Peter Whalan To the Chair and Members
742226 of the PJW/ED – R82/1/1 PLANNING COMMITTEE (STRATEGIC)
Email [email protected]
11 July 2008
Dear Sir/Madam
A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE (STRATEGIC) will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, MERRIAL STREET, NEWCASTLE on TUESDAY, 22 JULY 2008 at 7.00pm.
AGENDA
1. Minutes of the last meeting (copy attached). 2. Declarations of Interest. 3. To consider the report of the Executive Management Team on items requiring decisions (copy attached). 4. To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
Yours faithfully
A CAMPBELL
Democratic Services Manager
Officers will be in attendance prior to the meeting for informal discussions on agenda items. NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE (STRATEGIC)
22 July 2008
1. KNUTTON & CROSS HEATH DEVELOPMENTS SITES SPD – PHASE 1
Submitted by : Regeneration and Development Directorate
Portfolio : Regeneration & Planning
Ward(s) affected : Cross Heath and Knutton & Silverdale
Purpose of the Report
To inform members of the results of the consultation process on the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and to consider the Knutton and Cross Heath Development Sites SPD, Phase 1, prior to approval by Council on 30 July 2008.
Recommendation
That the Council be recommended to adopt the Supplementary Planning Document for Knutton and Cross Heath phase 1, subject to any amendments made by this committee.
Reasons
The preparation of the SPD is included in the Council's approved Local Development Scheme and its adoption is an important priority in the Local Development Framework.
1. Background
1.1 Members will recall that a draft SPD was agreed by the Planning Committee on 6 February 2008, for consultation purposes.
1.2 The draft SPD, together with its supporting Sustainability Appraisal, has been the subject of an extensive consultation programme. The Knutton and Cross Heath Community were sent letters to inform them of the publication of the draft SPD and how they could participate in the consultation process. Articles were also published in local newsletters and press releases issued. A range of consultation events took place with ward members, key partners and local residents, including several residents groups. The whole process was assisted by the Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder team and Aspire Housing. Appendix ‘B’ (cream paper) sets out the process out in detail.
1.3 The formal consultation period lasted six weeks, ending on 31 March 2008. An information event was held more recently on the 26 June to update local residents on the results of the formal consultation and to outline the proposals to amend the SPD.
1.4 This SPD will form part of the Newcastle Development Framework and will provide specific guidance on development control matters for two key development sites in Knutton and
1 Cross Heath to be developed under Phase 1 of the Renew Housing Market Renewal (HMR) programme and, as such, will be regarded as a material consideration. It has been explained previously, in reports relating to the draft Town Centre SPD, that an SPD does not set policy but can only elaborate on or interpret existing policy and for this reason it does not have the same status as a Development Plan Document. However, the fact that it has undergone some form of statutory preparation increases its status. In this case the policy context is provided by saved policies within the Structure Plan, the Local Plan and emerging policy and guidance within the Core Spatial Strategy.
2. Representations Received
2.1 In total, 23 individuals or organisations submitted formal representations, which included several who had not been directly consulted. The representations were analysed to identify each specific issue, resulting in the region of 60 separate comments being recorded on the database. This is set out at Appendix ‘B’, which shows the issues raised by each consultee, an analysis of those issues, grouped together, with your officer’s response. In most cases there is a clear recommendation – either to reject the comment or to make a change to the content of the SPD.
3. Summary of Issues
3.1 The list below summarises the main areas of concern which were raised during the consultation process:
• Divided opinion over the proposal to build a vehicular link to Douglas Road. • Insufficient reference to the importance of landscape features and habitat provision. • Concern that too much affordable housing is to be built. • Concern that the extension of the pedestrian network in the vicinity of St Bernard’s road and the Wammy will generate community safety issues and lead to an increase of on street parking. • Clearer information needs to be provided relating to the role of open space. • Concern that play areas will attract anti social behaviour. • Flooding issues are not adequately addressed. • A lack of detailed guidance on the Lower Milehouse Estate. • Insufficient information generally relating to building heights, house designs and materials. • Parking problems on the Cotswold Estate (the estate is outside the scope of phase 1). • The role of Knutton Village as a retail centre should be enhanced (the village is outside the scope of phase 1). • The relationship to other policy documents is unclear. • More reference needs to be made to the historic character of the area. • The document contains too much text and needs to be simplified. • Lack of reference to parts of Collins and Aikman site not under English Partnerships ownership. • Use of borough wide evidence for housing need questioned. • Traffic capabilities of Lower Milehouse Lane and subsequent access requirements to Collins and Aikman site. • Inadequate references to nature conservation issues within the site.
2 4. The Revised SPD
4.1 To address these issues a substantial number of changes to the SPD have been made. Consideration has therefore been given to the need to undertake a second round of consultation. However since the changes largely reflect the comments received and they do not significantly impact on the original priorities and key design principles contained in the draft SPD, it is considered unnecessary to subject the SPD to a further round of consultation. Furthermore the information event, held on 26 June, (noted above) has helped to keep the local community informed of the key changes. Members will be aware from previous reports that adoption of this SPD is important to facilitate the submission of key planning applications, which will work to progress the objectives of the HMR programme and it is, therefore, vital that further delays to the programme are avoided if at all possible.
4.2 An amended version of the SPD, (Appendix ‘A’) will be forwarded to Members separately. It is intended that the final SPD will be presented in colour, with a number of additional photos and illustrations.
Introduction
1. Change of SPD title In its draft form, the document was titled ‘Knutton and Cross Heath Design Brief SPD’. However, the SPD actually supplements existing local and structure plan policies on a range of issues, of which design is just one. It is therefore felt more appropriate to rename the document the ‘Knutton and Cross Heath Development Sites SPD’. This better reflects the purpose of the document as a basis for judging planning applications in the area. It does not represent a shift in priorities from the draft document that has been subject to public consultation.
2. Key Issues A simplified summary of the key issues affecting Knutton and Cross Heath has been provided.
3. Policy Context Amendments have also been made in relation to the policy context of the SPD (both in the main body of the report and appendix). Effort has been made throughout the document to make clear what local plan and structure plan policies the guidance supplements. This was felt necessary to lessen the risk of the SPD being challenged and applications going to appeal.
4. SPD Objectives The SPD objectives have been simplified to make the document less wordy and reduce repetition in the document.
Characterisation of the Plan Area
1. The text has been simplified and context maps have been added to provide clearer information and make the document more ‘user friendly.’
Detailed Development Areas
1. Clearer design principles Design principles have been reworded to provide a clearer indication of what is expected of developers. This includes increased emphasis on the need to:
3 • Minimise flood risk • Provide clear links to open space and residential areas • Protect and enhance areas of natural habitat
With particular reference to Lower Milehouse Lane the key design principles are now set out as:
• Existing site access to be retained • Inclusion of some taller properties on Lower Milehouse Lane frontage to respect heights of Extra Care and Health Centre opposite • Provision one Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP) in the centre of the estate, to be faced onto and not backed onto, by properties • Creation of well defined links to open space with maximum opportunities for natural surveillance so these through siting of properties • Creation of a mixed community through a combination of 3-4 bed houses, 2 bed bungalows and 1-2 bed apartments, with the inclusion of 25% affordable housing • Retention and improvement of a natural wildlife area between new properties and Lymedale Cross Industrial Estate.
In terms of the Collins and Aikman site, the key change from the draft SPD is the removal of reference to a new highway to Douglas Road. County Highways have deemed this unacceptable, and as such proposals have been downgraded to the provision of an improved cycle and pedestrian link.
Another key amendment is an increased emphasis on ensuring the comprehensive redevelopment of the Collins and Aikman site. This is needed to secure wider benefits to the regeneration of the SPD area through improved links to between Cross Heath, the Wammy, Lymedale Cross Industrial Estate, and the town centre.
Presentation of the SPD
In response to comments on the legibility of the SPD the format of the document has been changed significantly. This includes reducing the amount of text, and the inclusion of additional visual material to clarify points.
5. Rejection of Consultees Responses
The SPD seeks to balance a wide range of issues and it is inevitable that not every comment made can be agreed and incorporated into the revised document. Appendix ‘B’ includes a clear justification where recommendations have been rejected. In summary, these include:
• Support for Douglas Road link road • Objections to provision of new play areas • Objections to providing a mix of house types • Objections to providing any new housing in the area • Objections to ‘pepper potting’ affordable housing units • Objections to incorporation of any traffic calming measures • Greater detail required on where community square should be provided • Affordable housing should be based on evidence of need in the SPD area, not borough wide
4 • A second access should be provided to Collins and Aikman off Lower Milehouse Lane • Concern over building heights on Lower Milehouse Lane
6. Next Steps
6.1 This document is being brought to you so that members have an opportunity at the meeting to influence its content prior to its consideration by Council. It could be considered by the Cabinet but the next available meeting is not until September and as stated earlier it is important to adopt the SPD as soon as possible to help guide imminent planning applications. Because of the urgency of adopting the SPD, it is intended to present it to the Council as a supplementary item.
6.2 Once adopted the SPD will be widely publicised and made available on the Council’s web site and will also be published in print and CD format.
7. Outcomes Linked to Corporate Priorities
7.1 All the documents prepared as part of the Council's LDF are intended to be "spatial", in that they are limited only by the definition of the area they cover and should take into account all the plans and strategies of the Council and other partners. They should therefore affect directly every aspect of the Council's priorities.
8. Legal and Statutory Implications
8.1 The way in which we must produce the local development documents is set out in changing national regulations, guidance and best practice. In this case, the plan making programme has been carried out in accordance with the Local Development Regulations 2004. The production of SPDs is optional but the regulations currently include a requirement that the all SPDs are included in the Council's approved Local Development Scheme (LDS). The SPD is listed in the current LDS, May 2007 as the Knutton and Cross Heath Design SPD, but as noted above it is recommended the SPD is renamed. It is not considered that simply changing the title of the SPD will mean that the SPD does not comply with the LDS. Furthermore the change of name can be explained in the next review of the LDS.
8.2 In June the Local Development (Amendment) Regulations 2008, were finally published and have introduced new procedures to follow in the course of preparing local development documents. Transitional provisions run until the 1 September but in respect of the preparation of SPDs the changes are not terribly significant and, at this late stage of the SPD production process, should not have any special legal and statutory implications.
9. Financial and Resource Implications
9.1 There are no financial implications in adopting this SPD.
9.2 SPD production has no bearing on the amount of Planning and Housing Delivery Grant awarded annually to the Council.
10. Equality Impact Assessment
10.1 An EIA has been carried out in accordance with the Council’s programme on the planning policy function as a whole. The community involvement to which each local development document is subjected is carried out within the terms of the Council's adopted Statement of Community Involvement, August 2006. In addition, the SPD is subject to sustainability
5 appraisal. This considers the social, economic and environmental implications of implementing the plan.
11. Major Risks
10.1 In supporting the recommendations in this report the Borough Council will not be subject to major risks. The purpose of the SPD is to reduce the risk of misunderstanding between the Council and applicants and to demonstrate a clear justification for the approach to be adopted.
12. Earlier Cabinet/Committee Resolutions
12.1 Cabinet meeting 17 October 2007 agreed to delegate responsibility to the Planning Committee for the consideration and approval of the draft Knutton & Cross Heath Design SPD for public consultation purposes. Planning Committee considered a progress report on the Bellway Homes proposals and the SPD at its meeting on the 21 November 2007, and resolved that consultation on a draft SPD should be undertaken prior to any application for planning permission. Planning Committee 6 February 2008 approved the draft SPD for consultation purposes.
13. List of Appendices
• The revised SPD – Appendix ‘A’ • Public Consultation Statement – Appendix ‘B’
14. Background Papers
Draft Knutton & Cross Heath Design Supplementary Planning Document. Representation forms, letters and recorded comments. Town and Country Planning Regulations 2004 (amended 2008) and PPS 12. Cross Heath – Measures to prevent flooding – Report to Cabinet 14 June 2006 (minute 141/07 refers)
2. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Submitted by : Regeneration and Development
Portfolio : Regeneration & Planning
Ward(s) affected : All
Purpose of the Report
To present to Members a draft SPD on Affordable Housing to be used for consultation purposes . (Copy attached as Appendix ‘C’ printed on salmon paper).
Recommendation
(a) That Planning Committee approves the document submitted, subject to any changes made at the meeting, for the purpose of public consultation.
6
(b) That, in consultation with the portfolio holder, consultation is commenced prior to the document being presented to Cabinet.
Reasons
The Council needs to ensure that the right amount and type of affordable housing is developed in the Borough. For this purpose, we need robust evidence and show clearly how it is to be interpreted and used in determining planning applications. This document uses the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and presents clear guidance to developers. To be able to have the status of SPD, it needs to be subject to public consultation.
There is a Cabinet meeting the day after the committee. The next is not until September. This only way this SPD can be presented to Council on 30 July is as a Supplementary item. Although this is proposed in the case of the other SPD (for Knutton and CrossHeath) because of the urgency of adopting that SPD, it is suggested that in the case of this SPD on affordable housing, which is only a consultation document, it would be appropriate for the Planning Committee itself to approve the next stage.
1. Background
1.1 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) are one of the “Local Development Documents” that planning authorities can prepare as part of the “Local Development Framework” (LDF). The preparation of an SPD on Affordable Housing was not included in the Local Development Scheme agreed early in 2007, but it has become clear that such a document was needed urgently. Its preparation forms part of the work plan of the planning policy service (contained in the Service and Financial Plan for the Planning and Housing Strategy Service.)
1.2 The need for clear guidance for developers, to manage the supply of affordable housing is recognised in the Service Improvement Plans for both the planning service and the strategic housing service, having been identified as a weakness in inspections of both areas. Every effort is therefore being made to produce such guidance and adopt it at the appropriate level in the planning system. The headline requirements put forward in this draft SPD have already been included in the Core Spatial Strategy approved by the Council in May for later submission to the DCLG.
1.3 The first requirement in producing guidance on affordable housing is to obtain robust evidence. A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was commissioned in 2007 by a partnership of local authorities in the “North Housing Market”, comprising this Council and those of Stoke on Trent, Stafford, Staffordshire Moorlands and East Staffordshire. This joint commissioning was in line with recommendations by the DCLG as were the methods used in the Assessment.
1.4 The results of the SHMA were not such that they could simply be repeated in an SPD and used directly as guidance. They have required a great deal of interpretation and account has had to be taken of economic viability and spatial outcomes in translating them into firm requirements on developers. Experience elsewhere in the country indicates that developers, if required to contribute more than they feel is appropriate, will challenge planning authorities at every level. Recently, a developer has even successfully challenged a planning authority’s Core Strategy in the high court over the issue of affordable housing.
1.5 Finally, it is worth making reference to the current state of the housing market. House prices in North Staffordshire have been lower than the national average for as long as
7 detailed records have been kept, but that does not mean that there is no need for affordable housing. Many people cannot access market housing however low it is priced. Clearly it is not possible to predict accurately how the market will change over the next five or ten years. In North Staffordshire the market is generally weak, and therefore we are even more susceptible to downturns. In general it is more difficult in this area than many others to persuade developers to “add” other aspects to their development that will increase costs, because the profit margins are smaller, and a requirement for affordable housing always increases costs. Currently, however some developers are finding it easier to market housing as shared ownership or to RSLs, than on the open market. The current downturn is likely to be only a temporary phenomenon, though it is leading to a dramatic reduction in house building. House prices will inevitably rise in the future and if this occurs alongside a shortage of housing, this will only make the need for affordable housing more intense. The SPD aims to ensure a constant flow of affordable housing in new stock whatever the state of the market.
2 Status of the SPD
2.1 It has been explained previously, in reports on other SPDs, that these documents do not set policy but can only elaborate on, or interpret, existing policy and for this reason they do not have the same status as a Development Plan Document. In the report in June 2008 on the SPD for the Town Centre, it was noted that the government’s proposed amendments to the regulations included the ability for SPD to develop and amplify (i.e. depend on for its authority) national planning guidance and RSS, as well as our own Development Planning Documents. Unfortunately, when the regulations were published on 17 June, this proposal had been abandoned, although we understand that this is to be revisited as part of the changes coming through with the implementation of the Planning Bill, scheduled for the Autumn.
2.2 If there is no change in the government’s proposals this may cause a problem for this SPD. The Local Plan adopted in 2003 contained a very clear policy on affordable housing, which this SPD would act to amplify. This was Policy H11, which stated that the Council would endeavour to satisfy “proved local need for affordable housing”. However, in 2007, Government Office for the West Midlands would not allow the Council to “save” this policy, because it referred explicitly to a threshold of 25 dwellings (below which, a requirement for affordable housing could not be supported), and this threshold, imposed by government, had since been lowered to 15 dwellings. The deletion of this policy was particularly frustrating given that the inclusion of the reference to the threshold in 2003 was included purely at the demand on Government Office at the time, against the wishes of the Council.
2.3 Without this policy, some alternatives need to be found to support the SPD. The best one is the policy on the new Core Spatial Strategy, which has been developed in association with the early work on the SPD, and therefore they are entirely consistent with each other. Unfortunately, it is intended to adopt this SPD in advance of the Core Strategy. It should be noted that the relationship between this SPD and the Core Spatial Strategy is two-fold. The Strategy gives the policy support that this SPD needs, but the SPD also serves as part of the evidence and support for the Strategy, which may be needed in an Examination if its policies are challenged.
2.4 The only remaining current policy support is Policy IM1 of the Local Plan which refers to requirements for “improvements to infrastructure or essential services to make a development acceptable”. This was used as the main policy support for the SPD on developer contributions, which in its turn, refers specifically to affordable housing.
8 2.5 Government Office for the West Midlands will have the opportunity to question the validity of the SPD, and there is nothing to be gained by concealing the problems set out above. However, it may appear thought inconceivable that they would prevent the Council adopting guidance to support the development of affordable housing, given the prominence of this issue in the government’s agenda.
2.6 The draft SPD has not been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal as it is considered to be covered by the Sustainability Appraisals carried out on the Core Spatial Strategy and the SPD on Developer Contributions.
3 Content of the SPD
3.1 The document is set out in eight sections. The first explains the context within which the SPD is prepared, including some of the issues discussed above. The second gives a definition of affordable housing. This is very important as it defines the scope of the SPD – i.e. what sort of housing would be considered “affordable” and what would not. Market “low- cost” housing is not considered to meet the need for affordable housing. It is also emphasised that housing such as “Extra Care” is included in the scope of the SPD.
3.2 The third section indicates how “housing need” can be assessed, looking at the “drivers” of housing need, which are referred to specifically in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It also clarifies the use of the phrases “housing need” (which refers to affordable housing) and “housing demand” (which refers to market housing). It makes reference to the first Appendix of the SPD which contains extracts from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and other statistics used in preparing the SPD, which make up the evidence base. The fourth section looks at the concept of “local need” which is sometimes raised in terms of affordable housing. It notes that this is largely only relevant in the rural area, and even then must be considered with caution. References to “local needs” in the RSS are intended to be concerned more with scale of development (i.e. below that which would encourage significant in-migration) than looking at specific needs to live in one locality rather than another.
3.3 The fifth section identifies the specific requirements to be presented to developers – the proportion of housing to be affordable. These are the figures already enshrined in the Core Spatial Strategy. It explains how the evidence in the Appendix is used and how account is taken of economic viability and other issues – in brief, the degree of “need” indicated by the analysis in the SHMA is more than could reasonably be imposed on developments, and the figure of 25% is considered both supportable, in terms of the evidence, and sustainable in terms of economic realities.
3.4 The sixth section sets out details of design requirements. These are not specific and do not in any way take the place of other guidance being produced (the North Staffordshire Design Guide). They merely concentrate on the need to ensure as high a level of functional design in affordable housing as in other housing. The emphasis is on the need for design to be “tenure blind”.
3.4 The seventh section is on the mechanisms for securing affordable housing – the use of Section 106 agreements and the internal protocol for ensuring an efficient service by all the relevant service areas of the Council. There is a prototype Section 106 agreement in an appendix to show potential developers what will be required. The eighth section is on monitoring, and carries targets for numbers of affordable houses to be provided. The lack of targets was an issue highlighted in the recent inspection of the Housing Service.
9 4 Next Steps
4.1 This document is being brought to you so that Members have an opportunity at the meeting to influence its content prior to its publication for consultation purposes. Subject to the approval of the Committee, and in consultation with the Portfolio Holder consultation could usefully start before Cabinet next meets on 10th September.
4.2 The draft SPD will be publicised to invite representations, particularly from house builders and RSLs and their representatives. It is proposed to commence the formal consultation period at the beginning of September, so to minimise the overlap with the consultation process for the Town Centre SPD, which ends on 5 September. However, dependent on staff resources, key consultees may be alerted to the document prior to formal commencement. Copies will be printed, with an appropriate standard of presentation, and sent to consultees in printed or CD format. Copies of all relevant information will also be posted on the Council’s website. Deadline for representations will be 13 October. The results of the consultations will be brought to a subsequent meeting of your committee for final adoption of the SPD.
4.3 The Council’s Economic Development and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee has taken a particular interest in affordable housing as part of its overview of the Housing Service Improvement Plan. They intend to set up a sub group to look into the matter and it has been suggested to them that they involve themselves in the consultation process on this SPD. Accordingly, arrangements will be made to present the draft SPD to them following its approval by your Committee so that they can deliberate in detail on its contents.
5. Outcomes Linked to Corporate Priorities
5.1 The provision of affordable housing is central to providing a borough of opportunity and a healthy and active community.
6 Legal and Statutory Implications
6.1 The way in which we must produce local development documents is set out in changing national regulations, guidance and best practice. In this case, the plan making programme has been carried out in accordance with the Local Development Regulations 2004, which have now been amended, though they are being brought in during a period of transition up to September. In respect of the preparation of SPDs the changes are not particularly significant. The production of SPDs is optional but the regulations currently include a requirement that the all SPDs are included in the Council's approved Local Development Scheme (LDS), although it is not thought that there is any prohibition on adopting an SPD that is not so included. The SPD on Affordable Housing is not listed in the current LDS, but now the new regulations have come in, a new LDS is to be prepared which will specifically include this SPD, although again the implementation of the Planning Bill may ultimately lead to the dropping of the requirement to list SPDs in an LDS.
7. Financial and Resource Implications
7.1 Costs of preparing and publicising the draft SPD can be covered in the budget agreed for policy planning.
7.2 SPD production has no bearing on the amount of Planning and Housing Delivery Grant awarded annually to the Council.
10 8. Equality Impact Assessment
8.1 An EIA has been carried out in accordance with the Council’s programme on the planning policy function as a whole. The community involvement to which each local development document is subjected is carried out within the terms of the Council's adopted Statement of Community Involvement, August 2006.
9. Major Risks
9.1 In supporting the recommendations in this report the Borough Council will not be subject to major risks. The purpose of the SPD is to reduce the risk of misunderstanding between the Council and applicants and to demonstrate a clear justification for the approach to be adopted.
10. Earlier Cabinet/Committee Resolutions
10.1 None relevant
11. Appendices
The draft SPD
11 APPENDIX A Strategic Planning Committee report on Knutton and Cross Heath Development Sites SPD phase 1.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BOROUGH COUNCIL
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
KNUTTON & CROSS HEATH DEVELOPMENT SITES SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD)
PHASE ONE
DATE: JULY 2008
1
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Characterisation
3. Generic Design Guidance
4. Key Development Sites • Collins and Aikman • Lower Milehouse Estate
5. Other information
2 Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the SPD
This document forms part of the planning framework for Knutton and Cross Heath, which in 2003 was designated an Area of Major Intervention (AMI) under the Renew North Staffordshire (Renew) Housing Market Renewal (HMR) programme.
The document outlines the broad issues facing the Knutton and Cross Heath area, and amplifies saved policies contained in the adopted Local Plan, Staffordshire Structure Plan and emerging Core Spatial Strategy. As such it provides a means of judging planning applications for selected key sites to be developed under the HMR programme. It has been subject to extensive public consultation in accordance with the Borough Council’s Adopted Statement of Community Involvement.
In its draft form, the document was titled the ‘Knutton and Cross Heath Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)’, and was referred to in the Borough Council’s adopted Local Development Scheme. Although the document does make reference to design issues, this is just one element of the SPD. It also includes guidance on matters such as: open space provision; links to adjoining areas; densities; and affordable housing provision. It relates to key sites to be brought forward for development as part of the HMR programme. For this reason and to provide a clearer picture of the purpose of the document the SPD has been renamed the ‘Knutton and Cross Heath Development Sites Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)’. It does not represent a shift in priorities from the draft document that has been subject to public consultation.
The SPD is being produced in a phased manner in order to provide a robust planning framework for key development sites as they come forward under the HMR initiative. This first phase focuses on the area comprising the Lower Milehouse Estate and former industrial and associated land to the south east of Lower Milehouse Lane between the Wammy and the Morrisons store, (referred to in this SPD as the Collins and Aikman Site), see figure 1. Detailed guidance on further sites will be produced in due course and will be subject to separate public consultation.
Figure 1 shows the location of the sites to which detailed guidance relates, as well as providing the context for the wider area.
In order to ensure sites are not dealt with in isolation, this phase of the SPD also includes generic information for the wider Knutton and Cross Heath Area. This sets the context for redevelopment and will be relevant to future phases of the SPD.
1.2 Background
Knutton and Cross Heath has suffered from decline in recent years, particularly as traditional manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the community has experienced related socio-economic problems particularly in the housing market. Key issues facing the area can be summarised as:
• Poor quality physical environment; • Isolation of the Lower Milehouse Estate from the rest of the area; • Lack of choice in the range of housing types, sizes and tenures in the area; • Lack of a central core to the area;
Figure 1: Knutton and Cross Heath Context Plan:
3
• Void properties and undeveloped land contributing to an air of neglect and anti-social behaviour; • Poor connections within Knutton and Cross Heath and with some of its surroundings; • Proximity of some parts of the community to industrial buildings and associated goods traffic; • Poor image and lack of community pride in the area.
4
It is these issues that led to the Knutton and Cross Heath area being designated as an AMI under the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder in 2003. Renew, working in partnership with the Borough Council, Staffordshire County Council and Aspire Housing, have subsequently set about improving the quality of housing stock and the local environment to achieve sustainable neighbourhoods. This SPD sets out the framework to ensure these goals can be achieved through the planning process. It largely draws on the evidence collated in the Area Regeneration Framework (ARF) commissioned by Renew (completed November 2007) and the subsequent principles it proposed.
1.3 Policy Context
The SPD is consistent with the key objectives in the emerging Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy, with regard to Design Quality Policy CSP1, and Sustainability & Climate Change Policy CSP3. It also ties in with emerging policies for Affordable Housing. In particular this SPD expands upon the spatial principle of creating a balanced housing market catering for a mixed income community with diverse needs, within a sustainable environment, supporting a thriving, safe and well connected neighbourhood.
The Core Spatial Strategy is yet to be adopted, and as such at this stage is only an indication of emerging considerations. In the absence of any adopted Development Plan Documents, the SPD must supplement existing local and structure plan policies. Detailed guidance on development sites brought forward through this and future phases therefore amplifies guidance contained in the following policies.
Saved policies from the Newcastle-under Lyme Local Plan 2011:
• H1: Residential Development - Sustainable Location and Protection of the Countryside • H3: Residential Development - Priority to Brownfield Sites • T16: Development: General Parking Requirements • C4: Open Space in New Housing Areas • N3: Development and Nature Conservation – Protection and Enhancement Measures • N4: Development and Nature Conservation – Use of Local Species • N8: Protection of Key Habitats • N12: Development and Protection of Trees • N17: Landscape Character – General Conditions • IM1: Provision of Essential Supporting Infrastructure and Community Facilities
Saved policies from the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011:
• D1: Sustainable Forms of Development • D2: The Design and Environmental Quality of Development • D3: Urban Regeneration • D7: Conserving Energy and Water • D8: Providing Infrastructure Services, Facilities and/or Mitigating Measures Associated with Development • T4: Walking • T5: Cycling
1.4 Strategic Vision
The strategic vision described below provides a concise statement of the key drivers of the SPD. It reflects the priorities of partners and takes into consideration the main issues and challenges which the area faces as described in Section 2.
5 To bring about transformational change in the Knutton & Cross Heath area through market-led regeneration by introducing new high quality housing, the remodelling of the existing estates incorporating new development and the upgrading of the wider public spaces and environment.
1.5 SPD Objectives
This vision for Knutton and Cross Heath should be achieved through the following objectives:
• The creation of a mixed community with a better balance between supply and demand for housing through the introduction of new house types and tenure options; • The provision of new affordable housing, particularly for first time buyers and low income groups; • The provision of high quality housing in an attractive environment with strong links to Newcastle town centre and Knutton High Street; • An improved sense of place and community pride; • The safeguarding and enhancement of the historic character of the area; • The creation of a safe infrastructure that minimises opportunities for criminal activity and reduces fear of crime; • The provision of high quality, accessible, open spaces that offer opportunities for recreation and nature conservation.
Developers will be expected to demonstrate that any new housing development will work to bring about a transformational change in the Knutton and Cross Heath area through the provision of high quality homes set within secure and aesthetically pleasing environments and an attractive landscape setting. It will be important to facilitate movement by establishing new links to community facilities, enhanced areas of open space, new improved cycle routes and neighbouring residential estates, to create genuinely integrated communities.
Any development proposals in the SPD area should be comprehensive and address the need for the whole-scale regeneration of the area.
6 Section 2: Characterisation
2.1 Knutton and Cross Heath
Knutton and Cross Heath is a largely residential area with substantial areas of open space, lying just over a mile to the north-west of Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre. It comprises a number of distinct inter-war and post-war housing estates which include a larger than average proportion of social rented stock. The area is largely characterised by low density, separated housing estates. There is little of architectural merit in the area, with the exception of older Victorian houses and shops centred around Knutton High Street. The broad location of shops and services here, along with that of Victorian properties recently refurbished under the Knutton Heritage scheme, is shown on figure 1.
Lower Milehouse Lane is the major route through the area but has few noteworthy buildings which address this important frontage, although a large number of mature trees help soften the visual impact of this busy road. The Extra Care and Health Centre adjacent to the Morrisons store, once built will form a local landmark, which will begin to raise the environmental quality both in terms of design and of sustainable development, see figures 1 and 13.
Despite lying within a relatively flat, low-lying area, the SPD area includes some impressive views to the wooded hills at Keele to the south-west, Apedale Country Park to the north and towards Newcastle town centre to the south-east, from which the church spires in the town centre are visible. Figure 1 includes an indication of these views, which are an important asset to be exploited in any development.
Despite including large areas of public open space, the area lacks a central focal point of good quality public realm.
2.2 Cross Heath
Cross Heath is bounded to the east by Liverpool Road (A34), to the south a former mineral railway line, now used as a footpath/cycleway, and on the western side is an area of open space known as the “Wammy”. These are shown in figures 2 – 4 respectively. To the north, separated from the remainder of Cross Heath by Lower Milehouse Lane, is situated the Meadows Estate.
INSERT FIGS 2-4 – PHOTOS OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, MINERAL LINE FOOTPATH, WAMMY.
Cross Heath is typified by inter-war semi detached properties on the periphery that are mainly owner- occupied, with social rented stock situated within the centre of the estate layout. The Meadows estate (see figure 5), is a thriving community, with a mix of privately owned and socially rented stock, generally in good repair. The majority of the Cross Heath estate was constructed in the 1940s and 1950s with little to differentiate between the various groups of dwellings that were constructed during this period, giving the area a monotonous feel. This is illustrated in figure 6. It is characterised by often narrow, straight estate roads with deep culs-de-sac. Many of the roads do not connect to Liverpool Road (A34) and accordingly form long dead-ends.
INSERT FIG 5 – PHOTO OF MEADOWS ESTATE
INSERT FIG 6 – E.G. OF 40S/50S HOUSING WITH NARROW ROAD
2.3 Knutton
The historic core of the area lies at Knutton, which has grown out of its location at a major road crossing. The mix of property type and style is representative of the mix of influences that have come together to make Knutton what it is today. Within its core it possesses a significant number of terraced properties th dating back to the mid 19 century, inter-war social housing, and a scattering of more modern properties.
7 The church, rectory and former primary school buildings all have some local historic and architectural character, and are shown in figures 7-8 respectively. Adjacent to the High Street to the east are pre-1919 terraced cottages that have recently undergone heritage refurbishment works (figure 9). To the west are privately developed housing estates built from the 1960s up to recent developments on Acacia Avenue that are less than five years old (figure 10). There are three inter-war ex-council estates to the south of the village centre (the tenure of the housing stock in these areas remains largely social-rented). The Moran Road, the Saints and Camillus Road estates are traditionally constructed semi-detached and terraced housing in varying states of repair. To the north east of the Village is a popular area of housing known as the Cotswold Estate (figure 11).
INSERT FIGS 7-8: PHOTOS OF CHURCH/ RECTORY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL
INSERT FIG 9: PHOTO OF HERITAGE WORKS
INSERT FIG 10: ACACIA AVENUE PHOTO
INSERT FIG 11: COTSWOLD ESTATE PHOTO
Knutton’s main focus is the High Street which is shown in figure 12. This presents a disjointed streetscene, detracting from the former village atmosphere. On the west side of the street, the Enterprise Centre and Recreation Centre are set back from the pavement and on the eastern side an old clearance site is in use as a car park. The consequential loss of spatial enclosure detracts from the otherwise urban village feel to the High Street. Indeed, the High Street plays an important role in providing a modest offer of shops and services to local residents
INSERT FIG12: HIGH ST/ REC CENTRE PHOTO
2.4 Development Site: Collins and Aikman Site
Between Cross Heath and Knutton, adjacent to the Wammy, is the site of substantial former industrial premises (most recently occupied by a company known as Collins & Aikman). This was acquired by the Government’s national regeneration agency, English Partnerships, and cleared in order to offer the potential for major new residentially-led development in the area.
Part of the site includes a new Health Centre and Extra Care Centre. The location of this is shown in figure 13. The remaining land under English Partnership ownership has outline consent for residential development for up to 160 dwellings, with all matters other than access to be determined through reserved matters.
8 Figure 13: Land Ownership/ Existing Permissions:
9
The former Collins and Aikman works, (4.93 hectares in sixe), is located at the brow of a hill on Lower Milehouse Lane. Between here and the Wammy lies a 2.97 hectare parcel of land previously owned by Ashtenne, and currently owned by Kier Ventures Ltd. Operation works were not carried out on the Kier land, which merely served as the car park and recreational land for the Collins and Aikman factory. The Kier land is part Brownfield, part Greenfield, but does offer some potential for redevelopment providing this is done in conjunction with the former Collins & Aikman site. Combining the sites has huge benefits in terms of enabling a comprehensive redevelopment of the area with improved pedestrian and cycle links to the Wammy and neighbouring residential areas. Both sites form an elevated area of relatively flat land in a mainly featureless area, apart from some areas of mature vegetation on their site boundaries. This vegetation is mostly located at the south eastern and eastern edges of the site.
2.5 Development Site: Lower Milehouse Estate
This inter-war estate is characterised by its crescent-shaped distributor road, from which a number of culs- de-sac are accessed. The housing is low-density with large rear gardens with some properties accessed to the rear from narrow vehicular accessways. Despite the estate benefiting from a number of regeneration initiatives in the past, including a “Homezone” treatment a few years ago, it remains highly stigmatised and unpopular because of social issues. Consequently Renew have begun clearance of approximately half the properties on the estate to pave the way for a comprehensive redevelopment scheme.
2.6 The “Wammy” Open Space
The Wammy (shown in figure 4), is a major area of open space situated between St Bernard’s Road and the Collins and Aikman site. It provides a wide sweep of open, grassed land running north-south through the area, incorporating several football pitches. It is of some general amenity value, and includes extensive vegetation on its western boundary, alongside which an unimproved cycle/ pedestrian link runs. On its southern boundary it is separated from college playing fields by a former mineral railway line which provides an important pedestrian and cycle route to Silverdale and the town centre. The northern edge is bounded by Lower Milehouse Lane, which segregates the Wammy from a large belt of open space beyond, which extends as far as Apedale Country Park to the north.
The open space to the north of Lower Milehouse Lane includes more sports pitches and a neighbourhood play facility adjacent to the Cotswold Estate. Beyond this the character of the open space is generally more natural and secluded with informal grass areas, wetland areas and an overgrown stream course in a cutting. A recently improved cycleway provides good linkages to the nearby Lymedale Business Park, the boundary of which is framed by a structural belt of landscaping. Access is also afforded to Apedale Community Country Park, which provides fine views of open countryside from many parts of the plan area.
10
3.0 GENERIC DESIGN GUIDANCE
3.1 Urban Design
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) publication in the year 2000 “By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System, Toward Better Practice” sets out a number of key design principles that are seen as critical to creating successful places for people to live and work in. These principles are embodied in CABE’s “Building for Life Standards” (2003) and “Creating Successful Neighbourhoods – lessons and actions for Housing Market Renewal” (2005). The SPD should also be read in conjunction with “ A Better Place to Live by Design – A Companion Design Guide to PPG3” which draws together the principles of good urban design as they relate to residential development as well as English Partnerships’ “Quality Standards” (November 2007) and “Design Codes” (September 2007).
Any development should aim to create an attractive, sustainable and inclusive place through a variety of contemporary homes within a framework of established urban design principles. All development proposals for Knutton and Cross Heath are expected to incorporate the following design principles in their development and design solutions:–
• Character : creating places that respond to locally distinctive and positive characteristics. A place where buildings clearly distinguish public and private places; currently the area lacks much positive character, although Knutton Village exhibits some character that can be built upon. • Continuity and enclosure: creating continuous street frontages and enclosures of space ensuring a clear distinction between private and public space. All development should relate to the surrounding area in terms of density, height, scale and massing. A strong frontage should be formed around a proposed public square, and on the edges of the development sites. • Quality of the public domain: creating safe, attractive and functional public spaces and routes for all users. The public realm environment needs to be of high quality. Developers will be expected to enter into agreements for the management of public space. Particular attention should be paid to the design of publicly accessible spaces to reduce the opportunity for crime and to reduce people’s fear of crime, for example, by ensuring properties front onto open space. • Ease of movement: A place that is easy to understand and move through, creating well connected and accessible places which put people before traffic. Development and redevelopment should create a place that is easy to get to and move through safely with obvious pedestrian links and good lighting. All development in the area should be permeable for pedestrians, cyclists and provide appropriate levels of vehicular access. The Manual for Streets, prepared by the Department of Transport/DCLG (2007) sets out the key design principles. • Legibility: creating places with a clear image, with recognisable routes, spaces and landmarks to help people find their way. Development and redevelopment should create a place that has a clear image and is easy to understand. • Adaptability: creating places that can change easily and respond to economic and social changes. • Diversity: creating viable mixed use places that respond to local needs and provide easy access to a wide range of facilities. Development and redevelopment should create a place with variety and choice. A true mix of uses is required that will ensure activity throughout the day and in the evening. This will encourage safety and vitality. • Sustainability: the need for accommodating sustainable design principles flows through all the above principles.
Section 4 of this document sets out detailed principles for the development sites identified as Phase 1 of the SPD.
11 4.0 KEY DEVELOPMENT SITES
4.1 Collins and Aikman Site.
(a) Issues and Opportunities
At present, the SPD area suffers from isolated estates with poor links between them. The communities of Knutton and Cross Heath are not linked well enough to each other. The Collins and Aikman site as shown in figure 13, provides an opportunity to improve this and to enable wide reaching regeneration benefits. These include benefits to residents of Cross Heath in terms of improved access to the Wammy and existing cycle and pedestrian links to Lymedale Cross Industrial Estate and the town centre. Meanwhile, for residents of Knutton, greater accessibility by non car modes to the existing Morrison’s superstore and recently approved Health Centre could be achieved.
To fully realise these opportunities, it is essential that development of the site proceeds in a comprehensive manner that enables good connectivity both within the neighbourhood and with adjoining areas, through all modes of movement. Ideally this should be through the development of both parcels of land that are currently under separate ownership. Where this is not feasible, development of individual sites should not preclude future opportunities for direct links to the Wammy.
The area currently lacks a coherent community space. To some extent this can be addressed through improvements to accessibility and the function of the Wammy. At present this is an underused facility that if incorporated correctly, can provide important recreation opportunities for the development and wider community.
In addition opportunities exist within a comprehensive redevelopment of the site for some public realm works in the form of a hard landscaped space that can form both a visual and movement link through the site to the Wammy. This will help give any development its own identity and sense of place, necessary to ensure a high quality design and environment.
Urban Design Response
(b) Development Capacity
Planning Consent 07/127/OUT has established that up to 160 new dwellings can be provided (in addition to the Extra Care units already under construction), on the English Partnerships land identified in figure 13. As detailed schemes are drawn up, it may be possible to incorporate additional units provided it does not result in overdevelopment of the site. Indeed it is the Council’s aspiration that a comprehensive scheme covering land currently under separate ownerships is brought forward to ensure wider benefits. The total development capacity of the site will be dependent on a number of factors, namely:
• The need to be a neighbourly development; i.e. to sit comfortably within surrounding estates; • The capacity of Lower Milehouse Lane as identified in any Transport Assessments; • The need to retain any important landscape features, particularly those existing along the south- eastern and western edges of the site; • The need to incorporate access across the site to the Wammy; • The need to make provision for public realm works; • The need to exploit views important views from within the estate; • The need to make provision for secure car and cycle parking; • The need to address access and storage requirements related to refuse collection and recycling;
These factors will need to be addressed in a Design and Access statement that accompanies any planning application.
12
Developers should be aware that the eventual development capacity of the site may have implications in terms of pressure on existing schools in the vicinity. As such developer contributions to education may be sought as established by the Borough Council’s adopted Developer Contributions SPD.
(b) Housing Mix
One of the key aims of this SPD, in line with the aims of Renew, is to provide a greater mix of housing types and tenures in the area. A rich diversity of housing types including detached and semi detached housing, starter homes and apartments, is required. This will help provide a range of family and starter home accommodation and widen choice.
The provisions of the current planning permission for the English Partnerships owned land requires 25 Social Rented units and 22 Shared Ownership units to be provided as part of the development. Where there is a net increase in the number of dwellings proposed, 25% of additional dwellings provided should be affordable, in accordance with the Council’s general practice.
All affordable units should be constructed to Housing Corporation development standards, and to an agreed specification no less favourable than the open market dwellings. They should be pepper potted to ensure the estate is tenure blind, and promote social inclusion.
(c) Layout and Design
In layout terms, the development should seek to conform to the principles of “Manual for Streets” (Dept. of Transport/ DCLG) by addressing Lower Milehouse Lane, the internal access road jointly serving the Health Centre/ Extra Care Scheme, and the open space at the Wammy.
A higher density built form should be sited closest to the recently permitted Health Centre/ Extra Care Scheme in order to respect heights of those buildings currently under construction. This is expected to include 3 storey apartments and town houses. The detailed design will need to respect and integrate with these buildings, which include an outside pedestrian public area made up of hard landscaping and formal planting, as well as, associated access, roadway, and car parking.
The development of the area should back onto the south-eastern boundary of the site to provide a secure boundary to existing housing in Tynwald Grange and Ronaldsway Drive. Any new development along this boundary with Tynwald Grange should be low-rise to avoid overlooking of adjacent residential properties. Wherever possible existing landscaping in this area should be retained. Due to its prominence, secure, attractive boundary treatment should be provided, and a reinforced ‘landscaped strip’ can make a positive contribution towards this. Close-boarded fencing to this boundary is unacceptable.
The interface between the dwellings and the multi use games area, off Douglas Road, should be carefully considered. The space needs to benefit from natural surveillance without being a nuisance to residents. Close-boarded fencing to this boundary is also unacceptable.
At its western boundary, the site adjoins the Wammy. The change in levels here makes the development site highly prominent. A strong development that gives this important boundary presence and definition is therefore required. Housing should present an attractive primary elevation to this boundary and include excellent opportunities for natural surveillance. Landscaping treatment here is important to assist the integration of the development and provide amenity benefit to any new housing and enhance views from St Bernard’s Road. For these reasons it is important that there is an attractive and safe landscape belt which works to enhance the existing informal landscaping of naturalised trees and hedges.
At key corners within the development site, taller “feature units” should be provided to help “turn corners” and create focal points in the street. A “feature” building could be provided at the corner of the former
13 industrial land adjoining Lower Milehouse Lane and the Wammy, to give the new development presence and provide a focal point in the area. This is particularly important at the junction with the new access road and Lower Milehouse Lane. Corner blocks should be treated with continuous active frontages and not present blank gables. Where dwellings adjoin the Wammy, or indeed any other public areas including footpaths / cycleways, their front elevations must face onto the public space. This will maximise opportunities for natural surveillance in the interests of designing out crime. Furthermore, for these purposes, all footpaths/ cycleways should be well lit, and where possible rear gardens should interlock.
Developers will need to provide justification for their design proposals as part of a Design and Access Statement, but it is envisaged that housing will largely be arranged around courtyards and shared surface mews lanes allowing for access and ample parking to the rear of properties. This will enable secure parking and prevent the street scene being dominated by the private car. Streets should be designed through the development to respect the building layouts and encourage low vehicular speeds through the careful use of materials, planting and appropriate street furniture. They will also need to provide appropriate access for waste collection vehicles. In this respect developers are urged to contact the Council’s Operational Services Team at an early stage as possible in the planning stage.
The design of houses should be contemporary, of high quality and avoid the use of standard (“any place”) product designs. Innovative designs that reflect the character of the local area in terms of design features and materials (including the new Health and Extra Care Scheme), and address current best practice in sustainable design will be welcomed. Furthermore, it is expected that proposals seek to optimise important views from within the estate, for example to Apedale Country Park.
In terms of the specification of properties, developers are encouraged to meet ‘Lifetime Homes’ standard, ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ rating of at least 3 stars (equal to EcoHomes rating of Very Good), and CABE ‘Building for Life’ Silver standard at least. These are all in the interests of achieving an attractive and marketable development. Further details can be found on the websites referred to at the end of this document.
Where feasible, developers are also encouraged to make provision for renewable energy on site, in the interests of sustainable development.
The Borough Council is strongly committed to recycling, which has implications in terms of the layout of any scheme. Provision should be made for the convenient location of 2 wheelie bins (of up to 240 litre capacity each), and a 55 litre box plus 2/3 sacks per dwelling. Where apartments are proposed, communal storage is envisaged, but these should be attractively screened or sited in inconspicuous locations.
(d) Public Realm - New Community Square
High quality public realm will be an important element of the development in terms of achieving a distinctive sense of place. Developers should bring forward plans for a new ‘community square’ to act as an important focal point as part of their proposals. Public art is desirable and could be an important element of the scheme.
The community square should be well integrated into developer’s proposals, and considered early in the design process. It should be safe, well overlooked, serve a clear purpose, and be well maintained. To offer flexibility, it is not considered suitable to prescribe a specific location for the square, but any proposals should improve access across the site to and from the Wammy, as well as facilitating pedestrian and cycle movement across the housing scheme.
Street furniture, including lighting, paving materials and soft landscape works should be of a high quality, appropriate to the character of the scheme and its surroundings, and designed to minimise visual clutter and obstructions for users.
14 (e) Transport and Accessibility
In general, the location and design of development proposals should deliver a “Sustainable Movement Network” that provides a seamless network of walking, cycling, pedestrian and public transport along major routes by:
• Enabling ease of access to, around and within, the scheme for all potential users; • Making adequate provision for the site to be accessed via the existing road network, footpaths and cycleways, public transportation services; • Incorporating appropriate and conveniently located facilities that address the needs of potential user groups; • Incorporating satisfactory servicing arrangements for the storage and collection of recyclable waste and general waste; • Minimising the extent to which users feel at risk from crime by: - enabling natural surveillance of public and car parking areas; - distinguishing clearly between public and private spaces, - maximising the extent to which spaces are controlled (or perceived to be controlled) by occupiers; • Improving the quality of the long distance cycle routes and footpaths through the area.
Traffic management measures will be required to enhance the amenity of adjacent residential areas and the activities generated by the open spaces and associated community facilities. The detail of such measures will be informed by a Transport Assessment for the area.
The former industrial land will be accessed from Lower Milehouse Lane, with a new junction that serves the Health Centre/ Extra Care Centre. This will be in accordance with planning permission ref 07/127/OUT. To ensure a clearly legible highway system and the efficient use of land, and to facilitate the comprehensive development of the site, all vehicular access to the site should be gained from this junction.
The development should enable stronger pedestrian and cycle links through the site from Cross Heath to the Wammy. In line with the Department for Transports Manual for Streets, where provided, such links should be direct, well overlooked, well lit, and at least 3 metres in width. The siting of any such routes will also need careful consideration in terms of minimising removal of important landscape and habitat features.
The former mineral railway line at the Wammy now forms an important pedestrian/ cycle link as highlighted in figure 1. To maximise its use and function this should be upgraded to a similar level to the recently improved pedestrian/ cycleway to the north (also shown on figure 1). In line with the Council’s Developer Contributions SPD, developer contributions towards this improvement will be required.
Developers are also expected to make provision for a new pedestrian/ cycle link through the development site onto Douglas Road in the interests of improving access across the wider area. As with the link to the Wammy, this should be direct, well lit, and at least 3 metres in width. It should be sited to enable the retention of the existing Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP).
As set out in section (c) Layout and Design, car parking should be provided in rear courtyards or set back to the sides of dwellings to reduce the visual impact of frontage and on-street parking. Spaces should relate clearly to the properties they serve for security purposes. Some detached and semi-detached dwellings may incorporate off-street (front drive) parking where this harmonises with the general estate layout, but a dominance of hardstanding driveways should be avoided due to the implications this has on flood risk; i.e. lack of opportunities for surface water run off. Some limited on-street parking will be designed into the street layout to meet the needs of residents/ visitors but also to act as a traffic calming feature, particularly for mews-type lanes. However, care will be needed to ensure this does not restrict access for refuse collection and emergency services.
15 The level of car parking should not exceed standards outlined in Local Plan policy T16: General Parking Requirements. This is set at: 1 space plus 1 visitor space per 3 dwellings for 1 bedroom dwellings. 2 spaces per 2/3 bedroom dwellings. 3 spaces per 4 bedroom dwellings.
It should be noted that these figures are a maximum, and given the site’s sustainable location close to the town centre and community facilities, lower levels of provision may be acceptable where sufficient commitment has been made to encouraging more sustainable modes of travel.
In the interests of encouraging sustainable modes of travel, where apartments are proposed, secure covered cycle parking will be required at a rate of 1 space per unit.
It is likely that development proposals will require financial contributions towards public transport improvements and developers’ attention is drawn to the forthcoming Newcastle-under-Lyme Transport and Development Strategy. Requirements will be informed by a Transport Assessment, which will need to accompany any planning application.
(f) Landscape/Ecology
The site interior is largely cleared of existing planting. However some landscaping cover of merit including mature trees does exist on the perimeters of the site, and as such a Tree Survey will need to accompany any planning application. Wherever possible existing landscaping should be retained and supplemented, and seek to promote a rural parkland setting. A landscape belt providing a noise buffer to the Morrison’s superstore service area is required.
A green environment should be sought throughout the site through the provision of new landscaping. This is particularly important in the context of a proposed pedestrian/ cycle links through the site, which have the potential to act as wildlife corridor linking to the Wammy and other areas beyond.
Where provided, new landscaping should seek to use native species characteristic of the locality. The advice of the Council’s landscape team should be sought as part of pre-application discussions. Contact details are provided in section 5.
An ecology statement must accompany any development proposals and be prepared in accordance with Natural England’s requirements. To ensure biodiversity is protected and that there is no net loss in the area of protected habitats, compensation habitat areas need to be provided and managed on nearby open spaces, where it is not possible to adequately mitigate as part of on-site ecological mitigation.
(g) Open Space
As identified in the Urban Green Space Strategy for North Staffordshire, open space is well provided for within the general area, although quality does need upgrading. This is particularly true of the Wammy, which is currently sub-standard and of little community value. Improvements to its accessibility and function are key to the wider regeneration of the Knutton and Cross Heath in terms of providing opportunities for recreation, social interaction, and improving residents’ sense of well-being. A key element of this SPD is therefore improving links to the Wammy, and in addition developer contributions will be sought towards its creation as a neighbourhood park. For this reason the provision of a play area in the scheme is not required.
(h) Flood Risk
16 A Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment undertaken for Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough in 2007 has identified that there are surface drainage problems within the SPD area. Any planning application for the site should therefore be accompanied by a specific Flood Risk Assessment.
The Environment Agency has stated that basic infrastructure serving the redevelopment sites may be seriously compromised by the increasing impact of climate change. Developers should therefore contact Severn Trent Water Ltd for further information with regard to the capacity of the public mains storm sewer system, which should have at least a 1 in 30 year rainfall event capacity. New developments should incorporate a drainage system with a capacity to cater for a 1 in 100 year rainfall plus 30% rainfall event in accordance with current national planning guidance contained in PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk.
Given identified surface drainage problems in the area, developers should incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems into the development including the use of porous pavements, soakaways, swales, infiltration devices and storage basins/ ponds. Such proposals will enable the disposal of surface water as close to the surface as possible, before it enters a watercourse. As discussed earlier, wide scale provision of hardstanding driveways with no permeability should be avoided on flood risk grounds.
As a general principle, new developments should seek to create open watercourses instead of new culverts in order to minimise flood risk and improve biodiversity.
It should be noted that it is a requirement of the existing permission on the site that surface water is limited by means of an underground storage tank of 615m3 in order to limit surface water run-off to 100 litres per second before discharging to Ashfield Brook.
4.2 Lower Milehouse Estate
(a) Issues and Opportunities
The Lower Milehouse Estate is generally one of low density housing, characteristic of inter-war and post- war Local Authority estates, with traditionally semi-detached housing with generous front and rear gardens. The partial clearance of this estate provides a unique opportunity for remodelling to create a new family environment with a mix of residential property types and tenures and where the ‘stigma’ related to physical and visual aspects of the established estate will be totally removed. The vision is for a sustainable extension to the existing estate with strong urban design principles. Any layout must be carefully integrated with the existing properties to create a coherent whole.
The area presents good opportunities to establish new links with the surrounding open space and countryside beyond. A high quality public realm incorporating a new neighbourhood play facility together will environmental improvements, which raise the residential amenity for all neighbouring properties, should form an important element of the development strategy.
The site contains an extensive area of unmaintained grassland which currently functions as an informal amenity area and buffer between residential properties and the Lymedale Business Park. This space offers great opportunities for supporting nature conservation to both promote biodiversity and enrich the quality of life of all residents.
Developers should be aware that the final development may have implications in terms of pressure on existing schools in the vicinity. As such developer contributions to education may be sought. This requirement is set out in more detail in the Council’s adopted Developer Contributions SPD, 2007.
Urban Design Response:
17 In order to address the issues and opportunities referred to above, a number of broad design principles should be followed. Figure 14 displays these. Greater detail of what is required, and justification of why, is provided below. All proposals will need to be clearly justified in a Design and Access statement.
(b) Development Capacity and Layout
Consistent with government requirements for efficient use of land, and respecting the suburban character of the site, a development density of 30-40 dwellings per hectare is required. It is felt that this allows flexibility to encourage the creation of a mixed family community with a unique sense of place.
The arrangement of the development should create an organic feel that will integrate well with the surrounding context and allow for greater permeability through the site, particularly for pedestrians. Culs- de-sac should be avoided. Corners should be well articulated and visual interest and variety provided throughout. The layout of the housing should ensure the vehicular and pedestrian routes are overlooked and the inclusion of blank gables within the estate should be avoided. Where possible back gardens should interlock and not back onto footpaths or areas of open space.
The urban form along the western boundary should relate and respond to the wider landscape beyond the site by opening up the urban form where density is less to ensure better connectivity to these areas of existing informal open space. However the interface between dwellings and this space will also need to be carefully considered to promote natural surveillance and to avoid compromising the security of residents.
The existing access to the site should be maintained as shown in figure 14. Consideration should be given to the provision of a work of public art in this area to act as a focal point and contribute to the character and interest at this key gateway.
In the interests of energy efficiency, any layout should pay special regard to the need to maximise potential solar gain.
Views out to rural areas and the town centre identified in figure 1 can help contribute to a sense of place. Where such views exist, exploiting these should form a key aspect of any design proposals.
The Borough Council is strongly committed to recycling. This will have implications on the development capacity, and eventual layout of any scheme. Provision should be made for the convenient location of 2 wheelie bins (of up to 240 litre capacity each), and a 55 litre box plus 2/3 sacks per dwelling. These must be well sited and not add to the visual clutter. Where apartments are proposed, well screened communal storage is envisaged. The layout should maintain good access to facilitate waste collection.
(c) Housing Mix and Design
In the interests of creating a mixed community, and consistent with Renew’s aims, a range of house types is required. The buildings should largely be domestic in scale with the majority of properties consisting of 3-4 bedroom family houses, but an element of 2 bedroom bungalows and 1-2 bedroom apartments should also be provided.
18 Figure 14: Design Principles for Lower Milehouse Lane:
19
Affordable Housing
Developers should include an element of affordable housing within their proposals. In line with the Borough Council’s current practice (being enshrined in the Affordable Housing SPD) this should be set at a level of 25% of all dwellings proposed. Given the over dominance of social rented housing in the area, 10% should be provided as aspirational housing in the form of shared ownership schemes. To truly integrate into the development, affordable housing should be pepper potted to ensure the estate is tenure blind. The units are to be constructed to Housing Corporation development standards, and to an agreed specification no less favourable than the open market dwellings, in order to promote social inclusion.
Scale, Height and Massing
The buildings should largely be domestic in scale consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraces and apartments. Heights will be either two or three storey. Three story units should be located at key nodes and the Lower Milehouse Lane gateway. In this location it is important that the built form presents a strong frontage and respects the building heights of the Health Centre and Extra Care scheme on the southern side of Lower Milehouse lane. Bungalows should be provided in the centre of the site away from any apartments to avoid overlooking. Figure 14 illustrates these design principles visually.
Design Standards
Developers are encourage to meet ‘Lifetime Homes’ standard, through the incorporation of design features on issues such as access and internal specification etc to ensure dwellings are adaptable to changing living conditions.
In the interests of providing an attractive and marketable development, and to improve the choice and quality of housing in the area, housing should be designed to the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ rating of at least 3 stars [equal to an EcoHomes rating of Very Good]. The development should also aim to attain the CABE “Building for Life” Silver Standard at least, and should aspire to Gold Standard wherever possible.
The design of the houses should raise design standards and especially avoid the use of standard (“any place”) product designs. Innovative designs that reflect the character/vernacular of the local area, both in terms of materials and design features, will be welcomed.
(d) Public Realm
High quality treatment of outdoor areas will be an important element of the development of the area. Street furniture, paving materials and soft landscape works will work to create a place with distinctive character but which has strong visual connections with the surroundings, and serve to reduce vehicular speed, minimise visual clutter and obstructions for pedestrians. Developers will be required to put forward appropriate measures for the maintenance of public areas.
The approach to landscaping should seek opportunities to enhance and create natural wildlife habitats and promote biodiversity.
20 (e) Transport and Accessibility
The development needs a clearly defined road hierarchy which promotes legibility and place making. There should be a clear delineation between primary, secondary and tertiary routes through the site. Main vehicular access to the site will be as existing. Each road should have development of an appropriate scale and form, and the hierarchy should be clearly legible. However the design of the built form and spaces should take precedence over the design of highways. Furthermore the street layout should naturally calm traffic speeds without requiring engineering features.
A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle routes are provided within the vicinity of the site. The development must provide connections into these.
Consistent with guidance contained in the Department for Transports Manual for Streets, any pedestrian/ cycle links should be direct, well lit, overlooked, and at least 3 metres in width.
In the interests of comprehensive redevelopment, it is important that good pedestrian access is provided to the Collins and Aikman site on the southern side of Lower Milehouse lane. This will ensure residents of the Lower Milehouse estate have easy access to community facilities such as the proposed Health Centre and existing Morrison’s superstore.
Car Parking
The level of car parking should reflect both government guidance and the SPD’s aspirations for sustainability. Spaces should be provided in a variety of ways and avoid the dominance of private cars on the street scene. Access and parking to the rear of properties can be an effective in minimising the dominance of cars on the street scene, whilst the provision of private garages is beneficial in security terms. Where cars cannot be stored within the curtilage of a dwelling, they should be located close to the properties they serve and well overlooked. The principles of English Partnerships toolkit for “Car Parking: What Works Where” should be taken into account in the design and layout of parking areas. The siting of car parking will need to take account of access requirements to the estate for refuse collection and the emergency services.
Car parking provision should not exceed standards outlined in Local Plan policy T16: General Parking Requirements. This is set at: 1 space plus 1 visitor space per 3 dwellings for 1 bedroom dwellings. 2 spaces per 2/3 bedroom dwellings. 3 spaces per 4 bedroom dwellings.
It should be noted that these figures are a maximum, and given the sites sustainable location close to the town centre and community facilities, lower levels of provision may be acceptable where sufficient commitment has been made to encouraging more sustainable modes of travel. In the interests of encouraging sustainable modes of travel, where apartments are proposed, secure covered cycle parking will be requested at a rate of 1 space per unit.
Developer Contributions
It is likely that development proposals will require financial contributions towards public transport improvements and developers’ attention is drawn to the forthcoming Newcastle-under-Lyme Transport and Development Strategy. Requirements will need to be informed by a Transport Assessment, which should accompany any planning application.
(f) Landscape/Ecology
21 The Green Space Strategy for Urban North Staffordshire (Scott Wilson September 2007) identifies the green spaces within Newcastle and in particular Knutton and Cross Heath as a major defining feature of the area. They serve a range of functions and it is important that new residential developments not only preserve existing green spaces but maximise their benefit through the provision of good links. The creation of such links should involve the minimal removal of mature trees and to demonstrate accordance with this, a tree survey should accompany any planning application.
An important strip of informal open space exists to the north east of the estate. This helps form a noise buffer from the Lymedale Cross Industrial Estate as shown in figure 14, and must be retained. Additional tree and shrub planting should be provided to strengthen the noise buffer and support the creation of a new wildlife habitat. Developers should also upgrade the existing informal footpath highlighted in figure 14, in order to preserve desired routes. Structural landscaping to the rear of any property boundaries will be required to create a secure environment. Where provided this should be of native species.
Landscaping proposals will need to be considered carefully to avoid providing opportunities for concealment in the interests of designing out crime. The Borough Council’s landscape team should be contacted at the pre-applications stage to advise on appropriate species. Contact details are provided in section 5.
Any planning application for the site will need to be accompanied by an Ecology Mitigation Strategy in accordance with Natural England’s requirements to protect and extend biodiversity in the area. This should ensure there is no net loss of habitat. It is expected that the retention and enhancement of this area of natural vegetation, as highlighted in figure 14, form a key aspect of any Ecology Mitigation Strategy.
(g) Open Space and Play Areas
Existing play equipment on the Lower Milehouse Estate is currently in an isolated location towards the northern boundary, with little clear relationship to surrounding properties. Its location can be seen on figure 1. As part of redevelopment proposals this should be removed and upgraded to form a Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play in the centre of the site. The space should be safe, overlooked, secure, and well linked to the whole estate. The broad location of where it should be sited is shown in figure 14.
The Urban Green Space Strategy for North Staffordshire identified a high level of open space provision in the area, but deficit in quality. To this end, developer contributions will be required to upgrade the Wammy to supports its role as a new neighbourhood park.
22 (h) Flood Risk
A Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment undertaken for Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough in 2007 has identified that there are surface drainage problems within the Knutton and Cross Heath area. Any planning application for the site should therefore be accompanied by a specific Flood Risk Assessment.
The Environment Agency has stated that basic infrastructure serving the redevelopment sites may be seriously compromised as a result of the increasing impact of climate change. Developers should therefore contact Severn Trent Water Ltd for further information with regard to the capacity of the public mains storm sewer system, which should have at least a 1 in 30 year rainfall event capacity. Provision will need to be made for a drainage system with a capacity to cater for a 1 in 100 year rainfall plus 30% rainfall event, in accordance with current national planning guidance contained in PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk.
Given the identified surface drainage problems in the area, developers should as far as ground conditions allow incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems into the development including the use of porous pavements, soakaways, swales, infiltration devices and storage basins/ ponds. Such proposals will facilitate the disposal of surface water as close to the surface as possible, before it enters a watercourse. As discussed earlier, wide scale provision of hardstanding driveways with no permeability should be avoided on flood risk grounds. As a general principle, the aim should be to create open watercourses instead of new culverts in order to minimise flood risk and create opportunities to enhance biodiversity.
23
5 Other Information
The SPD has been prepared in partnership with a range of stakeholders and has been through extensive formal consultation in line with statutory requirements. It has also been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal to ensure the implementation of the SPD will have positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes for the area.
The SPD phase 1 now forms part of the Borough Councils Local Development Framework, and will be a material consideration for planning applications for the 2 development sites outlined within. Further guidance will be produced for future phases of the SPD area and these will be subject to the same rigours of community consultation.
Further information can be obtained from the Council’s website (www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk), including the accompanying Sustainability Report to the SPD.
Further information about Housing Market Renewal can be obtained from RENEW North Staffordshire’s website: www.renewnorthstaffs.gov.uk
Other useful links for information are: www.cabe.org.uk www.buildingforlife.org www.breeam.org www.lifetimehomes.gov.uk
24 Contacts
• Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council: Planning Policy – Sean Walsh 01782 742467
• Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council: Development Control – Peter Rowley 01782 742408
• Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council: Landscape Team – Roger Tait 01782 742634
• RENEW North Staffordshire: Programme Manager - Debbie Hope 01782 237822
• Aspire Housing: Darren Green 01782 635200
• Knutton & Cross Heath Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder: Laurence Reardon 01782 611033
• Staffordshire County Council: Newcastle-under-Lyme Partnership Officer : Tim Leese 07814 372627
Liability The Council can accept no liability for any information supplied in this document and developers are strongly advised to satisfy themselves as to the prevailing circumstances in respect of any potential development site.
25
APPENDIX ‘B’ (Cream paper) KNUTTON & CROSS HEATH SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
PUBLIC CONSULTATION STATEMENT
1. Introduction
1.1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (Regulation 17) state that before a local Planning Authority adopt a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) they must prepare a statement setting out: the names of any persons the authority consulted in connection with the preparation of the SPD; how the persons were consulted; a summary of the main issues raised in these consultations and how these have been addressed in the SPD.
1.2 The Government’s Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) requires that the consultation arrangements for SPDs be set out in the local planning authority’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) but as a minimum the authority should:
• Make the Supplementary Planning Document available for inspection at their principal office and other public places, together with any supporting documents which will help to understand what they are being asked to comment on; • Place the same documents on their website; • Send a copy to the Government Office if the Government Office has asked to see it; • Send a copy to any other bodies referred to in Regulation 17 (3), and • Advertise in a local newspaper when and where the documents can be inspected; • Ensure that adequate publicity is given to the documents.
2. The Consultation Process
2.1 A six week consultation programme was carried out on a draft version th of the Supplementary Planning Document from 18 February 2008 to st 31 March 2008 An information event also took place on Thursday 26 June to update residents on the results of the formal consultation proposed and amendments to the SPD. Copies of the draft SPD were distributed to the following:
th • Ward Members and County Council Ward Member 18 Feb -23 Feb • Paul Farrelly MP
1
• Senior Staff in relevant Council Divisions, including Development Control, Housing Strategy, Environmental Health and Landscape th th 18 Feb – 7 March 2008 • Partners/Stakeholders including Aspire Housing, English Partnerships, RENEW North Staffordshire, Bellway Homes, Urban Vision North Staffs, CABE, Knutton and Cross Heath NMP, Police Architectural Officer, Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, Sport England, Staffs Wildlife Trust, Morrisons plc, AWM, Staffs County Council, English Partnerships. • The Community in the SPD area by letter 18.2.2008, an advert in the “Sentinel” 21.2,2008 and press release by Aspire Housing 22.2.2008.
2.2 A Sustainability Appraisal was prepared alongside this Supplementary Planning Document. The Sustainability Appraisal process has enabled the social, economic and environmental impacts of the SPD to be evaluated. The Sustainability Appraisal informed persons wishing to make representations on the SPD of the likely impacts the options will have.
2.3 Consultees were invited to make representations by returning the supplied comments forms to Planning Policy at the Council Offices or to the Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder offices in Knutton or by email. The draft SPD document was also made available on the Council’s web site, along with a summary and a comments sheet for downloading and returning.
2.4 Section 7 lists in summary the comments received as a result of the public consultation and outlines the main issues raised by the comments. Proposed amendments to the draft SPD are shown.
2
3. Consultation Events:
18.2.2008 Knutton & Brief the Ward General support for the Cross Heath Members on the main document. Request Members principles of the draft that the adjacent Briefing SPD and programme Sports Village of consultation. proposals are also consulted upon. Highway improvements in the area to be made available as part of the consultation programme. Improve the surface of the former railway lines in the SPD area through developer contributions. Knutton Bowling Green should be retained if possible. New play areas should be carefully located and existing ones improved.
20.2.2008 Knutton & Consult members of General support for the Cross Heath the NMP on the draft draft SPD. Neighbourhood SPD Particular issues raised Management regarding drainage Pathfinder capacity in the area – Stronger possible fractured Communities sewer at end of Weston Group Close. Concern over level of traffic that could be generated by the development proposals – adding to an already congested area. Mixed views on the Douglas Road vehicular link. Concern over the level of dirt on the roads in the area resulting from existing and proposed development. Residents should be involved in the naming of the new roads – dislike of the name “Mill Rise “for the new Extra Care scheme.
3
21. 2. 2008 Knutton & Brief members of the General Support for the Cross Heath group on the draft SPD. Lead SPD including main Issues raised – no Developer development support for any “high Steering Group principles, rise” development. Mixed views on proposed vehicular link to Douglas Road. Concerns over the level of new housing for Lower Milehouse Estate. Flooding issues raised.
23.2.2008 Community Public Consultation (see separate table Consultation events held at 2 below for comments Open Day venues – Ramsey received) Road and Knutton Community Centre on the SPD development principles/ Bellway indicative layouts and house types, Sports Village layout proposals and planned highway improvements in the area.
29.2.2008 CABE/ North To consult CABE and Issues raised over the Staffs Urban the Design & process undertaken- Vision Design Heritage Group on why being undertaken & Heritage the design principles in a phased approach, Group of the SPD. why not one overall consultation. masterplan for the area?
4.3.2008 Poplar Avenue Consult the Poplar Issues raised were Residents Avenue Residents potential traffic Association Association on the resulting from the SPD proposals as it developments, impacts upon this opposition to the part of the SPD area. proposed link road to Douglas Road, a request to see bungalows built as part of the new developments.
4
13.3.2008 Knutton Consult the Knutton Issues raised were Residents’ Residents’ potential traffic Association Association on the resulting from the SPD proposals as it developments. impacts upon this part of the SPD area.
26.06.2008 Local Provide update on Issues raised were Residents Council’s response to height of properties and consultation process positioning of and changes to SPD bungalows around play area on Lower Milehouse Estate.
4.0 Comments Received, Council’s Response and Actions Required.
4.1 A total of 23 responses were received from the community and external organisations. A summary of each point made along with the Council’s responses and any resulting amendments to the SPD, are set out below. Names of individuals making comments have not been included except where they are from elected Members.
Comment Council’s Action Required Response Cllr D Huckfield
Knutton Recreation It is the Council’s Accepted. No change Centre bowling green intention that the required as this phase should remain as it is in Knutton bowling green of the SPD focuses on the event of any future should remain within the guidance specific to the redevelopment of this site, including an area Lower Milehouse Estate site for housing. for parking and some and Collins and Aikman form of pavilion. site. Knutton Recreation Centre will be covered in a future phase of the SPD.
The SPD needs to Noted. Addition of reference to ensure that the role of retail uses on Knutton Knutton Village as a High Street in paragraph retail centre is retained 2.6 and on newly and reinforced. inserted context plan of the SPD area.
Resident, Cemetery Road
More parking required Cemetery Road falls Insertion of clearer for Cemetery Road. outside of the SPD reference to phase 1 area. The requirements for
5
impact of developments developers to provide at Lower Milehouse Traffic Impact Estate and on the Assessments as part of Collins and Aikman site any planning application on parking at Cemetery in detailed guidance on Road is likely to be Lower Milehouse Estate negligible, but this will and Collins and Aikman. be examined in the Traffic Impact Assessments accompanying any planning application. Where an increase in pressure is identified, suitable remedial measures will need to be put forward.
Support for proposed Following consultation Replacement of Douglas Road link road. with Staffordshire references to vehicular County Council, access to Douglas Road proposals for a new link with requirements for road at Douglas Road improved pedestrian have been deemed and cycle links. unacceptable on highway grounds. It is therefore now proposed that a link be created for pedestrians and cyclists.
Resident, Wilmot Drive
Support for Douglas See response to See response to Road link road. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, comments above. Road, comments above.
Disagrees with any new New play areas will be No change to SPD play areas in the new an integral part of the required. housing areas. new community, and will be needed to meet the increase in children numbers in the area. Their siting will be carefully considered to ensure they do not become hubs for antisocial behaviour through matters such as increasing natural surveillance.
6
Disagrees with mix of In line with national No change to SPD house types. government guidance, a required. mix of house types is required in new developments in the interests of creating a mixed community. This is also consistent with Renew North Staffordshire’s aspirations for the area.
Support for Provision for Further detail provided pedestrian/cycle links. pedestrians and cyclists of requirements for is important in pedestrian/ cycle access encouraging people to to Douglas Road, and use sustainable modes for upgrading of existing of travel, improving facilities along the health, and minimising Wammy. traffic and parking issues. Wherever possible, new links will be explored.
Resident, St Bernard’s Road
Concern over traffic Any planning application See response to congestion in the area, will be accompanied by Resident, Cemetery especially Lower a Traffic Impact Road, comments above. Milehouse Lane. Assessment to identify likely impacts of development on existing highway network, and outlining mitigation measures where required.
Support for Douglas See response to See response to Road link road. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, comments above. Road, comments above.
Objects to any 4 storey The SPD does not Additional detail to buildings. envisage high rise section on Lower development. However Milehouse Estate some apartments up to regarding design and 3 storeys high are layout; including matters expected along the such as acceptable
7
Lower Milehouse Lane building heights, frontage to respect the orientation, materials, height of the new extra respect for care scheme, and also surroundings. contribute towards a mixed community.
Object to use of modern It is important that new See above. design in development. developments sit comfortably within their surroundings. Modern designs completely out of character with the area will be avoided.
Area needed to bring Noted. The SPD has Clearer references in Knutton and Cross been produced to detailed design Heath together. ensure development in guidance to need to the area takes place in provide pedestrian and a comprehensive cycle links through manner, which improves development sites onto links between Knutton adjacent open space. and Cross Heath.
Resident, Hempstalls Lane
Support for improved/ See response to See response to new cycleways. Resident, Wilmot Drive, Resident, Wilmot Drive, above. above.
Concern over See response to See response to congestion on Lower Resident, St Bernard’s Resident, St Bernard’s Milehouse Lane. Road, above. Road above.
Support Douglas Road See response to See response to link proposal. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, above. Road, above.
Consideration is needed See response to See response to of what materials are Resident, St Bernard’s Resident, St Bernard’s appropriate for Road, above. Road, above. development.
8
Resident, Malham Road
Dental surgery should Mill Rise is under No change required. be included in the Mill construction and it not Rise development. within the scope of the SPD.
Concern over increased See response to See response to traffic on Douglas Road. Resident, St Bernard’s Resident, St Bernard’s Road, above. Road, above.
Disagrees with Douglas See response to See response to Road link. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, above. Road, above.
Disagrees with new New housing No action required. housing development development is required planned for the area. for the area to increase choice for residents. This has already been established in the designation of the area in 2003 as an Area of Major Intervention under the Housing Market Renewal Programme. The SPD sets out a framework for judging planning applications for sites to be developed under the Renew North Staffordshire programme.
Resident, Bowland Avenue
Support for Douglas See response to See response to Road link. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, above. Road, above.
Does not want further There are a number of No action required. green spaces/paths. benefits to the inclusion of green spaces within developments. They can help create an attractive physical environment, provide opportunities for informal play, and help
9
create and enhance biodiversity.
Paths are considered important in ensuring opportunities exist for walking and cycling. This is important both in terms of minimising car use, improving residents’ health and improving accessibility.
Residents, Tynwald Grange
Objection to proposed See response Resident, See response to Douglas Road link as it Cemetery Road, above. Resident, Cemetery would cause “rat Road above. running” and questioning whether it would really be necessary as the former factory did not require a secondary access.
Disagrees with ‘pepper National planning policy No change required. potting’ of affordable is focussed on the units. creation of mixed communities offering a range of housing types and tenures. For this reason it is proposed to ‘pepper pot’ affordable housing units, rather than segregate them from any units available on the open market.
Resident, Tynwald Grange
Objection to proposed See response to See response to Douglas Road Link. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, above. Road, above.
Objects to any 3 storey Some bungalows would Noted. Proposed development near to be expected as part of change to SPD to Tynwald Grange – the development in the require only low-rise
10
should be bungalows interests of creating a (two storey houses or only here. mixed community. bungalows) adjacent to Tynwald Grange.
As many trees/ bushes A Tree survey will be Further detail provided should be retained as required as part of any outlining requirement for possible on Tynwald planning application in Tree Surveys prior to Grange boundary. order to ensure that any development. wherever possible, existing landscape features are retained.
Resident, Lower Milehouse Lane
Support for the Douglas See response to See response to Road link, but would Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery require the footpath to Road, above. Road, above. Morrisons to be diverted.
Objections to traffic Speeding vehicles in the No action required. calming. phase one area was a major issue under the old layout of development, causing nuisance to local residents. Failure to address this in the redevelopment of the area would be a missed opportunity.
Resident, High Street Knutton
Objection to proposed See response to See response to Douglas Road link. Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery Road, above. Road, above.
Objects to modern Unconventional modern Additional detail added designs in the new designs are unlikely to of what is acceptable in housing. figure in the developer’s design terms, with proposals. reference to the need to Nevertheless, it is harmonise with the sites accepted that reference surroundings. needs to be made in the SPD to what is considered acceptable.
11
Objects to any See response to Noted. No change to proposals for on-street Resident, Lower SPD. parking and traffic Milehouse Lane, above calming. on traffic calming. The need for off street parking will need to be balanced against the effect this may have on flood risk i.e. through the drainage implications of providing driveways.
Concerned about traffic See response to See response to problems in Milehouse Resident, St Bernard’s Resident, St Bernard’s Lane. Road, above. Road, above.
Resident (2), Lower Milehouse Lane
Concerns regarding See response to See response to traffic problems, present Resident, St Bernard’s Resident, St Bernard’s and as a result of the Road, above. Road, above. proposed developments.
A new vehicular link A vehicular link is very No change required. should be provided undesirable as the across the Wammy to Wammy is an important the development sites “green lung” for the rather than to Douglas area. Change in ground Road. levels would make this impractical.
Disagrees with An element of re- No change required. Affordable housing provision of affordable within new development housing is a key part of areas. the SPD strategy, in the interests of creating a mixed community. Pepper-potting and a tenure-blind approach will be taken in the provision of the new affordable units.
12
Resident, Cotswold Avenue
General support to Use of sustainable No change to SPD. proposals but wishes to materials including see new houses built timber would be with less timber, and no expected in any new large vehicles allowed to development proposals. use the proposed Douglas Road link road. See response to Resident, Cemetery Road, above concerning previously proposed link road.
Cllr Gorton Newcastle
General support for the Proposals for St The proposed footpath SPD, but concerns that Bernards Road have yet link across the Wammy the proposed footpath to be finalised, and will will be reassessed in the across the Wammy be subject to full light of the final agreed connecting St Bernards community consultation proposals for St Road and the Collins & when available. Bernards Road. Aikman site could lead Improving connectivity Reference to the need to anti-social through non-vehicular to provide connectivity behaviour/community links is a key issue for across the wider SPD safety issues for the area and any new area to remain, with residents in St Bernards footpaths will need to be reference made to need Road. carefully designed so as to be designed so well to minimise the potential lit, overlooked etc. for anti-social behaviour. A footpath link from the new housing areas across the Wammy to St Bernards Road is seen as a key element in improving connectivity in the area but its final location will depend upon the agreed strategy for St Bernards Road.
Strong objection to any St Bernards Road falls No change required. proposals to clear all or outside of the Phase 1 part of St Bernards area of the SPD. Road. However, Aspire Housing are now
13
progressing with plans for small scale clearance of those properties where flooding issues are prevalent.
More information Plans for the Sports Greater reference made required on the Village have now been to role of the Wammy as proposed function of the shelved and the providing important and playing fields on the borough council is easily accessible Wammy as part of the considering alternative recreation facilities for Sports Village scheme. options in terms of local residents. Need for providing facilities to developer contributions help improve residents’ towards upgrading health. facilities also clarified.
Concern over traffic and Noted. No change required. parking implications on See comments above St Bernards Road if regarding progression of pedestrian access is Aspire Plans for St provided to the Wammy Bernards Road and from here. requirement for separate consultation on these proposals.
Peacock & Smith Ltd Leeds (on behalf of Morrisons Supermarkets Plc)
Objects to any new Noted - new retail in the Deletion in the SPD to convenience retail uses area should be confined any reference to future within the to Knutton High Street . small-scale retail use on redevelopment areas on Lower Milehouse Lane. the grounds that the retail offer in Knutton High Street plus Morrisons is sufficient to meet local needs.
Considers that the Not considered No change required. Morrisons superstore on necessary to allocate Lower Milehouse Lane Morrisons Superstore as should be designated as a District Centre in a District Centre in policy terms. planning policy terms. Furthermore, it is not possible for SPDs to make such allocations.
14
Natural England Attingham Park Shrewsbury
Concern that the SPD Accepted. Suggested additional does not cover the issue wording to the SPD : of “compensation “ To ensure that habitat provision” biodiversity is protected resulting from the and that there is no net proposed development loss in the area of i.e. there is no net loss habitat, compensation in the area of exant habitat areas will be wildlife habitats in the provided and managed area, particularly in on nearby open spaces, existing natural and where it is not possible semi natural areas to adequately mitigate which make an as part of on-site important contribution to ecological mitigation.’’ the character of the area. Furthermore, an area of natural vegetation to be Proposed additional proposed as part of a wording suggested for noise buffer to the north the SPD for each east of Lower Milehouse development site. Estate.
Sustainability Appraisal Noted. No change required. considered to have adequately covered the main issues.
Environment Agency West Midlands Region
A Level 2 SFRA should The need for a Level 2 Additional reference be undertaken in order SFRA for the SPD area made to need for to support the SPD. is accepted and will be developers to carry out This should be undertaken as soon as flood risk assessments referenced in the SA, possible. Developers as part of any planning along with a specific will be required to application. objective relating to undertake a specific flood risk. flood risk assessment.
The requirement for SPD to be amended to Recommended that the appropriate drainage strengthen the proposed new systems and SUDS requirements for the developments measures will be developments to meet incorporate a drainage strengthened in the mains drainage capacity
15
system which has the SPD. and SUDS as advised capacity to cater for a by the Environment 100 year plus 30% Agency. rainfall event. Existing main drainage sewer systems (able to hold a 30 year capacity event) will need to be supplemented by a SUDS based system (porous pavements, swales, storage basins and ponds, and infiltration devices). It would be prudent given Culverted sections of previous flooding in the the Lyme Valley and SPD area to seek a Ashsfield Brook lie out SUDS system with a side the boundary of the greater than 100 year + development sites. 30% capacity. SUDS. The risk of flooding due to blocked culverts is SPD to be amended to The Environment understood, so the ensure that within all Agency will push for the principle of re- new developments open de-culverting of the naturalising watercourses are culverted sections of the watercourses is created as a principle Lyme Brook and accepted, but the depth instead of new culverts Ashfield Brook under of some culverts, in the interests of areas of open space to particularly under the minimising flood risk encourage biodiversity Wammy are so deep and improving and increased amenity that in reality this is not biodiversity. value for local residents. feasible. Similarly de- culverting will not be possible where the watercourses currently, or are proposed to, flow under buildings or parking areas.
English Heritage (West Midlands)
Commented that the Accepted. Whilst there SPD to be amended to SPD needs to relate to is little historic character include a specific the proposed North to the Phase 1 area to objective to protect and Staffs Design SPD, and which the guidance enhance the historic a specific objective specifically relates, it is character of the area. required on important that any safeguarding and development draws on enhancing the historic the character of
16
character of the area. surrounding areas. This will need to be included in the generic objectives of the whole SPD, which will look beyond the specific sites of Phase 1.
Would also be useful if Agreed. SPD revised to include policy recommendations clearer text and maps were presented more so that policy clearly. recommendations can be better understood.
With regard to the Agreed. Sustainability Appraisal Sustainability Appraisal , to be amended to recommend that a include a specific separate, new objective sustainability objective be added “to protect, “to protect, enhance and enhance and manage manage the historic the historic character character and and appearance of the appearance of the landscape and landscape and townscape, maintaining townscape, maintaining and strengthening local and strengthening local distinctiveness and distinctiveness and sense of place”. sense of place”.
RENEW North Staffordshire
Greater emphasis to be Accepted. SPD to include greater given to the emerging explanation of the Core Spatial Strategy linkages to the emerging and Knutton & Cross planning policy context. Heath Area Regeneration Framework and North Staffs Green Space Strategy as a policy context.
Use of more Accepted. Additional visual plans/diagrams to material to be provided explain the design to explain context of the principles. area and specific design principles.
Open space should be Has now been decided Renaming of SPD to treated as a separate that design is just one of ‘Knutton and Cross
17
section in the document. a range of issues the Heath Development SPD provides guidance Sites SPD Phase 1’ and on. As such the SPD is explanation of thought being re-titled, and it is process behind this in not considered the introduction. necessary to separate open space issues from other guidance.
Further clarification on Accepted. Further explanation of the relationship between the linkages between the SPD and the the Sustainability Sustainability Appraisal Appraisal and the SPD is required. to be provided.
Resident, Downham Road
Support for the See response to See response to proposed Douglas Road Resident, Cemetery Resident, Cemetery link, and the principle of Road, comments above. Road, comments above. linking the new developments to existing estates.
Would welcome speed Noted, but these issues No action required. cameras on Lower are not within the scope Milehouse Lane but not of the SPD. speed ramps.
Children & Lifelong Learning, Asset Management & Planning Division, Staffordshire County Council
Newcastle Community Noted. Any developer Inclusion of reference to High School has contributions will be possible developer sufficient space to secured through the contributions to accommodate the likely planning application education to be added demand for pupils process. Nevertheless to the document. generated from there is benefit to be developments. An had in including education contribution reference to this within may be required the SPD as it provides towards primary greater certainty to education. developers.
18
CABE
Document is text heavy. Accepted. Document has been revised and simplified where possible to make it easier to read. Additional visual material has also been provided to clarify guidance.
More emphasis needed Accepted. Greater detail added of on design principles and design principles, building design. including matters such as materials, need to exploit important views etc.
Lack of specific Accepted. Lower Milehose Estate guidance on Lower guidance reworked to Milehouse Estate. provide greater detail on matters such as open space provision, building heights, access points etc.
Greater reference to Accepted. Added detail of policy policy context within context within which which the document sits document sits; i.e. required. greater reference to emerging Core Strategy, saved policies from local plan etc.
Savills (on behalf of Kier Ventures Ltd)
References to Collins Accepted. Section 2.7 revised to and Aikman site should clarify issues of land reflect differing land ownership and previous ownership of parcels of uses of land. land, and fact that Ashtenne never operated any works on the portion of land they owned.
Support for Noted. Greater reference made opportunities provided to the need for by the site in terms of comprehensive
19
bringing different parts redevelopment of the of the area closer Collins and Aikman site together. in section on detailed guidance; highlighting need to establish links across to the Wammy and wider area.
Require clarification of It is the purpose of the No action required. Council’s perceived SPD to highlight key layout and design of site issues in the area that in terms of provision of developers will need to community space. take into account in drawing up their proposals. Developers should be given flexibility in terms of where community space is be provided as part of their comprehensive proposals for the site, rather than setting out a rigid site layout plan for developers to comply with.
References to References to 160 Development capacity development capacity dwellings on the Collins for Collins and Aikman for the Collins and and Aikman site has re-written to take Aikman site appears to been drawn from the account of potential of focus strictly on the outline permission Kier owned land within English Partnerships covering the English proposals. land. The Kier land Partnerships land. could accommodate Whilst it is accepted that approximately 130 in the interests of a additional dwellings on a comprehensive basis of 53 dwellings redevelopment a per hectare. number exceeding this may be possible, an additional 130 dwellings seems excessive given the need to incorporate links to adjacent open space and respect densities in the surrounding area. To some extent additional capacity on site will be determined by the outcome of any
20
Transport Assessments for the area.
Support for proposed Noted. No action required. mix of house types.
Proposals for pepper Support welcomed. In No action required. potting of affordable terms of evidence for housing supported, but affordable housing, the provision should be SPD seeks to raise the informed by evidence of profile of the area by housing need in the enabling a mixed area, not the borough community and as a whole. providing for a range of tenures. A proportion of affordable housing based on borough wide evidence has therefore been proposed. Evidence based on the locality is likely to indicate a need for a higher level of affordable housing provision than proposed on the estate. However doing so would mean one of the key objectives of the SPD would not be met and should therefore be avoided.
Support for references Noted. Any developer Reference made in to need for focal points will need to justify their guidance on Layout and within development on proposals in design Design sections to need design guidance, and terms though a design for developers to justify suggested additional and access statement the thought process reference to a feature supporting any planning behind any designs put building at corner of the application. It will also forward. Reference also Kier site and the be important that any added to importance of Wammy. proposals safeguard existing landscape existing landscape features to any scheme. features wherever possible.
Would like to reinstate Outline permission for Revisions to section on existing access off the English Partnerships transport and Lower Milehouse Lane, site includes provision of accessibility for Collins and note that adequate access off Lower and Aikman site,
21
reference has not been Milehouse Lane. To outlining need for one made to the presence of replicate this on the Kier vehicular access to the protected habitats on site does not reflect site off Lower Milehouse the boundary between aspirations for a Lane. Reference also English Partnerships comprehensive made to need to link and Kier Land. redevelopment of the between the English Collins and Aikman site Partnerships and Kier with improved links to Land, and the likely surrounding areas. requirements for There is a danger that mitigation to ensure no more than one access net loss of protected point off Lower habitats. Milehouse Lane could result in the sites under separate ownership being developed in isolation.
Lack of reference to protected species noted. See response to Clarification sought on Resident, Cemetery Douglas Road See response to Road, above. proposals. Resident, Cemetery Road, above. Further emphasis given Support for overall aims to the need for of SPD of establishing Noted. development to proceed physical and community in a comprehensive links to surrounding manner that increases areas. links to adjacent areas.
Revision of section 5.1 Agree that as outlined in to reflect next stages. section 5.1, that a Section 5.1 was comprehensive included in the draft masterplan for the area SPD to outline future will need to be subject stages in terms of the to consultation with adoption process. As stakeholders at an the SPD has now been appropriate time. revised to be submitted for adoption, these references have now been removed. It is expected that developers would produce a masterplan for the area showing how the objectives of the SPD have been
22
considered prior to the submission of any planning application. References to need to Further information improve the Wammy sought on requirements Accepted. now embedded in main for improving the document rather than in Wammy. an Appendix. Its importance in terms of wider regeneration of the area highlighted, and future function as a neighbourhood park set out.
See response to Request that education Children and Lifelong payments are requested Education payments will Learning comments on a site by site basis, be calculated on the above. and based on education basis of need arising needs of those in the from proposed area, not borough wide. developments, in terms of likely additional pressure on schools. These will sought through the planning application process. No action required. Support for contributions towards Noted. transport strategy for the borough. References to sustainable design in Objections to Noted. The SPD has development, eco- requirements for been revised to ensure homes etc reworded to sustainable design in the policy context for encourage developers development as outlined developer requirements to provide rather than in appendix. is embedded in the request. document rather than hidden in an appendix. It is agreed that it is not the place of an SPD to specify such design requirements, but reference has been made to the broad principles of sustainable design. This is in any developers interests in terms of providing an attractive and marketable
23
development. No action required.
Support for references Noted. to using local suppliers in construction, providing adequate space for refuse storage, and requirement for flood risk assessments.
Informal Consultation
Further to the Statutory 6 week consultation, public exhibitions were also held on 26 June 2008 at Knutton Community Centre and Ramsey Road Community Centre. The main issues this raised, along with the Borough Councils response, is outlined in the table below:
Comment Council’s Response Action Required
Support for Noted. No action required. downgrading of proposed link road to a cycleway/ pedestrian access.
Concerns over building To compensate for the Include landscape strip heights at the southern level changes it will be as a new design end of Collins and important maintain principle. Aikman site leading to existing vegetation as a potential overlooking of screen. properties in Ronaldsway Drive/ Tynwald Grange.
Concerns over building Some taller properties No action required. heights at gateway to are required on the Lower Milehouse Lower Milehouse Estate Estate. frontage to provide balance to the Health Centre and Extra Care Housing under construction opposite. These will be restricted to 3 storeys in order to avoid overshadowing neighbouring 2 storey properties to be retained.
24
Scepticism over location Centrally locating play No action required. of a children’s play area equipment, with overlooked by maximum opportunities bungalows. for natural surveillance by neighbouring properties is consistent with the principles of designing out crime. Bungalows are required within the estate in the interests of creating a mixed community. These need to be located centrally to avoid overdominance from taller properties.
25
APPENDIX ‘C’ (salmon paper)
Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document Draft for consultation
Contents:
1 Introduction and Context 2 Definition of affordable housing: the scope of this document 3 Assessing housing need 4 Local Need 5 The Requirement for affordable housing 6 Design requirements 7 Mechanisms for securing provision 8 Monitoring
Appendices: 1 Evidence base 2 Prototype legal agreement 3 Internal protocol 4 Preferred RSL Partners
26
Section 1: Introduction and Context
Introduction
This draft Affordable Housing SPD sets out Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council’s approach to securing affordable housing, primarily through the development control process. It is based on the most up-to-date research on the need for affordable housing in the area.
Until relatively recently affordability was not a significant issue within the Borough. However, the gap between house prices and incomes has widened. The rise in average earnings has not been matched by the steep rise in borough-wide house prices over the last decade, particularly within the rural area, where affordability is a real issue. Furthermore, the availability of social housing stock has been reduced due to the ‘Right to Buy’ Scheme. The issues of price/income ratio still prevail in the Borough in spite of the recent housing recession, which has resulted in a fall in house prices across the country. This is because the primary cause of the house price recession is not lack of need but a lack of funding. In other words the need for affordable housing has not diminished. Furthermore any reduction in the rate of market supply is likely to exacerbate problems both for first time buyers and those looking to rent, and hit areas hardest where the market is already weak, e.g. in the housing market renewal areas.
The planning system must help to deliver the Government’s priority of building more affordable homes in sustainable communities whatever the state of the housing market and the Council is strongly committed to meeting the need for affordable housing. This will be pursued through striving to achieve positive negotiations on development proposals, including section 106 agreements, working directly with RSLs to secure additions to the social stock and monitoring the effectiveness of affordable housing when provided.
The Council in June 2007 joined with partners to commission a Strategic Housing Market Assessment, to ensure that it has a robust evidence base to support the development of a consistent policy framework. The results of that work appear in this SPD and are reflected in the Core Spatial Strategy for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent, approved by both planning authorities and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership for submission purposes.
27
The aim in the Borough, as for the whole of North Staffordshire, is to provide a balanced housing offer in a well functioning housing market. It is a question of quality as much as quantity.
When land values fall the delivery of affordable housing is going to be that much harder, not only because sites may not come forward, but because the viability of some sites may be affected. This is particularly true in the Borough, where ground conditions can sometimes give rise to abnormal costs and house sale prices, at least in comparison with the rest of the Region and nationally, are low, leading to low profit margins.
In these circumstances, made worse by the state of current housing market, it is particularly important that the Council provides the best guidance it can to assist the delivery of good quality affordable housing to meet the requirements of local people and support the creation of balanced and integrated communities.
The Council’s aim in preparing this SPD is therefore to:
• Ensure a constant flow of affordable housing • Provide guidance on affordable housing requirements to ensure that private developers get a consistent and clear message from the council at as early a stage as possible. • Provide a clearer picture to housing associations and other partners about the local requirements in terms of the type of housing necessary to meet local requirements and the design standard. • Drive forward the delivery of higher quality homes • Support good practice • Show how the Council has interpreted the results of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, undertaken on the advice of DCLG and the Regional Assembly.
The SPD will outline actual proportions, types and thresholds and will establish firm targets. This will ensure developers are well informed of the Council’s expectations relating to the provision of affordable housing, including the level of affordable housing required; tenure, and the design standard, all prior to purchasing land and submitting a planning application. In this way developers will be in a good position to reflect the Council’s requirements when negotiating land values, or planning to develop a site. It will also assist RSL’s in bidding for funding and developing their business plans.
28
Status of the SPD An SPD does not set new policy, but provides more details on policies already in the Development Plan. This SPD amplifies the relevant strategy and emerging policies of the Core Spatial Strategy for Newcastle and Stoke-on-Trent. The evidence set out in the SPD has been used to inform its affordable housing policy and as such it also forms an important background document to the Core Spatial Strategy.
The Core Spatial Strategy is to be submitted to the DCLG later this year for public examination. It is anticipated that the public examination will take place in March 2009 and the Core Spatial Strategy will be adopted before October 2009. The timing of the adoption of the Core Strategy is a key issue as the statutory procedures for adopting an SPD would normally require an SPD to wait until the policy it is derived from to be adopted first, unless there is a saved Local Plan Policy. However given that Affordable Housing is a key priority for both the Government and the Council it is considered necessary to proceed in order to help achieve national (as expressed in ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ November 2006 and PPS3), regional and local objectives for affordable housing. It is therefore the intention to adopt this SPD by the end of 2008 unless the Secretary of State intervenes. Alternative existing policy support for this SPD is to be found in Policy IM1, one of the “saved” policies of the Local Plan, which sets out the requirement for developers to contribute to “infrastructure or essential services” that would make a development acceptable. This was the principal support for the adopted SPD on developer contributions, which, in its turn, makes specific reference to affordable housing as one of the appropriate items to be considered.
Once adopted the Affordable Housing SPD will form part of the Newcastle Development Framework and as such will become an important material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
It will replace the Affordable Housing SPG adopted by the Council in 2004 prepared under the old planning system.
Consultation
The consultation on this SPD is being undertaken in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) adopted, August 2006.
29
If you would like to comment or make suggestions on any of the proposals in this SPD, please contact the Council in writing or by E mail using the representation form, at the following address:
Planning and Housing Strategy Newcastle -under- Lyme Borough Council Civic Offices Merrial Street Newcastle-under-Lyme ST5 2AG
Tel: 01782 742452 Email: [email protected]
st The formal consultation period will begin on Monday 1 September and end six weeks later on th th Monday 13 October. The deadline for comments is Monday 13 October.
30
Section 2: Definition of Affordable Housing – and the scope of this SPD
The term “Affordable Housing” is defined in PPS3: Housing (November 2006):
“Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specific eligible households whose needs are not met by the market”. Affordable housing should:
• 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. • 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 provision.
The two types of affordable housing identified in this definition are described below.
Social Rented
Social Rented Housing is housing owned and managed by registered social landlords (RSLs), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. The level of rent and service charges levied by RSLs is generally treated as being affordable by those in greatest need. Social rented affordable housing should be available, in perpetuity, to those in housing need. 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 Housing Corporation as a condition of grant.
Intermediate Housing
This is housing at prices and rents above those of social rent, but below market prices or rents, and which meet the criteria of affordable housing set out above. These can include shared equity products, other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent. The most common model of intermediate housing is shared ownership and it refers to housing which is partly sold to the occupiers and partly rented to them by an RSL. It is tailored towards a specific income group that is correctly targeted to address specific local housing needs. In most cases the purchaser may buy additional shares (‘staircasing’) and own the whole property.
31
Other types of housing available at lower cost
General Low Cost Housing is not classed as affordable housing in PPS3 and therefore does not count towards the overall provision of affordable housing. Typically this is likely to be smaller units or starter homes of a lower build standard and specification that although provides a cheaper option for the first occupier, does not mean further provision is available to ensure that the property remains affordable to subsequent occupiers or for any subsidy to be recycled. Although cheaper than new-build market housing, it is still likely to be more expensive than private rented accommodation and could not therefore be considered to be housing available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available in the open market.
Similarly, housing provided at a discount by the developer to the first occupier only is unlikely to constitute a suitable form of affordable housing. To be affordable, it would need to be demonstrated that the accommodation would be priced below the current average price paid by first time buyers in the Borough for properties of a corresponding size in similar areas. The developer must be able to demonstrate that the discount will be retained for subsequent purchasers. Such housing could be considered as “affordable housing” but would only be accepted as a last resort.
Housing that is not “affordable housing” is that provided by the general housing market – mostly for owner occupation. There is also a growing private rented sector, estimated in the Borough to be around 7%. Although this can be offered right across the market, it is mostly represented in the lower cost sector. Although it may make a contribution to the need for cheaper housing, like low cost market housing to buy, it is outside the scope of this document.
The Council’s Preference
The majority of new “affordable housing” needed in the Borough will be “social” housing. This reflects the fact that North Staffordshire is a low priced housing area, and there would appear to be no shortage of low priced housing on the open market. The issue of low house prices needs further explanation. It is often felt that because house prices are low, there is little need for “affordable housing”. This is clearly not the case, as the results and analysis of the SHMA and other evidence contained in appendix 1 show. In fact there has been a significant increase in house prices within the Borough in the last five years which has not been matched by average
32
income rises, the average affordability ratios range from 3.81 to 6.57. This means housing is clearly unattainable for a large number of people, with 2528 active applicants on the housing register, it is unlikely such householders will be able to access other forms of tenure than social rented.
Section 5: “Facilitating the proportion of affordable housing” outlines the minimum proportion of social rented housing to be provided as part of the requirement for affordable housing.
Supported Housing Needs
There may be needs identified that require the provision of facilities such as housing for the elderly, supported housing or hostels to serve people with a variety of special needs. In some cases it may be possible to require the inclusion of such provision as part of a housing development, in the same way that affordable housing can be required. The Council will aim to secure an appropriate proportion of special needs housing, to meet identified local needs, as part of the affordable housing element of sites.
In terms of use class, depending on their precise nature, such developments may be regarded as residential or institutional. Although it can be important in decision making how such schemes are considered in terms of the Use Classes Order, there is as yet no consensus as to whether some innovative types of housing, such as Extra Care, should be considered as C2 (residential institutions), or C3 (ordinary dwelling house), or perhaps sui generis. Unlike residential care homes, extra care housing is not registered by the Commission of Social Care Inspection (CSCI) (though the delivery of the domiciliary care component to individual residents is registered.) For the purposes of this SPD, the affordable housing requirement will be set aside only when an establishment is to be registered with the CSCI.
Finally, it should be noted that all references to housing in this SPD concern permanent dwellings, including apartments. Clearly there are other forms of accommodation, including boats and, particularly caravans. This SPD does not cover the needs and requirements of Gypsies and Travellers. These need attention but they raise different issues not covered in this guidance. The Core Spatial Strategy includes a policy which seeks to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers within the North Staffordshire sub-region.
33
Section 3: Assessing Housing Need
For the avoidance of doubt, in this document, “housing need” refers to the amount of affordable housing required, whereas “housing demand” refers to the requirement for market housing
As explained in section 2 on the definition of the term, affordable housing is intended to meet the needs of households that are unable to enter the general market without some form of intervention by public service providers are defined as in need. PPS3 defines housing need as:
“The quantity of housing required for households who are unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance”.
Assessing housing need is a matter of looking at the availability of housing at different prices and the range of incomes. It is easy to deduce from this that there are a large number of people who will not be able to afford to buy a house. To this must be added a consideration of the particular needs for different types of house. For instance, a large family may have sufficient income to enter the housing market but not enough to secure a home large enough for their needs.
Another aspect is the condition of existing housing. There may be a high level of housing need in an area because of the low quality of housing condition which will lead people on low incomes to seek better accommodation.
These aspects are referred to as the drivers for housing need. Appendix 1 sets out an analysis, based primarily on the sub-regional Strategic Housing Market Assessment that was produced in April 2008. This included the use of a Housing Needs Model, a dynamic tool that measures progress towards achieving policy aims and balancing housing markets. It looks at alternative scenarios to measure impacts of market change or market intervention and calculates the current housing need, future housing need and affordable housing supply as annual flows to arrive at a net figure for the number of additional affordable dwellings required.
The result of the analysis is striking. It estimates that over the next 20 years, there could be a need of 269 new affordable units each year.
34
Section 4: Local Need
In some circumstances, it is appropriate to consider whether there is a "local need" within a defined area for affordable housing, or for a particular type of affordable housing. Information to address this issue would be available from the housing register, where people indicate their preferences as to where they would like to secure accommodation. It would also be available from a Parish Needs Survey, where people already living in a locality are asked specifically whether they, or a family relation, would be interested in affordable housing nearby.
However, there is no similar process when market housing is planned and provided. The quantum of provision is informed by national, regional or sub-regional trends and strategies, and broad locations for development sites are selected according to a wide range of criteria, including urban form. Higher or lower targets for general house building are often informed by deliberate policies in regard to migration. For instance, efforts may be made to increase house building in one area to prevent out-migration; on the other hand, regional policy is to restrict development in rural areas so as to encourage more people to live in (and move to) urban areas. The provision of affordable housing cannot be considered in a vacuum and must pay regard to the same issues.
Within the urban part of the Borough, supply and demand for general needs affordable housing would be expected to be balanced over a wide area. There may be localities where, to create a more balanced provision, and therefore a more mixed community, it may be advisable to provide as part of new development more of a certain type of property (such as flats, family housing, large dwellings etc). There would also be an issue of tenure balance in many localities, so that a higher or lower proportion of social rented housing in new development might be required if there was already a strong imbalance. Even then, however, there would be no attempt to make all areas consistent; the variety of the different neighbourhoods is part of the character of the area. But we would not expect to set down, at the outset, a different quantitative requirement for affordable housing in, say, southern Newcastle, or Kidsgrove. In those terms, we would not be assessing "local need"
The issue of local need is generally only explored in the rural areas, where house prices make local needs difficult to satisfy. There is another concern, however, and that is “sustainable development”. Government policy (and regional policy) is geared to concentrate development in the urban areas. Rural locations are less “sustainable” because of their tendency to encourage
35
greater transport demands – particularly the use of the private car. There is therefore a need to control the development of housing in the rural area. For this reason, where affordable housing is justified by an assessment of local need, this assessment must be clear and subject to careful scrutiny.
The issue of local need is highlighted in the RSS (both the current RPG version adopted in 2004 and the 2008 Phase II review), but care needs to be taken in interpreting the policies.
Policy CF2 (d) of the RSS adopted in 2004 - “Housing beyond MUAs” states:
“In rural areas, the provision of new housing should generally be restricted to meeting local housing needs and/or to support local services, with priority being given to the re-use of previously developed land and buildings within existing villages enhancing their character wherever possible”.
And CF2 (e) indicates that:
“Local housing needs constitute needs arising from the immediate area, excluding migration from elsewhere”
In the RSS review, this has been amended in CF2(c):
“Development in villages should support the need to meet local housing requirements particularly needs for affordable housing; and promote local regeneration or support the retention or creation of local services. Development should be prioritised in villages which still have a range of services and within these, priority should be given to the reuse of previously developed land and the conversion of buildings”.
The revised wording helps to clarify what is intended in the original policy. Reference to "local needs" is concerned mainly with the scale of development; development on too great a scale would directly encourage in-migration. (This interpretation has been supported in the Borough by recent appeal decisions.) Any requirement to demonstrate a specific local need for a new development would only arise where the issue was supporting new affordable housing, either in
36
terms of housing strategy or to justify the use of a site where general market housing might not be acceptable. The issue raised in the RSS will be clarified in the Core Spatial Strategy, which identifies those settlements which are considered more sustainable locations - Madeley, Loggerheads and the Audley Parish villages. The Core Spatial Strategy will note that the growth proposed in the RSS will take place "primarily" within designated village envelopes in those areas. This will not exclude the possibility of small scale development elsewhere; "rural exceptions", in particular, may be released for affordable housing and in such cases, "local need" will be an issue.
37
Section 5: The Requirements for Affordable Housing
This section clarifies the way the Council will facilitate the provision of affordable housing, largely through requiring affordable housing to be part of any new housing development.
Thresholds
PPS3 lays down a threshold for requiring affordable housing as part of general housing development. This is 15 dwellings . No attempt is being made here, or in the Core Spatial Strategy, to justify a lower threshold in the urban area. In the rural area, however, a threshold of 5 dwellings is to be used , and this is set out in the Core Spatial Strategy. In accordance with the strategy of the RSS, it is unlikely, at least in the short and medium term that any significantly large areas of land in the rural area will be developed for housing. Thus a much lower threshold is needed.
One of the key housing policy objectives of PPS3 is that new housing should make efficient and effective use of land. Accordingly, sites will normally be measured to the natural perimeters of the site defined by physical characteristics. It will not be appropriate for developers to divide a site into smaller components, even to reflect ownership boundaries, taking the site area below the threshold and expect not to be required to provide affordable housing. It may be necessary to consider the development of the whole site comprehensively to ensure that the provision of affordable housing, as well as other essential facilities, is made. Similarly, where schemes are submitted under the threshold, account will be taken of the need to provide affordable housing and whether best use is being made of the site. Where land is used inefficiently to avoid having to provide affordable housing, this will lead to the refusal of planning permission.
In considering whether a development meets the threshold for providing affordable housing, the Council will consider the gross number of proposed dwellings, not the net increase. As an example, on a site, within the urban area, where a proposed new development might consist of 15 new dwellings while also requiring the demolition, or loss by conversion, of say 2 dwellings on the proposal site, affordable housing would be expected from the proposal because the gross number of dwellings meets the 15 dwelling urban threshold.
38
The quantity of affordable housing required
The analysis reproduced in Appendix 1 indicates a need for 269 new affordable dwellings per year. In the HMA, this figure is then applied to the proposed development rate of about 285 new dwellings per year set out in the RSS, and the anticipated housing demand of 356 dwellings per year. This results in an indication that between 75 and 95% of all the new dwellings to be built should be affordable housing.
It is clear that a requirement on this scale would be impracticable. It would be economically unfeasible and it would produce unbalanced communities. It would also run counter to the strategy of the RSS and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership to raise incomes, the quality of employment opportunities, educational aspirations and so on. It has been acknowledged by the DCLG that the findings of SHMAs are designed to inform the development of planning and housing policy. In other words, their findings should not necessarily be interpreted as the level of housing need or demand that plans should address.
Following the evidence base activities like the SHMA, it is the role of the subsequent plan-making stages to make the most equitable judgement as to the level of market and affordable housing that can be delivered in an area, having regard to the Government’s housing ambitions. (Quoted from the DCLG advice given in 2008 in the North East Region)
However, what the analysis does is to indicate how crucial the provision of affordable housing is for the future sustainability of the community. A target in the region of 75% could be justified by this analysis before the other issues referred to above come into play. What is needed is a considered target that would be regarded as financially viable in most cases but would ensure the continued supply of a balanced housing offer.
One of the most important drivers is the need for balanced, mixed communities. It is generally regarded that around 40% social rented is the "tipping point" at which communities begin to exhibit indicators of deprivation. Even a figure at that level would thus be inappropriate for large developments. In terms of financial feasibility, even before the current downturn in the housing market, house prices in North Staffordshire do not give developers a high rate of return. Thus the imposition of too high a target would be likely to discourage investment.
39
Taking all these issues into account, and economic viability, a figure of 25% has been selected as fair, realistic, and likely to make a positive impact on housing provision. Within this proportion, there must still be a strong emphasis on the social rented sector. Therefore, within that 25%, at least 15% should be social rented, with the remainder being intermediate housing - largely forms of shared ownership. These figures, derived from the above analysis, are included in the Core Spatial Strategy scheduled to be submitted to the Secretary of State in November 2008.
Data on completions over the last five years in the urban area shows that nearly 26% of development has been on sites under 15 dwellings, and would "escape" the requirement for affordable housing. This reduces the effect of the 25% to an operational 19%. This effect will be ameliorated in future by large sites being identified, and will in part be compensated for by development by RSLs on their own terms. However, it also indicates the need for the Council to apply the target consistently and with not too much flexibility. (The equivalent analysis on the rural area, in relation to the threshold of 5 dwellings, reduces the operational proportion to 14%. This could be compensated for by provision on “rural exceptions”.)
Housing types
As a general principle, developers would be expected to provide the affordable housing within a development across the same range of housing types as the market housing on a pro rata basis. For example, if the development consisted of 20% apartments and 80% family houses, the same proportions should be represented - as far as the arithmetic allows - within the affordable housing.
This will be the starting point, but where there is an opportunity within the development to provide for specific dwelling types where evidence indicates a particular need, this will be pursued.
The analysis of the housing register in Appendix 1 identifies acute unmet need for two particular types of housing. • Bungalows of 2 bedroom spaces • Houses with 4 bedroom spaces • Although, there is a high need for 1-bed flats, due to a significant level of single person household on the housing register, there is a considerable rate of re- lets for this type of accommodation.
40
The need for two bedroom space accommodation is further reinforced by the aspirations of the single person households, in particular single pensioner households and families who have expressed the requirement for additional space to accommodate family visitors and guests. The modern tendency for older people to live alone, separated from their families brings with it the need to allow visitors. The figures also show a high turn over and take up of single bed flats, but again this only serves to underline the importance of the 2 bed accommodation.
When individual schemes are assessed, and where the character of the development makes this possible, on the basis of this current evidence, accommodation of the above types will be sought. However, the situation will be monitored and the requirement may change over time.
41
Section 6: Design Requirements
Design and Layout Requirements
The Council will expect high standards of design, layout and landscaping for all developments which respect the character of the area and reflect local distinctiveness in accordance with key planning principles outlined in Planning Policy Statement 1: (Sustainable Development), Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change (Supplement to PPS1) and emerging design guidance in both the North Staffordshire Design Guidance SPD and the Core Spatial Strategy.
To ensure the creation of mixed and integrated communities the affordable housing should be seamlessly integrated and distributed throughout the development scheme consisting only of small groups. It should not be distinguishable from market housing in terms of location, appearance, levels of amenity space, privacy and build quality and materials.
The affordable housing should be tenure blind and fully integrated with the market housing. It should be distributed evenly across the site or in the case of flats and apartments, in small clusters distributed evenly throughout the development, as appropriate in design terms. Tenure blind integration should be considered at an early stage of the detailed design and layout of the site. Care should be taken to maintain the quality of the affordable housing. Material specifications should not be to a lower standard than private sale housing and levels of privacy, car parking, access and open space provision should not be compromised.
Quality and Accessibility Standards
To achieve a consistent high standard, all affordable housing developments need to comply with Design and Quality Standards (or any subsequent replacement document) as published by the Housing Corporation. If the Design and Quality Standards (DQS) are not met, RSLs would not receive funding from the Housing Corporation. Affordable housing should also meet Lifetimes Homes Standard. Applicants should therefore consider these standards before submitting the application.
42
The Council will expect a statement from the developer, when the application is submitted, confirming that the dwellings comply with DQS. Failure to supply this statement could delay determination of the application or completion of the legal agreement.
Developers should be aware of the relevant Housing Corporation standards that apply to the development. The latest standards can be downloaded from the corporation’s website www.housingcorp.gov.uk .
Sustainable Construction
Affordable housing will be required to be of sustainable construction in accordance with the Government’s ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’. The Code for Sustainable Homes sets six levels of sustainability for new build housing in England. The Code uses a 1 to 6 star rating system to communicate the overall sustainability performance of each new home.
In accordance with the guidance set out in the Planning Policy Statement on Climate Change (Supplement to PPS1), the Council will require all affordable housing (regardless of the availability of grant funding) to achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and development proposals that score higher than this will be positively supported.
Renewable Energy
In accordance with the Council’s Core Spatial Strategy, any residential scheme of 10 or more dwellings will be required to incorporate on-site renewable energy production to off-set at least 10% of predicted carbon emissions in order to minimise the impact of development on the environment and climate change.
Lifetime Homes
A ‘lifetime home’ is a house or flat that incorporates a number of specific features, designed to ensure that the house or flat is accessible and adaptable, so that it is able to meet the needs of most households – see www.lifetimehomes.org.uk . Provision may be required for a proportion of homes to be completed to lifetime homes standard.
43
Although the lifetime homes standard provides flexible accommodation, some individuals or households require a higher level of provision or mobility units. In order to meet an identified level of need, it may be appropriate for the Council to specify certain units to be designed to meet special housing needs.
Parking
In addition to the principles set out above, the affordable housing element of any development should provide an appropriate level of parking equivalent to at least that of market housing.
44
Section 7: Mechanisms for securing provision
Where affordable housing is provided, the Council believes that long-term affordability can be best secured through the involvement of an RSL from the Council’s current list of providers attached in Appendix 4. Any RSL seeking to deliver and manage affordable housing in the Borough will be expected to demonstrate to the Council that they can provide a good housing service and have facilities locally to deliver the service.
Unless a planning condition is considered appropriate, affordable housing will generally be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement. Affordable housing is one of the aspects listed as appropriate for Section 106 agreements in the Council's adopted SPD on Developer Contributions and is expressly allowed by Circular 05/2005.
Section 106 agreements will be used: • To secure affordable housing as part of a larger housing scheme • Where social housing development is permitted as a “rural exception” • Where commuted payments are sought for off-site provision.
The Council will ensure through the use of legal agreement or conditions that the affordable housing built is occupied in perpetuity only by people that fall within the identified categories of need for affordable housing.
On larger proposed schemes the Council will work with the developer to ensure that the affordable housing is provided as far as practicable at the same time as the market housing. Developers should be aware that there will be trigger and phasing clauses in the S106 agreement or conditions on the planning permission to ensure the phased delivery of affordable housing. Where it is proposed to deliver affordable housing out of phase with the market housing, it will be for the developer to demonstrate why, having regard to material planning considerations, this is an appropriate strategy.
On all sites, the S106 agreement will cover control to ensure that the accommodation will benefit subsequent as well as initial occupants. Details of land transfer, including cost, may also be included.
45
The Council has produced a Model Section 106 legal agreement on affordable housing, the current version of which can be found at Appendix 2. It provides for a sequential approach whereby the Council’s preferred types of housing are to be considered in the first instance and resort is only to be had to other types when efforts have been exhausted. For instance, if the developer makes reasonable efforts to sell to an RSL for social housing, but is unable to do so, a shared ownership model may be able to be considered. The Appendix also includes an explanatory flowchart.
Off-site provision and Financial Contributions
In accordance with Government guidance, the Council will seek to ensure that affordable housing is provided on site in the first instance. Only in very particular, agreed circumstances will either another site or payment in lieu of on site provision be considered as an acceptable alternative.
The provision of units on an alternative site may apply where the Council considers that the provision of completed units elsewhere would enable it to apply the contribution more effectively to meeting the Borough’s housing need. Provision of completed units on an alternative site will be in addition to any applicable affordable housing requirement arising from the development of the alternative site. It is important that off-site provision does not compromise the aim of the mixed balanced communities. This is supported by the Core Spatial Strategy which states:
“In some areas the local need for affordable housing may be for less than 25%. In this case a financial contribution to off-site affordable housing provision will be required at the equivalent rate to meet priority needs elsewhere”.
Where Section 106 agreements are used to secure off-site provision of affordable housing, this would be done by requiring a financial contribution (commuted sum) to be made towards the provision of that element of affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough. In such circumstances, the payment will be collected to help finance the development of the relevant proportion of affordable housing equivalent to that which would have been required on site.
Financial contributions will reflect the cost of providing affordable housing elsewhere within the Borough. Registered Social Landlords who provide social rented or shared ownership units are unable to pay the 100% OMV towards affordable housing units; the shortfall is usually subsidized
46
by a Social Housing Grant from the Housing Corporation or in the case of s106 planning obligation through developer contribution.
This subsidy or developer contribution has been derived to be 60% of the OMV based upon RSL financial and economic modelling.
For each unit type, the calculation will take 60% of the open market value (OMV) of the completed dwelling to reflect the developer contribution on social rented and shared ownership units agreed with an RSL. The following table sets out some examples of the way the calculation would be made. (The values stated are applicable at the time of developing the SPD and are illustrative only. Relevant values will be included when negotiating a commuted sum.)
As an example: A developer proposes a residential application of 20 homes for sale comprising 15 x 3 bed houses (OMV of £130,194 per unit) and 5 x 2 bed houses (OMV £104,113). This equates to 75% 3 bed houses and 25% 2 beds. A total of 8 affordable homes would be required on site – 6 x 3 bed houses and 2 x 2 bed houses. The cash in-lieu of on-site provision would be calculated as set out in the table below:
Property OMV 60% Commuted Total (illustrative Developer sum payment commuted example only) Contribution per unit sum payment 2 Bed House £104,113 £62,467 £62,467 £124,934 3 Bed House £130,194 £78,116 £78,116 £468,696 Total commuted sum payment £593,630 for the application
The calculation of commuted sum payments will be calculated at the time of the application and will be included in a S.106 agreement. To ensure that contributions reflect conditions applicable at the time the contribution becomes payable, the S.106 agreement will include an index linking formula. The expectation is that the commuted sum will be payable on commencement of the
47
development. However, in recognition of the need to generate cash flow, the Council and the developer may agree an alternative trigger. Payments received in-lieu of affordable housing on site will be held by the Council in a ring-fenced Affordable Housing Fund and will be used for capital funding to enable the provision of affordable housing, in accordance with Circular 05/2005.
Procedure for Negotiations
As specified in the Council’s adopted Developer Contributions SPD (September 2007), entering into discussions with the Planning Authority at a very early stage is strongly advised, to establish the policy requirements for affordable housing on a site. Pre-application discussion should take place as early as possible during the formulation of development proposals. Prospective applicants who come forward with proposals during this stage will be advised by the Planning Officer of the merits of the case and the requirement to provide a Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking. With advice from the Planning Officer and relevant policy, it will be possible to specify the nature of the obligation and what is required.
To aid this process, the Council has adopted an internal Affordable Housing Protocol, which seeks to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each service area within the Council involved in negotiating, securing and monitoring affordable housing provided as part of private sector development. This has been produced to ensure that the process for achieving affordable housing will be streamlined, thereby allowing the Council to optimise the provision of affordable housing. A copy can be found in Appendix 3.
For further information reference should be made to the Developer Contributions SPD (2007).
48
Section 8: Monitoring
Quantity
The Government expects Local Authorities to monitor the provision of all housing through the planning system. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the amount of affordable housing provided will be monitored by the Council on an annual basis through its Housing Development Monitoring Report undertaken in August each year. The results will also be reported in the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) published in December each year. Copies of which are available to download from the Council’s Local Development Framework website: www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/LDF
If the Council finds that the policies of the Core Spatial Strategy and the processes set out in this SPD fail to deliver sufficient amounts of affordable housing, consideration will be given to revising the approach
Information from a variety of sources will need to be linked to any review of affordable housing requirements, and subsequently any review of this SPD. These will include targets outlined in the Local Area Agreement (LAA), Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the Core Spatial Strategy:
• LAA targets. The Local Area Agreement delivery plan in relation to the indicator on provision of affordable housing sets out specific targets for the Borough for the three year period from 2008 to 2011. For the current year, the target is only 9, reflecting the low level of permissions already in the pipeline. For the subsequent two years, the targets are more aspirational:
Period 2009/10: 144 units Period 2020/11. 117 units
• The Regional Spatial Strategy Phase Two Revision Preferred Option (December 2007) identifies the need for gross indicative minima targets of 500 affordable housing units per year in the West Midlands North Housing Market Area (consisting of the five districts in the north of the county).
49
• The Core Spatial Strategy is proposed to include a figure of 25% to cover the generality of the combined areas of the Borough and the City, with provision for significant local variation. This proportion would theoretically translate into just over 60-70 per year, if applied to the RSS allocation for the Borough.
Quality The Council will also assess and monitor the quality and standards of the affordable units that are built. This is essential to ensure that affordable housing is built which is appropriate and effective.
This will be monitored against the design requirements outlined in section 7 of this SPD and the relevant design policies of the Core Spatial Strategy.
50
Glossary and Summary of Terms
Term Meaning Affordable Housing Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable Rented Value This is based on the amount that a RSL or other recognised body could afford to pay from its own resources (i.e. without the aid of public subsidy or grant) for the purchase of a social rented property as verified with RSLs at the time of a planning application. Affordable Sale Value This is an agreed value that takes account of the price of each intermediate housing unit. Annual Monitoring Report A report submitted to CLG by Local Planning (AMR) Authorities and regional planning bodies assessing the progress and effectiveness of the Local Development Framework. Code for Sustainable Homes A national standard for sustainable design and construction of new homes. This was launched in December 2006. Housing Needs Survey A survey that is undertaken in order to ascertain the level, type and distribution of housing needs within a Local Authorities administrative boundary. Housing Association An independent, non-profit organisation registered and regulated by the Housing Corporation who provide and manage housing for rent and sale. Housing Corporation A national Government Agency that funds new affordable housing and regulates housing associations in England. Housing Demand Housing ‘demand’ is essentially the pressure for new housing that arises from those households that are able to afford housing at market prices or rents. Housing Need Housing ‘need’ refers to households that are unable to access suitable housing without some form of financial assistance. Local Development Framework Is a collection of Local Development Documents (LDF) produced by the Local Planning Authority which collectively delivers the spatial planning strategy for its area. The Core Strategy is the key plan within the Newcastle LDF. Lifetime Homes Homes that are built to be flexible enough to deal with changes in life situations of occupants, for example, caring for young children, temporary injuries, or declining mobility with age. Open Market Value This is the value of the property on the open market, as established by an independent and
51
professional valuation. Planning Condition A condition attached to a planning permission.
Planning Policy Statement National Planning Policy Guidance issued by the (PPS) Government covering a range of issues, including housing and sustainable development. Registered Social Landlord A body that manages affordable homes, both (RSL) social rented and intermediate. Most housing associations are RSLs. A housing association must be registered with the Housing Corporation to be an RSL. Social Housing Grant (SHG) A capital grant provided by the Housing Corporation to fund Registered Social Landlord to develop social housing. Supplementary Planning A Local Development Document, which contains Document (SPD) further detail of policies or proposals in a Development Plan Document. An SPD may be thematic or site-specific. Section 106 Legal Agreement A legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They are legal agreements between a Local Authority or developer, or undertaking offered unilaterally by a developer, to ensure that certain extra works relating to a development are undertaken. Strategic Housing Market An assessment which provides information on the Assessment (SHMA) level and demand and need for housing and the opportunities that exist to meet it. The assessment forms a key piece of evidence to inform the LDF.
52
Appendix 1 – Evidence Base
Introduction
A sub-regional Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was completed by Outside Consultants in April 2008. It covered the whole of the North Housing Market area, comprising the Borough, the City of Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire Moorlands District, Stafford Borough and East Staffordshire District. It provides an analysis of housing demand and housing need, identifying the key drivers in the North Housing Market area.
A copy of the full SHMA is available on the Council's website: http://newcastle-staffs.gov.uk
The SHMA forms the primary evidence base for affordable housing within the Borough. Selected data from the assessment is reproduced below together with some additional data and a discussion on the findings leading to precise recommendations. It should be stressed that a strategic housing market assessment does not, in itself, provide a clear cut conclusion as to how much affordable housing should be required through the planning system. The evidence needs to be assessed, interpreted and applied in the context of economic, spatial and other considerations. This appendix is intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and how it has been used to deliver the precise requirements set out in Section 5.
Drivers for affordable housing
House Prices
The HMA provides an analysis of the ‘active market’. There has been a significant increase in houses prices within the Borough in the last five years.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME HOUSE PRICE CHANGE 2001-2006 Year Mean Median Lower Quartile £ % £ % £ % 2001 67927 - 55000 - 38000 - 2002 79620 17.2% 64000 16.4% 44000 15.8% 2003 101070 26.9% 82000 28.1% 59000 34.1% 2004 122071 20.8% 99950 21.9% 77500 31.4% 2005 130331 6.8% 110750 10.8% 84950 9.6% 2006 139053 6.7% 120000 8.4% 92950 9.4% 5 year 104.7% 118.2% 144.6% change
Source: CLG Live Tables 585, 586 and 587
53
The change in lower quartile house prices over the whole 5-year period is considerably greater than the change in mean and median house prices. This indicates that entry-level properties have become more expensive over the period.
Average Local Incomes to Local House Prices
Affordability ratios are a measure of house prices against household incomes. These ratios are indicative of households’ financial capability to access home ownership. A household is considered unlikely to be able to afford to buy a home that costs more than 3.5 times the gross household income for a single income household or 2.9 times the gross household income for two-income household. If possible, any allowance for existing equity that could be used towards the cost of home-ownership should be taken into account.
54
MEAN INCOMES BY WARD MEAN MEAN HOUSE AFFORDABILITY
WARD INCOME PRICE RATIO Audley and Bignall End £30,801.99 £120,848.69 3.92 Bradwell £29,030.44 £134,950.89 4.65 Butt Lane £25,335.03 £110,090.58 4.35
Chesterton £29,701.48 £119,563.75 4.03 Clayton £29,280.26 £142,954.86 4.88 Cross Heath £22,885.79 £126,303.16 5.52 Halmerend £30,566.53 £178,823.01 5.85
Holditch £23,056.98 £94,695.48 4.11 Keele £40,666.84 £160,876.46 3.96 Kidsgrove £30,142.48 £123,837.02 4.11 Knutton and Silverdale £24,102.28 £103,597.67 4.30 Loggerheads and Whitmore £39,291.46 £258,304.46 6.57 Madeley £32,744.54 £148,640.83 4.54 May Bank £31,559.64 £145,752.57 4.62 Newchapel £29,752.85 £158,147.02 5.32 Porthill £28,843.98 £109,859.04 3.81
Ravenscliffe £29,144.21 £118,627.26 4.07 Seabridge £33,041.02 £162,870.55 4.93 Silverdale and Parksite £26,306.76 £104,828.22 3.98 Talke £26,077.46 £119,671.47 4.59
Thistleberry £28,200.68 £144,843.83 5.14 Town £27,131.42 £111,135.75 4.10 Westlands £35,237.63 £211,663.92 6.01 Wolstanton £29,022.50 £115,484.79 3.98
The Borough has a mixture of urban and rural wards with the greatest difference between house price and income. The ratio ranges from 3.81 to 6.57.
Source: CACI 2006 / Land Registry
Entry Level Housing
One important indicator of affordability is to look at the ratio of lower quartile incomes to lower quartile house prices.
In order to assess affordability, the price of an entry-level property is determined using the most recent year’s data from the Land Registry. At the time of preparing the HMA, this was January – December 2006. The entry-level price is that which a household entering the market can be expected to pay on average.
In line with DCLG guidance, the entry-level property is calculated using the 25th percentile price of all properties sold. In the Borough this is £92,500. It should be borne in mind that in different locations entry-
55
level property prices will vary. For example within the more remote rural areas, where the proportion of detached properties is likely to be higher the price of an entry-level property is likely to be higher
RATIO OF LOWER QUARTILE HOUSE PRICES TO LOWER QUARTILE INCOMES IN THE BOROUGH
1997 2001 2006 % CHANGE 1997 - 2006
3.42 3.44 6.14 79.5%
Source: DCLG live tables 576 (Land Registry and ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings)
Key issues
• There has been a significant increase in houses prices within the Borough in the last five years. • The average affordability ratios within the Borough range from 3.81 to 6.57. • The ratio of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile incomes, which is an expression of whether those in the greatest housing need are able to access entry-level properties, is high - 6.14.
Social housing in the Borough
The Waiting List
On the 8th August 2008, there were 2528 active applicants on the waiting list and 597 applicants on the transfer list.
The most prominent household types on the waiting list were:
• Single Person Household 32.1% • Families with one Child Household 17.6% • Pensioner Single Household 8.7% • Couple Household 6.3% • Pensioner Couple Household 5.9%
Supply and Demand Analysis
An analysis of the housing need and the housing supply, the re-lets of social housing will indicate the level of both met and unmet need for social housing.
56
PROPERTY TYPE / BED RE LETS HOUSING NEED – RATIO SPACE HOUSING SUPPLY WAITING LIST / TRANSFER LIST
Bungalow 1 bed space 76 426 1 : 5.6
Bungalow 2 bed space 13 172 1 : 13.2
Ground floor flat 1 bed 112 278 1 : 2.4 space
Ground floor flats 2 bed 36 163 1 : 4.52 space
Ground floor flat 3 bed 10 41 1 : 4.1 space
Upper floor flat 1 bed 179 1014 1 : 5.6 space
Upper floor flat 2 bed 73 365 1 : 5 space
Upper floor flat 3 bed 15 83 1 : 5.5 space
Houses 2 bed space 104 722 1 : 6.9
Houses 3 bed space 102 421 1 : 4.12
Houses 4 bed space 4 160 1 : 40
Key issues
There are a considerable number of applicants on the housing register - 2528 active applicants.
An analysis of the housing supply and housing demand reveals that there is an acute unmet need (high ratios in the right hand column) for: • Bungalows of 2 bedroom spaces • Houses with 4 bedroom spaces • Although, there is a high need for 1-bed flats, due to a significant level of single person household on the housing register, there is a considerable rate of re- lets for this type of accommodation.
The need for two bedroom space accommodation is further reinforced by the aspirations of the single person households, in particular single pensioner households and families who have expressed the requirement for
57
additional space to accommodate family visitors and guests. ( Life in Affordable Housing CIH Housing Corporation).
Residential development in the Borough
The following is an analysis of the residential development for market housing only, within the Borough in the last five years.
Market Residential Development 2003 -2008 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed House House House House Flat Flat Flat Flat 2003- 2004 0 11 46 156 8 0 0 0 2004- 2005 0 3 19 85 8 49 1 0 2005- 2006 0 9 60 45 10 90 13 0 2006- 2007 1 12 92 43 38 28 1 0 2007- 2008 0 8 39 43 40 54 1 0
Total 1 43 256 372 104 221 16 0
Over the last five years, the most prominent development has been the 4-bed house, which accounts for 36.7% of all residential development. The development of 2-bed houses has been very low – 4.2%. The development of 3-Bed Houses has been constant and steady at 25.3% of all residential developments.
The recent trend (2005-2008) indicates that flats have been intensively developed; with one-bed flats accounting for 10.3% and 2-bed flats accounting for 21.8% of all developments.
During this period, there has been very little development of affordable housing - around 3.8% of the total. This is due to the findings of the 2002 Housing Needs Survey, which indicated a surplus of general needs affordable housing. A breakdown of the types of affordable housing delivered during the period 2003 to 2006 is set out below.
Affordable Housing Development 2003 -2006 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed House House House House Flat Flat Flat Flat 2003- 2004 0 4 0 0 2 11 0 0
58
2004- 2005 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 2005- 2006 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 20 0 0 2 19 0 0
Calculation of housing need - DCLG Model
The SHMA, using the methodology advocated by the DCLG forecasted the annual housing need for the Borough.
SUMMARY OF NET ANNUAL HOUSING NEED IN THE BOROUGH
STAGE 1 CURRENT HOUSING NEED
1.4 Total current housing need (gross) 2044
STAGE 2 FUTURE HOUSING NEED
2.4 Total newly arising housing need 622
STAGE 3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY
3.1 Affordable dwellings occupied by households in need 173 3.2 Surplus stock 0 3.3 Committed supply of new affordable housing 28 3.4 Units to be taken out of management 73 3.5 Total affordable housing stock available (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 – 3.4) 128 3.6 Annual supply of social re-lets (net) 736 3.7 Annual supply of intermediate affordable housing available for re-let or resale at sub market levels 0 3.8 Annual supply of affordable housing (3.6 + 3.7) 736
ESTIMATE OF NET ANNUAL HOUSING NEED
(((1.4 minus 3.5)* 20%)+ 2.4) minus 3.8 269
From the above analysis, the SHMA projects the level of affordable housing targets within the Borough in the context of the RSS. The RSS proposes an average of 285 units per annum in the Borough to meet the allocation (figures from the Preferred Option for the Phase II review). The SHMA also notes that demand is
59
expected at a rate of 356 households per annum. Without further interpretation, therefore, the housing needs model suggests affordable housing targets of between 75% and 95%.
60
Appendix 2 – Prototype Section 106 Legal Agreement This has been included in the draft SPD to give consultees the opportunity to make representations on the detail of the draft agreement as well as on the content of the SPD. Following the agreement, there is a diagram illustrating the sequential approach contained within it.
61
MODEL SECTION 106 AFFORDABLE AGREEMENT
DATED 2008
THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME
- and -
Planning Obligation
Made pursuant to Section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
and all other enabling powers
LAND AT XXXXX
62
CONTENTS
1 DEFINITIONS
2 INTERPRETATION
3 RECITALS
4 ENABLING POWERS
5 LAND OWNERSHIP
6 CONDITIONALITY
7 OBLIGATIONS
8 RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
9 THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
10 SATISFACTION OF THE OBLIGATIONS
11 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
12 TERMINATION OF THE DEED
13 PAYMENT OF COUNCIL’S COSTS
14 NOTICE
15 AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION
16 MISCELLANEOUS
17 JURISDICTION
63
18 DELIVERY
SCHEDULE 1: DEVELOPER’S OBLIGATIONS
SCHEDULE 2 : COUNCIL’S OBLIGATIONS
SCHEDULE 3 : NOMINATION RIGHTS
SCHEDULE 4 : FURTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOCIAL RENTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND SHARED OWNERSHIP.
SCHEDULE 5 : LIST OF ANNEXURES
64 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
DEED OF PLANNING OBLIGATIONS 2007 PARTIES (1) THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME of Civic Offices, Merrial Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 2AG (“the Council”) and (2)
IT IS AGREED THAT: 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 “Affordable Housing” means subsidised housing that will be available to persons who cannot afford to rent or buy housing generally available on the open market 1.2 “Affordable Housing Units” means the Social Rented Housing Units and the Shared Ownership Housing Units which together shall comprise the total number of Dwellings to be constructed on the Site pursuant to the Planning Permission which will be made available in accordance with the provisions of the agreement 1.3 “Application” means the application made to the Council for full planning permission for the Development and given the reference XXXXX 1.4 “Development” means the development permitted by the Planning Permission 1.5 “Discounted Price” means a price of no more than 60% of the Open Market Value Price of the affordable housing units 1.6 “Commuted Sum” means a sum per affordable housing unit being no less than 60% of the Open Market value at the time of the payment of the commuted sum 1.7 “Commencement of Development” means the date upon which the Development shall be commenced by the carrying out on the Land pursuant to the Application of a “material operation” as specified in Section 56(4) of the Act subject to a "material operation" for the purposes of this Deed excluding nevertheless the carrying out of any archaeological works, service diversions site or soil investigations and/or site decontamination/ reconciliation works, demolition works and/or the erection of hoardings and fences 1.8 “Commencement Notice” means the notice in writing to be served on the Council by the Developer notifying it of the Commencement of the Development 1.9 “Independent Valuer” means a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors appointed by the Developer at the Developer's own cost but first approved by the Council and the phrase “Independent Valuers” shall be construed accordingly 1.10 "Index" means All Items Group (Item Reference CHAW) of the Retail Prices Index published by the Office of National Statistics 1.11 “Land” means the land edged red on the plan annexed hereto being land at XXXXX 1.12 “Open Market Dwellings” means dwellings intended for sale in the private housing market Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
1.13 “Open Market Value” means the figure considered by the independent valuer to be the best price at which the sale of an unencumbered freehold interest or long leasehold interest (which here shall mean a leasehold interest in excess of 99 years at a premium and a peppercorn rent) in a Social Rented Housing Unit or a Shared Ownership Housing Unit would have been completed (as if it were an Open Market Dwelling) on the date of valuation assuming; a) a willing seller and a willing buyer, and b) that prior to the date of valuation the property was freely exposed to the market there had been a reasonable period within which to negotiate the sale (having regard to the state of the market) and that values remained static through that period, and c) that no account is taken of any bid a prospective purchaser with a special interest, and d) that both parties to the transaction had acted knowledgeably prudently and without compulsion, and e) that the property is in its existing state of repair. 1.14 “Offer Letter” means any written communication between the Developer for the purposes of the Developer offering the Affordable Housing Units to a RSL 1.15 “Plan ” means the plan annexed hereto 1.16 “Planning Act ” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended from time to time 1.17 “Planning Obligations” means the planning obligations created by clause 7 of this deed and set out in Schedule 1 1.18 “Planning Permission” means the full planning permission of even date (reference XXXXXX) granted and issued by the Council pursuant to the Application subject to conditions in the form of the draft annexed to this deed 1.19 “Price” means in respect of the Affordable Housing means a percentage of the Open Market Value (as at the intended date of the exchange of contract in respect of the unit[s]) to be agreed between the Owner and the RSL (but on the condition that the Owner and the RSL use their best endeavours to agree the best price) being such a percentage to enable the Affordable Housing units to be made available] within Housing Corporation rent targets without the need for the RSL to apply for a Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant. 1.20 “Nominated Person,” means a person who satisfies the criteria set by the Council and set out in the Schedule 3 of this Agreement 1.21 “Qualifying Person” means any person; a) who is already occupying housing as a tenant of a Registered Social Landlord, or b) who is on a housing register kept by the Council, or
2 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
c) who as a result of his social and economic circumstances satisfies the Council that he is in need of housing, and in all cases, persons who have a local connection with the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme or who has a family member residing within the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme will be prioritised. 1.22 "Registered Social Landlord " means a body approved by the Council and registered under Section 2 of the Housing Act 1996 or any statutory provision amending consolidating or replacing it for the time being in force and one which operates within the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme 1.23 “Design and quality standards” means the essential standards set out in the Housing Corporation publication “Design and quality standards” (or any such other document amending, consolidating or replacing it) 1.24 “Social Rented Housing Units” means those dwellings which are intended to be made available as affordable housing for rent by an RSL, adhering to the Housing Corporation Guidelines and which are to comprise XXXXX 1.25 “Shared Ownership Housing Units” means those units made available on a shared ownership basis, allowing part ownership of the unit by purchasing a share of the freehold (long leasehold) interest therein and then paying proportional rent on the non purchased shares (which shall not exceed 3% of the remainder of the market value) where the owner can purchase additional shares (stair casing) up to a level determined by the agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Schedules to qualifying persons to purchase initially either (a) at 50% of the market value and to pay proportional rent (which shall not exceed 3% of 50% of the market value), or (b) Subject to the prior approval of the Council, at more or less than 50% of the market value, and to pay proportional rent (which shall not exceed 3% of the remainder of the market value), and in either case, with the option of staircasing to 100% of the market value, and which are to comprise XXXXX 1.26 “Practical Completion” means the issue of a certificate of a practical completion by the Developer’s architect or in the event that the Development is constructed by a party other than the developer the issue of a certificate of practical completion by that other party’s architect. 1.27 “Occupation of the Residential Development” means beneficial occupation of any part of the Residential Development for any other purpose other than carrying out the Development.
2 INTERPRETATION 2.1 In this deed: (a) words in the singular include the plural and vice versa (b) a reference to any gender includes a reference to all other genders
3 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
(c) a reference to a person includes companies and all other legal entities (d) references to clauses and schedules are to the clauses and schedules of this deed unless stated otherwise (e) a reference to a paragraph is to the paragraph of the schedule in which the reference is made unless stated otherwise (f) unless the context otherwise requires reference to the “Council” and “Developer” includes their respective successors in title 2.2 The headings and table of contents of this deed are for convenience only and shall not affect its interpretation 2.3 Unless this deed states otherwise any reference to a statute statutory instrument or other legislative provision includes any amendment extension or re-enactment of it for the time being in force 2.4 Where any party consists of more than one person covenants and obligations of that party are joint and several 2.5 The perpetuity period applicable to this deed shall be eighty years. It shall apply to any rights granted or reserved over or in respect of anything which is not now in existence 3 RECITALS 3.1 The Council is the local planning authority and has on the XXXXX by its Planning Committee resolved to approve the Application subject to conditions and subject to the completion of this deed 4 ENABLING POWERS 4.1 This deed is made pursuant to Section 106 of the Planning Act Section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and all other enabling powers 4.2 The obligations created by this deed and which are set out in Clause 7.1 and the Schedules are planning obligations for the purpose of Section 106 of the Planning Act and are enforceable by the Council as a local planning authority for the area in which the Land is situated 5 LAND OWNERSHIP 5.1 The Developer is the registered proprietor with title absolute of that part of the Land that is registered under Title Number XXXXX 5.2 The Developer is the owner of the freehold interest in that part of the Land that is unregistered 5.3 The Developer hereby warrants and confirms that apart from the parties hereto there are no other persons with a legal or equitable interest in the Land or any part thereof 6 CONDITIONALITY 6.1 This Deed is conditional upon: (i) the grant of the Planning Permission and (ii) the Commencement of Development; save for the provisions of clauses 13, 17 and 18 which shall come into effect immediately upon completion of this Deed.
4 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
7 OBLIGATIONS 7.1 The Developer agrees with the Council to bind its interest in the Land in respect of the obligations set out in Schedule 1 hereto 7.2 The Council agrees with the Developer to comply with its obligations as set out in Schedule 2 of this deed 8 RELEASE FROM LIABILITY 8.1 No person shall be liable for a breach of any covenant agreement or obligation created by this deed after he shall have parted with all interest in the Land or the part in respect of which such breach occurs but without prejudice to liability for any subsisting breach prior to parting with such interest 9 THIRD PARTY RIGHTS 9.1 A person who is not a party to this deed has no right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this deed but this does not affect any right or remedy of a third party which exists or is available apart from that Act 10 SATISFACTION OF THE OBLIGATIONS 10.1 Registration as local land charge The Planning Obligations in clause 7.1 and Schedule 1 shall be registered by the Council as a local land charge 11 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 11.1 Any dispute or difference arising between on the one hand the Council and on the other hand the Developer with regard to their respective rights and obligations arising out of or connected with this deed may be referred by any party to the decision of a single arbitrator who shall have experience in relation to developments in the nature of the Development and property in the same locality as the Land to be agreed by the parties or failing agreement between them within 21 days to be nominated by the President for the time being of the Law Society. Any such reference shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Act 1996 or any subsequent amending or replacing legislation 12 TERMINATION OF THE DEED 12.1 If the Planning Permission shall expire (or shall be revoked or be quashed in any legal proceedings) or (without the consent of the Developer) it is modified by any statutory procedure or expires before the Commencement of the Development then this deed shall forthwith determine and cease to have effect and the Planning Obligations shall be removed from the register of local land charges by the Council or the Council will otherwise record the fact that it has come to an end and no longer affects the Land 13 PAYMENT OF COUNCIL’S COSTS 13.1 The Developer shall pay the Council’s costs for negotiating and preparing this deed in the sum of £XXXXX receipt of which the Council now acknowledges 14 NOTICE
5 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
14.1 Any notice required to be given under this deed shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally or sent by pre-paid first class post recorded delivery post or facsimile transmission 14.2 The address for service of any such notice shall be as set out as follows (or such other address for service as shall have been previously notified to the Council):
(a) if to the Council: Legal Services, Civic Offices, Merrial Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 2AG Attention: The Legal Services Manager (b) if to the Developer: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
14.3 Any Notice under this deed shall be deemed to have been served as follows: (a) if personally delivered at the time of delivery (b) if by post on the second working day after the envelope containing the same was delivered into the custody of the postal authority within the United Kingdom (c) if sent by recorded delivery at the time the delivery was signed for (d) if sent by facsimile transmission at the time of successful transmission provided it was sent before 4pm and if sent after 4pm the next working day (e) and in proving such service it shall be sufficient to prove that personal delivery was made and a receipt obtained or that the envelope containing such notice consent or approval was properly addressed and delivered into the custody of the postal authority in a pre-paid first class recorded delivery envelope and a receipt obtained or that facsimile was successfully transmitted 15 AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION 15.1 Nothing in this Deed shall fetter or restrict the exercise by the Council as a local authority if any of its rights discretions duties powers or obligations under any statute statutory instrument orders regulations and byelaws 16. MISCELLANEOUS 16.1 Following the performance and satisfaction of all the obligations contained in this Deed the Council shall forthwith effect the cancellation of all entries made in the Register of Local Land Charges in respect of this Deed
6 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
16.2 Insofar as any clause or clauses of this Deed are found (for whatever reason) to be invalid illegal or unenforceable then such invalidity illegality or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Deed 17 JURISDICTION 17.1 This Deed is governed by and interpreted in accordance with the law of England and Wales 18 DELIVERY 18.1 The provisions of this Deed (other than this clause which shall be of immediate effect) shall be of no effect until this Deed has been dated
IN WITNESS of which this deed has been executed and on the date set out above delivered as a deed
7 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
EXECUTED as a Deed by affixing ) THE COMMON SEAL of the BOROUGH ) COUNCIL OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ) in the presence of:- )
Mayor/Councillor
: : Authorised Signatory:
THE COMMON SEAL of XXXXX was affixed to this deed which was delivered when dated in the presence of:
Director : Director/Secretary :
8 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
SCHEDULE 1 Developer's Obligations 1. General Obligations
The developer covenants with the Borough Council of Newcastle-Under-Lyme as follows:
1.1 That it shall serve the Commencement Notice on the Council before the Commencement of Development. 1.2 That no more than 50% of the Open Market Dwellings will occupied until all of the affordable housing has been constructed according to the planning permission and transferred to an RSL and written notice of such has been given to the Council. 1.3 To permit the Officers or the Representatives of the Borough Council of Newcastle- Under-Lyme access to the Land or any part of it at all reasonable times, on reasonable notice and in compliance within the Developers’ reasonable requirements, and to permit them to inspect the Development and all materials intended for use in it. 1.4 To agree to abide by Practical Completion and to serve notice in writing to the Council of Practical Completion 1.5 To serve notice in writing of the Occupation of the Residential Development. 1.6 That the affordable housing units will be constructed at least to the Design and quality standards and should not be inferior or distinguishable from the equivalent Open Market dwellings on the Development.
2. Social Rented
The developer covenants with the Borough Council of Newcastle-Under-Lyme as follows:
2.1 To provide the Social Rented Housing Units on the development as stipulated within this agreement. 2.2 To exercise all best endeavours as soon as reasonably practicable to negotiate with RSLs to sell the Social Rented Housing to them at the Price and to ensure that the Council is copied into the Offer Letter and is forwarded any replies to the Offer Letter. 2.3 To transfer the Social Rented Housing to the RSL as soon as reasonably practicable after they are physically completed and ready for occupation or at such earlier time as may be agreed with the RSL 2.3 To ensure that the Rented Affordable Housing Units will remain as affordable housing in perpetuity by controlling their future use and occupation so as to require that they are managed by the RSL in accordance with its objectives and/or Articles of Association. This will be achieved by the Developer including within the legal
9 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
agreement of a Rented Affordable Housing Unit to the selected RSL, provisions which shall require that:- (a) the Rented Affordable Housing Units shall be let under an appropriate tenancy in accordance with the nomination rights stipulated within the agreement and the RSL’s normal letting policy of such types of tenancy (b) the Rented Affordable Housing Units shall not be used for any purpose other than as set out in this Schedule (c) the Rented Affordable Housing Units shall not be occupied otherwise than in accordance with this Schedule 2.4 Upon:- (a) the Developer satisfying the Council and the Council having certified in writing that the Rented Affordable Housing Units have been offered for sale to a RSL in accordance with the restrictions contained in this Schedule for a period of six months from the date on which the Rented Affordable Housing Units were completed and available for occupation; and (b) there being any unsold Rented Affordable Housing Unit(s) at the end of that six month period; The Developer shall offer the each of the Unsold Social Rented Units for sale as Shared Ownership Units in accordance with the provisions set out herein
3. Shared Ownership Housing Units
The developer covenants with the Borough Council of Newcastle-Under-Lyme as follows:
3.1 To provide the Shared Ownership Housing Units on the development stipulated within this agreement. 3.2 To exercise all best endeavours as soon as reasonably practicable to negotiate with RSLs to sell the Shared Ownership Housing to them at the Price and to ensure that the Council is copied into the Offer Letter and is forwarded any replies to the Offer Letter. 3.3 To transfer the Shared Ownership Housing to the RSL as soon as reasonably practicable after they are physically completed and ready for occupation or at such earlier time as may be agreed with the RSL 3.4 To ensure that the Shared Ownership Housing Units will remain as affordable housing in perpetuity by controlling their future use and occupation so as to require that they are managed by the RSL in accordance with its objectives and/or Articles of Association. This will be achieved by the Developer including within the legal agreement of a Shared Ownership Housing Unit to the selected RSL, provisions which shall require that:-
10 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
(a) the Shared Ownership Housing Units shall not be used for any purpose other than as set out in this Schedule (b) the Shared Ownership Housing Units shall not be occupied otherwise than in accordance with this Schedule (c) the Shared Ownership Housing Units shall be made available to those that are deemed as qualifying persons. 3.5 Upon:- (a) the Developer satisfying the Council and the Council having certified in writing that the Shared Ownership Housing Units have been offered for sale to a RSL in accordance with the restrictions contained in this Schedule for a period of six months from the date on which the Shared Ownership Housing Units were completed and available for occupation; and (b) there being any unsold Shared Ownership Housing Unit(s) at the end of that six month period; The Developer shall offer the Shared Ownership Housing Units for sale in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule 4 to this Deed 3.6 The provisions of these paragraphs hereof shall not be binding on a mortgagee in possession of the whole or any part of the Shared Ownership Housing Units or a bona fide purchaser for value thereof from such a mortgagee in possession (except a purchaser which is a selected RSL) PROVIDED THAT:- (a) such a mortgagee or chargee in possession exercising any power of sale or leasing shall first have used best endeavours over a period of six months, in consultation with the Council (through which ever officer or elected member the Council designates for the purpose) to dispose of the Shared Ownership Housing Units to a Preferred Partner RSL which shall covenant to comply with the provisions of paragraph (3) hereof; AND (b) the Council shall have certified in writing that it is satisfied that the mortgagee has without success used best endeavours to dispose of the Shared Ownership Housing Units at no more than the Price to a RSL over a six month period (for the avoidance of doubt, if the Council is not satisfied that the mortgagee has complied with the requirements of paragraph 6(a) hereof, the mortgagee shall not be released from the provisions of paragraph (3) hereof until such time as the Council is so satisfied and certifies such in writing)
11 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
SCHEDULE 2 Council’s Obligations 1. Where the consent or approval of the Council is required by the terms of this Agreement such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed
12 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
SCHEDULE 3 Nomination Rights 1. Subject to the Council promptly submitting full details of prospective nominees, the Registered Social Landlord shall ensure that a) the Social Rented Housing Units are to be available for occupation by nominees of the Council in accordance with the Newcastle-under- Lyme Borough Council Joint Housing Allocation Policy b) nominees of the Council shall occupy all of the Social Rented Housing Units as soon as reasonably practical following the date of practical completion of the Social Rented Housing Units (“the Initial Lettings”). On the Registered Social Landlord obtaining vacant possession of the Social Rented Housing Units on termination of the Initial Lettings, 75% of all subsequent lettings and re-lettings shall be so occupied by nominees of the Council unless the Council shall at any time fail within a reasonable period (being no later than one month after the units become vacant) to supply details of nominees or in the event that the Council shall be unwilling or unable to provide such details the Registered Social Landlord shall then be able to let such Social Rented Housing Units to such other persons as the Registered Social Landlord shall think fit 2 In the event of any disposal by the Registered Social Landlord of the Social Rented Housing Units (save any disposal pursuant to a statutory obligation) the Registered Social Landlord shall at its own expense forthwith on such disposal obtain for any such disponee a deed of covenant (which it will forthwith send to the Legal Services Manager for the time being of the Council) in which the disponee covenants with the Council in respect of the Social Rented Housing Units; a) to observe and to perform the conditions set out herein as successor in title to and in substitution for the Registered Social Landlord, and b) not to dispose of the Social Rented Housing Units as aforesaid without forthwith obtaining (and supplying to the Council) such deed of covenant as aforesaid from any further disponee
13 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
SCHEDULE 4
1 Further Provisions relating to Social Rented Affordable Housing Units and Shared Ownership.
1.1 Any of the Unsold Shared Ownership Units shall be offered for sale at no more than the Discounted Price and to those deemed to be qualifying persons. 1.2 The future selling price of the hereof shall be controlled and restricted to the discount price so as to ensure that Affordable Housing Units will remain as affordable housing in perpetuity. This will be achieved by the Developer including within the lease of each a direct legal covenant. 1.3 The Developer shall agree the Marketing Strategy with the Council no later than twenty eight days before marketing commences AND FURTHER that no Affordable Housing Units shall be marketed until the Owner receives the written approval of the Council to the Marketing Strategy PROVIDED THAT such approval or agreement shall be deemed to be given unless refused within two calendar months of the receipt of the Marketing Strategy by the Council (for the avoidance of doubt, it is confirmed that this requirement shall not apply to the second or any subsequent vendor of the Affordable Housing Unit)
1.4 Upon:- (a) the Developer having complied with the requirements of this hereof to the satisfaction of the Council and the Council having certified as such in writing; and (b) there being any unsold Affordable Housing Unit(s) remaining after 6 months of marketing from the date of the implementation of the marketing strategy the Developer shall pay to the Council the Commuted Sum in respect of any unsold Affordable Housing Unit(s) whereupon the Developer and any future vendor shall be released from the obligations imposed by this Schedule in respect of the affordable housing units (for the avoidance of doubt, if the Council is not satisfied that the Developer has complied with the requirements of the agreement hereof, the Developer shall not pay the Commuted Sum until such time as the Council is so satisfied and certifies such in writing)
14 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
15 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
SCHEDULE 5 List of Annexures Annex 1 - Annex 2 - Plan
16 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
Affordable Housing S106 Agreement:
Sequential process for securing affordable housing
Agreement by Developer to provide Social Rented Agreement by Developer to provide Shared units on new developments Ownership units on new developments
D eveloper to use best endeavours to negotiate Developer to use best endeavours to negotiate with with an RSL with the aim of selling/transferring an RSL with the aim of selling/transferring units to units to RSLs RSLs
RSL/Developer reach an Developer offers the Developer offers the RSL/Developer reach an agreement. The units units as Social Rented units as Shared agreement. The units are offered and sold to to an RSL. However, Ownership to an RSL. are offered and sold to RSLs as Social Rented. they remain unsold However, despite the RSL as Shared despite the best best endeavours and 6 Ownership. endeavours and 6 months of them being months of them being made available, they made available. remain unsold.
Affordable Affordable Housing delivered Developer to provide unsold shared ownership Housing delivered and achieved units as discounted market housing at 60% OMV to those deemed as qualifying persons and achieved
Developer and C ouncil will After the 6 month period The marketing strategy agree commuted sum for the of marketing strategy: raises awareness of the Discounted Market Housing is units that remain unsold at 60% the units remain unsold availability if the delivered to those in housing of the OMV to assist in provision and cannot be delivered affordable units and they need. of affordable housing in the as affordable housing are sold to qualifying Borough units. people Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
Appendix 3 – Affordable Housing Protocol
PROTOCOL FOR SECURING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Aim of the protocol
• To clarify the roles and responsibilities of each service area within the Council involved in negotiating, securing and monitoring affordable housing provided as part of private sector development.
This protocol will ensure that the process for achieving affordable housing will be streamlined, thereby allowing the Council to optimise the provision of affordable housing.
Service Areas
The Service Areas involved in negotiating, securing affordable housing are:
• Development Control • Planning and Housing Strategy - both planning and housing teams • Legal Services
Key stages
(may be illustrated with a flow chart)
• Developing the evidence base and strategy/policy framework • Producing from this clear generic guidance • Pre–application discussions with developers, landowners etc • Agreeing heads of terms for S106 agreements • Submission of planning application • Post-application advice (including meetings of the Development Team) • Drafting S106 agreements • Monitoring S106 agreements
Developing the evidence base and policy framework
The Housing Strategy Team will be responsible for collating and updating the evidence base for affordable housing through the Housing Market Assessment, Housing Needs Surveys and any other sources where appropriate. The Team will also provide evidence for affordable housing disaggregated to a local level for specific applications where required.
The evidence base will be updated annually and the involvement of planning policy, economic development and others will be sought to build a comprehensive and strong understanding of the Housing Market.
From this evidence, the Planning and Housing Strategy Service will formulate clear generic guidance to be used in discussions with would be applicants. The Planning Policy Team will ensure that this guidance is made known to all involved in such discussions and take steps to encapsulate it through whatever is the most effective means within the LDF.
Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
Pre–application discussions with developers, landowners etc
Developers and landowners may make contact with Development Control or Planning and Housing Strategy Services. Where any form of housing development is concerned, enquirers should be made aware immediately of the threshold for affordable housing (15 dwellings) and the basic policy guidance. The latter needs to be kept up to date on the website.
A. If the enquiry is made direct to Planning and Housing Strategy (either team), enquirers should be asked:
● Whether contact has already been made with Development Control ● Whether a specific site is involved
Where a specific site is involved, and no contact has previously been made, officers should advise enquirers to contact Development Control in the first instance. If contact has already been made, and/or discussion is unavoidable at this stage, officers must ensure that appropriate notes are recorded on the "208” record on uniForm. If contact has not been made and a specific site is being discussed a “208” case should be opened for the enquiry. The recording system will ensure that any further enquiries will either be allocated to the officer who has given the initial advice, or if that is not possible, that the officer now dealing with the matter is aware of the advice previously given. This should ensure that there is consistency in the advice given and an auditable record of that advice.
B. If the enquiry is made direct to Development Control, and a specific site is involved, any advice already given by Planning and Housing Strategy will be evident through the 208 system. Development Control officers should alert Planning and Housing Strategy (email to TC) where it is evident that an affordable housing issue will arise.
The Development Control Support Officer (SMJ) will ensure that any major development enquiry is discussed at the first appropriate meeting of the Development Team. Given the 15 house threshold below which affordable housing is not required, by considering all “major” residential developments all enquiries for developments where affordable housing may be an issue will thus be discussed at Development Team. Where the proposal is of an urgent nature, a meeting will be arranged before the meeting of the development team. This will be the responsibility of the Development Control officer, but wherever possible they should invite a member of the Planning and Housing Strategy section to attend.
C. It is also worth noting that occasionally direct approaches are made to RENEW North Staffordshire. Where this happens, RENEW staff would be expected to notify NBC staff immediately and also to advise the enquirer to make a direct approach. Such matters will be assisted by attendance at the Development Team meetings by RENEW personnel.
Within Planning and Housing Strategy, members of the Planning Team will ensure that members of the Housing Team (usually AR) will be brought in at an early stage.
All enquirers who are considering submitting an application should be encouraged to attend a pre-application meeting. This will allow all Council officers likely to be involved later on to be able to contribute at an early stage. Such a meeting will be minuted and actions arising will be appropriately allocated to specific officers. If affordable housing is to be provided, this will normally require a S106 agreement , and the process for this should be discussed, so that the developer can be made aware of the Council's agreed protocol, set out in the SPD on Developer Contributions:
"An agreed draft undertaking or agreement should be submitted along with the full planning application in order for the application to be validated. Unless there are
2 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
special mitigating circumstances, without such an agreed draft undertaking or agreement, the application will not be validated." (Page 9)
The Council will need to review this position in the light of the validation requirements associated with the introduction of the mandatory standard application form, the publication on the 7 th December 2007 by DCLG of The Validation of Planning Applications – Guidance for local planning authorities, and the associated legislative changes. The Council will be undertaking a consultation on its proposed validation requirements in January/ February 2008 with a view to putting them in place prior to the 8 th April 2008 introduction of the standard mandatory application form. It is expected that the Council will require Heads of Terms of any proposed Section 106 agreement/undertaking to be submitted prior to the acceptance of the application as valid.
Section 106 Agreements or undertakings
When it is clear that a Planning Application is likely to be submitted, Development Control will inform Legal Services (PC) to alert them to the fact that a Section 106 agreement will be required, and the matters that it will need to cover.
Before any negotiations take place, it should be clear from the policy guidance what level and type of affordable housing will be required in principle and a draft schedule for this element will be supplied to Development Control on request by Planning and Housing Strategy. Planning and Housing Strategy will develop standard or model clauses in consultation with Legal Services, and will if requested by Development Control nominate a person who can appropriately instruct the Council’s solicitor dealing with the draft agreement/ undertaking.
The draft schedule should be submitted to the Development Control Officer.
If as a result of subsequent negotiation between the Council and the applicant, the affordable housing requirement varies from the basic guidance this will need to be reflected in the agreement.
Following receipt of Planning Application
Development Control will consult Planning and Housing Strategy on all applications for major residential development. Although the consultation period is 21 days, Planning and Housing Strategy will use their best endeavours to respond in 14 days. Such responses shall be in writing. The response to consultation will set out clearly the precise number and type of affordable units to be required, as well as other specific or general policy guidance.
Development Control will use their best endeavours to inform Planning and Housing Strategy of any change in the Council's requirement during the determination of a planning application. This is to ensure that the final report that is submitted to Planning Committee either has the support of Planning and Housing Strategy, or sets out clearly their policy guidance and explains explicitly why this is not being followed.
Where an application is recommended for refusal
Where an application is to be recommended for refusal, but, if the development were to take place affordable housing would be required, the above protocol is still valid. Although there will be instances where preparatory work would be clearly wasted (for instance in the case of an application for major development in the Green Belt), it is still important to ensure that the affordable housing requirement is not overlooked even in a hypothetical situation.
Monitoring the implementation of a S106 Agreement on affordable housing
3 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
The SPD on Developer Contributions states that " responsibility for co-ordinating the monitoring or the receipt, expenditure and implementation of Developer Contributions will lie with the appointed Section 106 officer " within the Development Control Service. (page 12.). The currently appointed Section 106 officer is Asif Khan, Senior Planning Officer The SPD also allows for costs of monitoring to be charged to the developer in certain cases
To ensure that the affordable housing obligations are delivered:
• The Section 106 officer will maintain regular contact with the developer, asking for appropriate updates on the affordable housing requirements. However, where possible appropriate, and by agreement, the contact can be directly between the developer and the housing officer involved.
• Housing officers will maintain a register of all affordable housing provided as part of private development and will monitor its provision and continued operation.
• The Housing Team will facilitate consultations with buyers who purchase affordable housing units to assess their experience with the scheme.
4 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
Appendix 4 - Preferred RSL Partners NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Aspire Housing Kingsley 01782 635200 The Brampton Newcastle-under- Lyme ST5 0QW
Beth Johnson Three Counties 01782 219200 Housing Group House Festival Way Stoke on Trent ST1 5PX
Staffordshire Knight House 01782 744533 Housing 2-4 Woodhouse Association Street Stoke on Trent ST4 1EJ Anchor Housing Milestone Place 08457 758 595 100 Bolton Road Bradford BD1 4DH William Sutton 12 Elstree Way 020 8235 7000 Trust Borehamwood Herts WD6 1JE
Northern Counties Bower House 0161 219 7000 Housing 1 Stable Street Association Hollinwood OL9 7LH
Midland Heart 20 Bath Row, Birmingham 0870 60 70 300 B15 1LZ
Bromford 1 Venture Court 0845 6050603 Carinthia Broadlands Wolverhampton WV10 6TB
This is a list of housing associations that have stock within North Staffordshire. The list ranks those who have the greatest number of housing units in the area. This is not an approved list of registered social landlords. Developers are advised to contact the organisation and appropriately select their ‘development partners’.
5 Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – July 2008
Further Advice and Information
For further advice on the application of the Council’s affordable housing policy please contact either:
Housing Strategy Officer Housing Strategy Team Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Merrial Street Newcastle-under-Lyme ST5 2AG Tel: 01782 742455
Or
Principal Planning Officer Planning Policy Team Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Merrial Street Newcastle-under-Lyme ST5 2AG Tel: 01782 742477
6