordable housing. It is noted Mr Manager of safeguarding to ensure that the off-site that it is not always possible to identify and agree provision will deliver appropriate affordable a sale with an RP in advance of the grant of Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.3 housing, with some proviso linked to planning permission. Where applicants are David Wilson granting of planning approval. familiar with the operational and policy Butler Homes Yorkshire This could be achieved either through the requirements of RPs, it is considered that there is East Division S106 agreement for the main site or a no reason why it should be necessary to involve condition attached to the planning approval. an RP at this stage and recommend that this part Recommend amendment to the text to of the third bullet point of paragraph 5.3 is reflect this. deleted.

We support the Council’s aspiration for achieving It is expected that any affordable units high quality design standards. However, it is included in the National Affordable Homes important to ensure flexibility and to be realistic to Programme (NAHP) would meet the design the needs and requirements of individual sites. standards of the HCA otherwise it may be difficult for the developer to reach We are concerned that all new developments agreement with a RP. No change should meet high environmental standards of recommended. Mr Strategic Planner building design and construction based on

standards such as BREEAM, Code for Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 5.4 Sustainable Homes and Lifetime Homes Homes Standards. Abbott (Yorkshire)

Prescribing how developers meet the Building Regulations for energy and the Government’s targets for zero carbon homes is contrary to the Building Regulations and national planning policy. These are matters that should be addressed under the Building Regulations.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations

We recommend therefore that design standards are assessed and monitored for their effectiveness in compliance with the NPPF at paragraphs 56 to 66. Paragraph 5.5 requires that “the type of affordable It is recognised that the type of development Planning homes provided are a pro-rata mix of the size and being provided by the market may not reflect Mr Manager type of homes being built on the overall the affordable need in the particular area. It development”. Our Client questions whether this is important that there is provision for the Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.5 is appropriate if the affordable dwellings are to be identified local need therefore we David Wilson provided off-site and suggests it would be recommend amendment to the text of the Butler Homes Yorkshire preferable to require the size and type of paragraph to reflect that there will be East Division affordable dwellings to meet identified local discussions on the mix of size and types of requirements. units. Our Client objects to paragraph 5.6, which The text allows the flexibility for negotiation prescribes that “affordable housing should be on a site by site basis but stresses that Planning distributed throughout a development in small grouping of affordable housing in significant Mr Manager groups or clusters, typically of 4-8 units” or larger numbers will not be acceptable. No change clusters for larger schemes of over 100 dwellings. recommended. Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.6 It is considered that it is not appropriate to David Wilson prescribe how the affordable housing will be Butler Homes Yorkshire distributed across the development as this will East Division depend on a number of factors, including the requirements of RPs and the type of development proposed (e.g. houses or flats). Paragraph 5.7 relates to construction standards Any development would have to meet the Planning and requires homes to be constructed/refurbished building regulations prevalent at the time of Mr Manager to current Homes and Communities Agency the development, and as such specific

quality and space standards. Our Client welcomes reference to this is not considered Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.7 the flexibility that this approach entails but necessary. No change recommended. David Wilson suggests that reference should be made to Butler Homes Yorkshire meeting building regulations prevalent at the time East Division of application.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations The majority of affordable housing would not necessarily be social rented as the aim is for a minimum of 50% of affordable housing to be rented housing, of which 50% of this should be socially rented, which in effect would mean a requirement of at least 25% of the affordable housing to be socially rented (In reality, for a 100 unit scheme with The Council argue that they will require the 40% affordable housing, the expectation majority of affordable housing provision to be would only be at 10 social rented units) Mr Strategic Planner socially rented, i.e. 50%. Whilst this may be a Borough-wide target, the actual percentage and We will look at the actual affordable housing Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 5.8 spilt on each individual site should reflect a mix on a site-by-site basis and our aspiration Homes number of factors including site viability, tenure in will be to achieve this level of social rented Abbott (Yorkshire) that locality, the need to provide for a mixed and housing as an average across all sites. balanced community, scheme design and Registered Social Landlord (RP) requirements. Evidence from the SHMA and current numbers applying for social rented housing demonstrates that there is a high need for social rented homes across the Borough and therefore there is a need to ensure that as much as possible is being done to meet this need whilst at the same time ensuring the viability of housing developments. No change recommended. Insisting on this level of social rented housing could affect the viability of some developments and possibly reduce the Mrs Deputy Clerk & actual amount of affordable housing Civic Officer In Whitby a minimum of 75% of the affordable developed. A Paragraph 5.9 housing tenure mix should be social rented

Whitby Town housing. The intention is to also develop mixed Cowey Council tenure schemes to ensure sustainability and provide a balanced and mixed community. No change recommended.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations The majority of affordable housing would not necessarily be social rented as the aim is for a minimum of 50% of affordable housing to be rented housing, of which 50% of this should be socially rented, which in effect would mean a requirement of at least 25% of the affordable housing to be socially rented (In reality, for a 100 unit scheme with 40% affordable housing, the expectation Paragraph 5.9 seeks that at least 50% of the Planning would only be at 10 social rented units) affordable housing tenure mix will be rented Mr Manager housing and that at least 50% of that should be We will look at the actual affordable housing social rented housing. Our Client believes that the Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.9 mix on a site-by-site basis and our aspiration final tenure mix should be determined on a site- David Wilson will be to achieve this level of social rented by-site basis to take account of local housing Butler Homes Yorkshire housing as an average across all sites. needs and the funding regime rather than East Division prescribing tenure levels at the outset. Evidence from the SHMA and current numbers applying for social rented housing demonstrates that there is a high need for social rented homes across the Borough and therefore there is a need to ensure that as much as possible is being done to meet this need whilst at the same time ensuring the viability of housing developments. No change recommended. The affordable housing SPD seeks to set the Transfer prices have not been prescribed. price at which dwellings will be transferred in They are included as a guide for developers paragraphs 5.10-5.12. as to what RP’s could reasonably expect to Mr Strategic Planner pay based on the Dixons Searle Economic

Paragraph 48 of the DCLG’s Delivering Affordable Viability Assessment. Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 5.10 Housing document (2006) stipulates that the It is made clear in the document that these Homes Government does not want local authorities to are guidance (see notes attached to transfer Abbott (Yorkshire) adopt restrictive practices which could preclude price table under 5.11). No change innovation and competition between potential recommended. affordable housing providers.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations

We therefore consider that to impose a set limited transfer range price is contrary to national planning policy and does not allow for flexibility. Planning In relation to paragraph 5.10, which states that the The texts states that developers are Mr Manager Council will encourage developers to “obtain an 'encouraged to obtain an agreement with an agreement with an RP partner regarding the sale RP' this is not an absolute requirement. No Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.10 of affordable homes prior to the submission of a change recommended. David Wilson planning application”. This is not always possible Butler Homes Yorkshire and should not therefore be an absolute East Division requirement. Paragraph 5.11 and the following table sets out It clearly states in the text and supporting the amount that RPs are considered able to pay note that these prices are indicative and developers for a range of standard house types in should be used to guide early stage Planning the Borough. Our Client questions whether this thinking. It is their as a useful guide to assist Mr Manager level of detail is appropriate for an SPD that may developers. No change recommended.

remain in force for some time such that the sale Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.11 prices to RPs may alter. In addition, paragraph David Wilson 5.12 states that “sale prices to RPs also need to Butler Homes Yorkshire take into account the reasonable development East Division ‘on-costs’ of the RP”. It is considered that paragraph 5.12 is not appropriate to include in an SPD and should therefore be deleted. Overall housing requirements will be established through the local plan process, if Mrs Deputy Clerk & it is an allocated site then there is no need Civic Officer In addition developers should have to prove the to prove need. If the site was not allocated A Paragraph 5.13 need for the development of non-affordable the developer would have to prove the local Whitby Town homes. plan was out of date and the Borough did Cowey Council not have sufficient land allocated or with permission. This is not a matter for the SPD. No change recommended. Mr Strategic Planner Paragraph 5.13 At paragraphs 5.13-5.16 the Council sets out its The term ‘open book’ refers to a transparent

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations intentions that only where justified on an ‘open and robust process which allows the Council Jonathan Persimmon book’ basis a scheme is not financially viable to to assess why a particular site cannot Homes meet the cost of affordable housing, will the provide any affordable housing. There Abbott (Yorkshire) Council consider a lower level of provision. We appears no benefit from changing the term. feel that ‘open book’ itself is not an appropriate No change recommended. term and a more beneficial route is the independent financial appraisal by an appropriate assessor.

The affordable housing SPD identifies physical constraints as being the only issue which will be taken into account. However, there are a range of factors that need to be considered including alternative use value, scheme design and construction, availability to grant and tenure, provision of other planning benefits and provision of other land uses as recommended by policy. In short, flexibility is needed and to take into account market conditions. Viability also needs to take into account the level The viability work carried out follows an of return for the landowner and benchmark land accepted methodology using Residual Land values. Landowners will not sell unless there are Values i.e. the amount of money left over to sufficient financial incentives for them to do so. give a reasonable land value. This is This is a well settled principle of viability. typically 10-20 times the existing use value. If a land owner is asking too much for the Mr & Mrs Para 5.15 refers to “normal” costs that any land this should not be a reason to reduce Paragraph developer5.15 should take into account but does not elements of affordable housing. The viability Simpson make allowance for abnormal costs. Development takes into account site abnormals. No viability considerations have the potential to stifle change recommended. both market and affordable housing on sites with “abnormal costs” (e.g. flood risk, remediation measures, infrastructure provision etc.) if policy is not flexible enough to take account of individual site circumstances.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Planning It is not for the planning system to defend Mr Manager developer profit. No change recommended. As we have already demonstrated, there are

situations in which land price may affect viability, Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 5.15 such that this sentence of paragraph 5.15 should David Wilson be deleted. Butler Homes Yorkshire East Division In general, we support that an affordable housing It is a policy requirement that housing sites plan is agreed before a consent can be contribute to affordable housing. The implemented. applicant therefore needs to show at the onset how it is intended to meet its However, we object to a planning application requirement. It is recognised that this may being refused consent without an affordable change through the application process but Mr Strategic Planner housing plan being submitted as part of the it needs to be agreed prior to determination application. As issues of viability are relevant, it is and therefore it is not appropriate to require Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 6.1 inappropriate and unreasonable to require an a housing plan as a condition. No change Homes affordable housing plan before an application has recommended. Abbott (Yorkshire) been considered. During the application process, details of a scheme can change and so it is not reasonable for the applicant to provide specific details, until the application is given consent. Instead, it would more appropriate to require an applicant to provide an affordable housing plan as a planning condition. Our Client objects to paragraph 6.3 of the SPD The text states that the formula would be which requires the inclusion of a formula for the included in a S106 Agreement; this allows Planning calculation of affordable housing at the outline the flexibility of not knowing the scale and Mr Manager application state. As per our comments in relation form of development at outline stage. No

to paragraph 4.12 of the SPD, it is not always change recommended. Paul Barratt Homes & Paragraph 6.3 possible to know this level of detail at the time of David Wilson an application and it can change through the Butler Homes Yorkshire course of an outline application and even at the East Division reserved matters stage. Furthermore, it is noted that the Council’s Validation Criteria (April 2011)

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations does not require the inclusion of any formula, such that this cannot be enforced through the validation stage. Instead, such details should be determined through the application and secured by condition/S106 Agreement. We object to paragraphs 6.4-6.6 which states that Paragraph 6.4 states that the Council’s the Council will expect affordable housing to be preferred method is through the involvement delivered in partnership with a Registered of a RP but that is not exclusive and Provider. paragraph 4.17 explains the requirements if an organisation other than a RP were Further guidance is provided in DCLG’s Delivering involved. No change recommended. Affordable Housing document (2006), in particular paragraphs 48 and 49. It states that the best use Mr Strategic Planner of resources is to engage with the most effective and best value provided, whether that is a RP or Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 6.4 unregistered body, as long as good management Homes and ownership are ensured. Abbott (Yorkshire) Furthermore, it specifically states that local authorities should not prescribe affordable housing providers in planning conditions, obligations or local development documents.

We therefore request that paragraphs 6.4-6.6 are re-written to ensure that they are more flexible and comply with national planning policy. The Section 106 Agreement is an agreement Amendment to text to refer to S106 Mr Strategic Planner between the Council and the developer with or agreements being revisited where without RP participation. The definitions set out in development has stalled. Jonathan Persimmon Paragraph 6.8 a Section 106 Agreement should reflect those as Homes set out in the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 203- Abbott (Yorkshire) 206. Therefore, we recommend that paragraphs 6.8-6.12 make reference to the NPPF.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations We consider it reasonable to expect a RP to Mrs Deputy Clerk & having developed such land within a 5 year Civic Officer period given that it should be fully serviced Development land should be gifted to the RP in A Paragraph 6.10 and free of any abnormal development costs perpetuity. Whitby Town or constraints. Cowey Council No change recommended. Mrs Deputy Clerk & Paragraph 6.11 relates to financial Civic Officer contributions not sites. No change There is a lack of availability of "suitable sites" - A Paragraph 6.11 recommended. developers should also be unable to swap sites. Whitby Town Cowey Council There is no town planning justification whatsoever In line with Government Guidance the for categorising Scalby within the SHMA defines the housing market areas. “Whitby/northern/western parishes” and therefore The work on the economic viability no justification for a different affordable housing assessment also identified that the house requirement from that of Newby and Scarborough values that could be expected in Scalby indicate a considerably higher amount than It is very surprising that Scarborough Council has the rest of Scarborough area and bear more proposed that a line be drawn somewhere relationship to the northern parishes and between Newby and Scalby solely for the Whitby Areas. Mr exercise of determining the thresholds and The Council recognises that Scalby and

Housing Market percentages of affordable housing applicable to Newby are part of Scarborough Urban Area D C H Architect/ Agent Map 1 Areas (Borough) all developments, thereby categorising Scalby but Scalby shares the characteristics of a

with ‘Whitby/northern/western parishes’, when, different housing market area which relates Chapman hitherto, the Council has been so adamant in the to the Northern Parishes more than view (at least since local government re- Scarborough. No change recommended. organisation in the early 1970’s) that Newby and Scalby are indivisible from Scarborough. This view was firmly reinforced by the Local Plan Inspector in his report, when he said “... I cannot accept that the Parish (Newby and Scalby) warrants a separate identity from Scarborough Urban Area ...”.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations

The following extract from paragraph 6.1.26 of the Inspector’s report is unambiguous on the matter:

Scarborough Borough Council must be consistent in its definition across all planning policy of Scalby as a part of the Newby and Scarborough urban area.

The definition of sub-market areas comes from the 2007 Housing Market Assessment and is then simply replicated in the 2011 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). Notwithstanding the fundamental point above (that Scalby has been determined by the Council to be part of the Scarborough urban area), the SHMA should have reconsidered market areas to reflect the changing nature of Scalby following recent planning consents and development in Scalby that clearly reinforce its established position as part of the Scarborough urban area. Whilst it has its own distinctive character, in planning terms there should be no distinction between the proportion of affordable housing it needs to provide as compared with Newby and Scarborough.

Dixon Searle’s Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment paragraph 2.4.3 points out that “Although we have provided a very broad indication of the likely relationship between Market Area and value level it should be remembered that values can change significantly within a very small area with variations in values often seen at a street by street level or even between one end of a street and another. The

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations information provided here is therefore purely a broad guide.” That further reinforces the need for flexibility in how affordable housing requirements should be applied, and that is not adequately reflected in the Draft. Affordable Housing SPD - Page 24. Why is As stated previously, the thresholds applied Eastfield linked to Scarborough as part of the reflect the housing market areas, not Mr housing plan when neighbouring sites such as planning areas. Eastfield has a housing Parish Clerk Housing Market Osgodby are not? In addition, would it not be market area more characteristic of

Steve Areas - Map 4 more viable for Scalby/Newby to be part of the Scarborough than Osgodby. Scalby has a Eastfield Parish Scarborough Scarborough housing plan as they are at least housing market area more characteristic of Council Simpson 'attached' to Scarborough whereas there is at the Northern Parishes than Scarborough. least three miles of open space between Eastfield No change recommended. and Scarborough. The Council recognises the need for affordable housing as evidenced by the SHMA but it has to be realistic on the viability of sites to provide affordable Miss Cayton Parish Council does not agree with the housing. If the affordable housing targets reduction to be made in respect of the number of Cayton Parish Housing Market Table are making sites unviable they will not be Helen Affordable Homes being built. The borough is Council Areas 4.1 built and therefore there will be no desperately in need of homes for low income affordable housing built. Market housing as Carter earners. providing affordable housing is even more important, given that the level of Government grants have been reduced. No change recommended. The thresholds and percentages set out in Table The thresholds are targets which are the 4.1 do not reflect the thresholds and percentages maximum that could achieved in the areas, Mr & Mrs advised as appropriate within the Dixon Searle that does not mean every site can provide Housing Market Table Affordable Housing Economic Viability that figure. But this should be the target Areas 4.1 Simpson Assessment (AHEVA) November 2011. This is unless it can be justified. particularly the case with regard to the Filey/Hunmaby/Southern Parishes. For 15+ The financial contribution is deemed to be at

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations dwellings the AHEVA identified a 20-30% bracket a level lower that the equivalent provision of for affordable housing. On what basis has the an affordable unit and therefore is realistic highest figure only (rather than a range) been and should not be reduced. No change selected for the Affordable Housing SPD? recommended. Research suggests that the highest need areas for affordable housing are in Whitby/Northern/Western Parishes. No justification is given for increasing the Filey/Hunmaby/Southern Parishes to the maximum, upper limit. The table should be amended to read 20-30% for the threshold of 15+ dwellings for Filey/Hunmaby/Southern Parishes in table 4.1 and preferably 20% to retain development viability, focusing affordable housing on areas with higher established need.

For site thresholds of 2-4 and 5-9 the AHEVA identified a “potential” financial contribution. This has been included within the Affordable Housing SPD as a “financial contribution” without flexibility. Affordable Housing SPD - Page 7. As part of the The viability work has shown that the values table at 4.1, it shows that Scarborough is only expected in the Eastfield area would not Mr Parish Clerk eligible for 20% affordable housing. Eastfield, justify a higher amount of affordable housing

Housing Market Table which is currently part of this area, is a known as sites would be unviable. No change Steve Eastfield Parish Areas 4.1 deprived area and therefore would benefit from a recommended.

Council greater amount of affordable housing, which by Simpson moving us to be part of the Southern Parishes would benefit us. The policy percentages should be taken as a The targets have been reviewed in line with starting point. At the 40% level for the Northern an up to date assessment of viability using Provincial Land Housing Market Table Parishes, it is likely all larger sites for housing will proven methodology. No change

Developments Areas 4.1 be unviable, i.e. not achieve profitability levels at recommended. circa 20%.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations The Council should review its percentage targets for all areas as the current policy will act as an obstacle to housing delivery, contrary to the NPPF. Table 4.1 sets out a variety of thresholds and The thresholds are targets with flexibility affordable housing percentages to be applied to built in for site specific negotiations where it all housing developments in the Borough and is justified. The SPD uses an up to date specifically sets out affordable housing targets for evidence base to reach its targets. No those developments under 15 dwellings. This is change recommended. supported by the Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment (AHEVA) prepared by DSP Housing & Development Consultants (November 2011). It is noted that the percentages suggested in Table 4.1 represent the maximum levels of the ranges indicated in the AHEVA. Our Client therefore notes that any percentages should be Planning regarded as maximum targets for the provision of Mr Manager affordable housing rather than a minimum or a fixed requirement. Housing Market Table Paul Barratt Homes & Areas 4.1 David Wilson Our Client believes that the proposed Butler Homes Yorkshire percentages are not based on current market East Division conditions and do not therefore represent a realistic or robust starting point for the assessment of planning applications for residential development. This is likely to lead to unrealistic expectations from local stakeholders (including Ward Members) in relation to the amount of affordable housing that can reasonably be expected to be provided on a particular site. Consequently, this has the potential to significantly delay the planning process for developers and could undermine the provision of the Council’s housing requirement for both market and affordable housing.

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations

Our Client is also reticent about whether the requirement for affordable housing for those developments of 15 dwellings or less is the right approach as it could stifle housing development in the Borough. In order to prevent this, the SPD must be sufficiently flexible to allow for variation in affordable housing provision on a site-by-site basis taking into account economic viability. The viability assessment identified what targets could be viable in the various housing market areas. It used proven Cloughton Parish Council feels that 40% is an methodology and is up to date. The unachievable target for many areas on the north allocating of properties is a housing of Scarborough and beyond, if for no reason other management issue. No change Ms than the lack of an adequate infrastructure. Also Parish Clerk recommended. Council doesn't see why there cannot be a local Housing Market Table J occupancy requirement in the affordable housing Cloughton Parish Areas 4.1 Local occupancy requirements would (as there is in the North York Moors National Council normally only be required if it is an exception Marley Park), or at the very least a precedence given to site that is being developed. prospective tenants with proven local occupancy

links before allocating properties to people from There are also legal requirements for away. allocation policies to ensure that reasonable preference is given to categories of people in housing need. No Change recommended. Newby is actually 20% as it is included in Mrs Parish Clerk the Scarborough Housing Market Area. Why future developments in Newby and Scalby Scalby is within the Northern Parishes Housing Market Table Julia Newby and parish should contain 40% affordable housing Housing Market Area and the viability work Areas 4.1 Scalby Parish when those to the south were only 20% found that values meant that up to 40% is Marley Council viable on certain sites. No change recommended. Mr Wykeham Parish Housing Market Table In the Western Parishes, sites of less than 5 The introduction of a target provision under

Organisation Full Name Title No Response Details Officers Recommendations Council Areas 4.1 dwellings should make no financial contribution9 dwellings could make the sites unviable Chris H and that sites of 5 to 9 dwellings should provide and therefore there would be no provision. 20% of plots for affordable housing or make a The SPD is consistent across the Borough Holmes financial contribution. in requiring every site within the Borough to make a contribution. No change recommended. The AHEVA (November 2011) reports that not The financial contributions are at a level more than approximately £75/sq m should be below the cost that on site provision would applied as a financial contribution, suggesting that cost and therefore are reasonable without Proposed Small it should be a maximum amount. However the the need to lower the costs. If these costs Mr & Mrs Sites Table Affordable Housing SPD sets the maximum £75/ couldn’t be accommodated then the site is Contributions in 4.2 sq m without flexibility and not allowing for lower unlikely to be viable in any event. No Simpson Lieu of Affordable payments depending on circumstances. This change recommended. Housing needs to be amended to take into account the necessary flexibility to permit development viability as per our response to para 5.15.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPD 2012

SCHEDULE OF CHANGES AND REASONS

Affordable Housing SPD 2012

Reference No Paragraph in Draft SPD Proposed Change Reason for Change 1 Paras 1.2-1.6 and 1.10 Delete paras as they refer to PPS3 or National Planning Policy Framework has now been published, draft NPPF this replaces PPS3. 2 New Paragragh 1.2 The National Planning Framework The National Planning Policy Framework has been published states that where local planning and replaces the Planning Policy Statements including PPS3. authorities have identified that there is a need for affordable housing they should ‘…..set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.’ 3 Paragraph 4.3 Add in brackets after ‘reasonable To satisfy the development industry comments. costs’ (agreed with the developer) 4 Paragraph 5.1 Remove the words ‘and guidance’ in To reflect the fact that PPS3 no longer exists and to satisfy the first sentence. Replace the words comments. ‘very exceptional circumstances’ with’ where it can be robustly justified’. 5 Paragraph 5.3 Replace the word submitted with Accept that it is not realistic to have an agreement with a RP in ‘agreed’. all cases prior to submission of an application. 6 Paragraph 5.5 Replace the paragraph with the This reflects that the market housing may not always reflect the following. ‘The Council will negotiate affordable need in the particular area. the type and size of affordable housing on a site by site basis.’ 7 New Paragraph 6.12 In using Section 106 Agreements to To reflect Paragraph 206 of the NPPF. secure affordable housing the Council recognise that there may be occurrances where they need to be

reconsidered where they stall development.