What Have Been the Impacts of the Introduction of the Standard Methodology for Calculating Housing Need on Planning for Housing?

What have been the impacts of the introduction of the standard methodology for calculating housing need on planning for housing?

A report for Barratt Developments PLC

University of Liverpool

January 2020

Dr John Sturzaker, Dr Richard Dunning, Dr Thomas Moore, Mr Connor Burns and Professor Alex Lord

About the Centre for Sustainable and Resilient Cities

The Centre for Sustainable and Resilient Cities (SaRC) brings together academics from across the University of Liverpool to work collaboratively on the global challenge to make our cities more sustainable and resilient, in the face of climate change, resource depletion, population growth, urbanisation and migration.

To develop solutions to these issues, two things are essential – firstly, that academics from different disciplines cooperate to think outside the ‘disciplinary silos’ that often constrain us; and secondly, we have to work with partners from other sectors.

SaRC includes over 40 research active experts covering topics such as population modelling, housing economics, urban design, environmental assessment, development economics, planning practice, architecture, regional governance and local economic development.

SaRC is able to bring together new configurations of researchers responding to particular demands in a timely organic structure to analyse and advise cities and city regions, whether locally, nationally or internationally. We search for ways to implement changes to how those cities and regions function to make them more sustainable and resilient; and use our best science and social science expertise to meet the future challenges to cities from climate change and resource depletion.

About the Authors

Dr. John Sturzaker has had a varied career as a planner in both practice and research and aims to bring both areas closer together. He is currently Senior Lecturer in Civic Design and Discipline Lead for Planning at the University of Liverpool. His teaching and research interests include community planning, planning & housing and sustainable urban development. He has published work in these areas including Green Belts: Past, Present, Future?, published by Routledge in 2017; and Rescaling Urban Governance: Planning, Localism and Institutional Change, published by Policy Press in 2020.

Dr. Richard Dunning trained and worked as a surveyor before completing a PhD in housing economics. He is the Vice Chair of the Housing Studies Association, the learned society for housing research in the UK. Richard has worked on Strategic Housing Market Assessments for local authorities, undertaken housing need modelling at the national scale for Shelter Scotland, completed housing and planning research for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Residential Landlords Association, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. He has published research on the impact of segmentation in human behaviour on housing markets.

Dr. Thomas Moore is a Lecturer in Planning at the University of Liverpool. He is an experienced qualitative researcher with specialisms in housing policy and practice. He has led or undertaken research for a range of funders, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Department for Communities and Local Government, Scottish Government, British Academy, and the ESRC. Tom is also a Co-Investigator of the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) and an Associate Editor of the International Journal of Housing Policy.

Mr Connor Burns is a 4th year Town and Regional Planning MPlan student at the University of Liverpool.

Prof. Alexander Lord is the Lever Chair of Town and Regional Planning in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of Liverpool. He works on the economic effects of urban and environmental planning and has conducted research for a wide range of funders including an Economic and Social Research Council ‘Urban Transformations’ award on the behavioural economics of real estate markets. Alex has also conducted research for the Royal Town Planning Institute on the potential value of planning as a formal animator of development as well as leading the consortium of universities (Cambridge, LSE, Oxford, Sheffield) which completed Valuing Planning Obligations 2016/17 for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. From 2019 onwards Alex will lead a £1.5 multi-institution, trans-national project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Science Foundation China on Land Value Capture.

About the University of Liverpool

The University of Liverpool has, since 1881, worked for the advancement of learning and ennoblement of life. This remains our mission today and will give focus to all our efforts in the coming years as we strive to achieve our ambitions and aspirations, tackle the grand challenges of the age and make our vision a reality.

As a connected, global University with multiple physical and virtual campuses – Liverpool, Suzhou, Singapore and online – our worldwide influence and impact is unrivalled in higher education.

The University is an inclusive institution, committed to the provision of opportunity for those with the capacity to benefit as individuals but also as members of a wider community dedicated to a sustainable and just society.

Table of contents

Contents Executive summary ...... 6 1.0 Introduction ...... 8 1.1 What is the problem? ...... 8 1.2 What is the suggested solution? ...... 8 1.3 Our research questions and methods ...... 9 2.0 How has the standard methodology changed the system and process of planning for housing? ...... 11 2.1 Introduction ...... 11 2.2 Conceptual and Practical Criticisms of the Standard Methodology ...... 12 2.3 Underlying Issues with the Standard Methodology ...... 15 2.4 What might be the impacts of the standard methodology on housing delivery? ...... 16 2.5 Empirical evidence ...... 23 3.0 Does housing delivery match evidence on need? ...... 26 3.1 Statistical evidence ...... 26 3.1.1 Introduction...... 26 3.1.2 Recent delivery in Salford City ...... 28 3.2 Qualitative evidence ...... 36 3.3 Summary ...... 37 4.0 What does sustainable high-density development look like? ...... 38 4.1 Introduction ...... 38 4.2 Case study 1 (City-Regional; International): Portland, Oregon ...... 40 4.3 Case Study 2 (Development scale; UK): Greenwich Millennium Village...... 42 4.3.1 Introduction...... 42 4.3.2 Construction ...... 42 4.3.3 Liveability and Management ...... 43 4.3.4 Energy Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability ...... 44 4.3.5 Summary ...... 44 4.4 Case Study 3 (Development Scale; UK): Saffron Square, Croydon ...... 45 4.4.1 Overview ...... 45 4.4.2 Communal facilities ...... 46 4.4.3 Sustainability, Efficiency and Delivering High-Quality Design ...... 46 4.4.4 Summary ...... 47 4.5 Summary ...... 47 5.0 Does recent high-density housing development meet established best practice criteria? . 49

5.1 Diversity of provision, open space, etc...... 49 5.2 Infrastructure provision ...... 49 5.3 Other aspects of sustainability ...... 50 5.4 Summary ...... 50 6.0 Other factors and possible changes ...... 52 6.1 What changes to the Standard Methodology, or other factors in planning for housing, would be helpful in addressing any problems? ...... 52 6.2 Are there other factors influencing the process of planning for housing, for example “austerity”? ...... 53 6.3 Summary ...... 53 7.0 Conclusions ...... 55 7.1 Research Question 1 ...... 55 7.2 Research Question 2 ...... 55 7.3 Research Question 3 ...... 56 7.4 Research Question 4 ...... 56 7.5 Research Question 5 ...... 56 8.0 References ...... 58 Appendix A – Public sector interview questions ...... 63 Appendix B – Private sector interview questions ...... 64

Executive summary

Members of the centre for Sustainable and Resilient Cities (SaRC) were commissioned by Barratt Developments PLC in October 2019 to undertake a short research exercise into the impacts of the Standard Methodology for assessing the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in local authorities.

The research set out to answer five research questions:

1. How has the Standard Methodology changed the system/process of planning for housing? What appear to be the outcomes for evidence-based planning? 2. How does the housing stock, recent developments and planned for housing development in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region relate to the evidence base on need as expressed in previous Strategic Housing Market Assessments? 3. If high density development is to be adopted as the prime focus for housing development in the urban cores of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, what are the critical factors to make that form of development sustainable? 4. Are the factors emerging from (3) being delivered upon in relation to trends in housing development (planned for/implemented) in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region? 5. If the answers to 1-4 suggest that there is a problem with current processes of planning for housing, what amendments/additions to the Standard Methodology might be helpful in addressing this? Are there other factors influencing the process, e.g. a reduction in local authority budgets and hence capacity due to “austerity”?

To answer these questions the team adopted a multi-methods approach, which included a review of literature and best practice examples; statistical analysis of recent housing delivery; and in- depth interviews with representatives of public and private sector bodies with an interest in planning for housing.

The report first summarises the criticisms of the Standard Methodology which surrounded its introduction, including the risk that it would exacerbate the north-south divide, fail to acknowledge variations across housing markets and ‘bake in’ under-delivery due to its reliance on (outdated) trend-based population projections.

It then reports the views of our interviewees on these and other issues. A division between public sector and private sector representatives opens up, which remains in play throughout. The public sector were largely positive about the introduction of the Standard Methodology, the private sector less so, particularly in terms of the detail of the Methodology and its implementation. Beyond the criticisms identified above, a recurring concern on the part of private sector interviewees was that the Standard Methodology would introduce or exacerbate a focus on “the number” which it generated, rather than a broader-based discussion of type, size and location of homes.

To explore whether housing delivery matches evidence on need, the report next investigates recent housing delivery in one of the Greater Manchester authorities, Salford City. The report finds that whilst the quantum of housing delivery has remained reasonably constant in recent years, there is a clear move towards smaller properties in wards closer to the city centre. The

proportion of homes delivered in Salford which are apartments has increased from 46% in 2014/15 to 83% in 2018/19.

Our interviewees were asked about this, and again we see a divide between public and private sector. The latter were concerned that the emphasis on city centres seen through the analysis above would be exacerbated by the Standard Methodology, which is seen to allow a focus only on the number of homes to be delivered. Public sector interviewees did not feel that this was the case, but defended the principle of focussing on city centre apartments, despite evidence of demand for more homes in less central areas. One summed up the prevailing attitude as ‘People might need to think differently about where they live’.

The report then analyses best practice around high-density urban developments, to explore Research Question 3. It identifies a number of key success factors, for such develop to be sustainable in the longer term, including a variety in housing mix, and the provision of sufficient high quality social and transport infrastructure. This is followed by a light touch review of whether these success factors are being met in relation to recent apartment delivery in the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Regions. Our analysis and interview data suggests that, broadly speaking, they are not, with some exceptions. We conclude that where the success factors are being delivered, this is on larger sites with accompanying masterplans, and where the scale of development is sufficient to allow for diversity in unit size and type, and to fund infrastructure. In contrast, most development in these City Regions (and indeed in others, including the West Midlands and West Yorkshire) is dominated, the report finds, by small individual sites with insufficient overarching management.

To address these problems, the report presents suggestions of our interviewees on changes which would be required to the Standard Methodology to improve its implementation. The broad consensus of our private sector interviewees was that the Methodology needs to be much more cognisant of wider issues in the housing market, including the need to provide for a diversity of markets and, crucially, include a stronger emphasis on economic growth. Some were concerned, however, that these changes might be unlikely given the impacts the Standard Methodology is having in other areas in the South East of England, where local authorities are being forced to plan for higher levels of housing delivery. Given the perceived focus of the Government on the South East and London, they felt the Methodology might remain broadly as-is. In which case, they argued, local authority planners need to be bolder in promoting these issues – the Standard Methodology does include scope for higher housing figures, but this might go against the grain of local politicians’ preferences.

The report concludes with brief reflections on other issues with the process and system for planning for housing, including “austerity”. This reinforces the findings of earlier research, including that undertaken by the Royal Town Planning Institute, that local planning authorities have been “hollowed out”, particularly in planning policy teams. This leaves them profoundly under-resourced, both in terms of volume of staff and, in some cases, the expertise therein.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 What is the problem?

The delivery of new homes is one of the principal priorities for the UK government as it seeks to address a decades-long under-supply of residential development. For central government there is ample evidence that this is an urgent issue. However, some have expressed scepticism that planning consents are being translated into new homes at a rate sufficient to narrow the gap between supply and demand. The question, “why aren’t we building enough homes?” has been now been posed by a wide range of industry commentators for a sustained period of time (Bentley, 2016; Johnston, 2015; Hannah, 2017; Stokel-Walker, 2015; Morton, 2012; UK Construction Online, 2020).

Despite the frequency with which this question has been raised the rate at which the supply of new homes has grown has consistently lagged behind forecast need. For example, Wilson and Barton (2018, p.3) reported that in 2017/18 around 222,000 new homes were built in comparison with estimates of annual housing need that ranged between 240,000 and 340,000. The range of factors influencing the development of new homes and their surroundings are many, from the availability of materials and skilled labour to ‘developer contributions’ - public goods such as affordable housing and infrastructure provided by the development industry through the planning process. The interaction between market forces and the regulatory environment provides a complex context that exists in parallel to the computation of housing targets.

The Independent Review of Build Out, commonly referred to as the ‘Letwin Review’ (2018), provides an important recent investigation into this issue. It concludes with a set of proposals for how the system might be reformed to reflect a better understanding of the market conditions that govern developers’ decision making. Specifically, the review argued that a core objective of future policy should be the diversification of new development (type/tenure) with the conclusion that, “the homogeneity of the types and tenures of the homes on offer on these sites (large sites), and the limits on the rate at which the market will absorb such homogenous products, are the fundamental drivers of the slow rate of build out” (Letwin, 2018: 6, parentheses added). This finding underpinned the recommendation that Government should:

…adopt a new set of planning rules specifically designed to apply to all future large sites (initially those over 1,500 units) in areas of high housing demand, requiring those developing such sites to provide a diversity of offerings, in line with diversification principles in a new planning policy document (Letwin, 2018, p.6)

1.2 What is the suggested solution?

Rather than attempt to tackle the complexity of build-out rates, the Government instead has chosen to focus upon the role played by local authorities. The latest in a series of “carrots” (such as the New Homes Bonus) and “sticks” (such as the Housing Delivery Test) is the adoption of a standard methodology for establishing objectively assessed need for housing. Housing targets are determined at the scale of each individual local planning authority since the abolition of regional planning in 2011, and since 2019 are determined by a newly standardised methodology published by the Office for National Statistics (e.g. ONS, 2018a, 2018b). Although the statistical methodology is subject to change, the approach is fundamentally driven by the underlying logic 8

that if each local authority were to meet the local target the national picture would represent a supply side re-alignment to meet demand.

This system, which is simultaneously orientated to meeting top-down targets for supply and bottom-up market demand, represents a tension. In many cases the development industry argue that targets are under-specified with respect to the type, tenure and location of new housing; conversely others point to developers ‘cherry picking’ sites and overseeing slow build out rates.

The standard methodology was intended, in part, to take some of the subjectivity, and therefore some of the delay, out of local plan-making. Instead, arguably, it has rendered housing need a ‘numbers game’, downgrading the importance of a SHMA, as well as linkages between housing and local economic growth strategies. At the same time, Andy Burnham, for example, has been open that, for him, every high-density city centre scheme in Manchester and Salford avoids the need for a Green Belt allocation elsewhere in Greater Manchester. As a consequence, it is contended that cities like Manchester and Liverpool will see the stock of flats and small rented homes grow faster than other types of housing. This report has been commissioned by Barratt Developments PLC to explore these issues.

1.3 Our research questions and methods

The questions we have set out to answer in this research are as follows:

1. How has the Standard Methodology changed the system/process of planning for housing? What appear to be the outcomes for evidence-based planning? 2. How does the housing stock, recent developments and planned for housing development in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region relate to the evidence base on need as expressed in previous Strategic Housing Market Assessments, in terms of: a) Quantity of development? b) Location of development? c) Type of development (re tenure, size, etc.)? 3. If high density development is to be adopted as the prime focus for housing development in the urban cores of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, what are the critical factors to make that form of development sustainable, for example re: a) Equality of mobility (access to public transport in non-car developments) b) Access to social infrastructure and green space c) Other factors, including long-term management of non owner-occupied housing d) Funding of later-life welfare (currently heavily-dependant on mortgage equity) 4. Are the factors emerging from (3) being delivered upon in relation to trends in housing development (planned for/implemented) in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region? 5. If the answers to 1-4 suggest that there is a problem with current processes of planning for housing, what amendments/additions to the Standard Methodology might be helpful in addressing this? Are there other factors influencing the process, e.g. a reduction in local authority budgets and hence capacity due to “austerity”?

The research team, specified above, has adopted a multi-methods approach to answer these questions in a cross-cutting way. We have:

a) Undertaken an in-depth literature and policy review to explore published opinions and statistics in relation to research questions 1 and 3. b) Interviewed four representatives of local and city-regional government in the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Regions to explore research questions 1, 2, 4 and 5. These interviewees have been anonymised to allow them to express their views in an unconstrained manner. The interview guides, used to organise the semi-structured interviews, can be seen at Appendices A and B. c) Interviewed five representatives of the development industry, primarily those operating in the North West of England, but supplemented with some with a wider brief to explore research questions 1, 2, 4 and 5. As with our public sector interviewees, these interviewees have been anonymised1. d) Analysed data on housing delivery in Salford City Council, as an exemplar local authority which is operating within a multi-level governance framework to explore questions 2 and 4.

The following report sets out our data and analysis thereof, organised by the five research questions above.

1 We interviewed representatives of: Greater Manchester Combined Authority; the Home Builders Federation; Liverpool City Region Combined Authority; Persimmon Homes; Salford City Council; Turley, Birmingham office; Turley, Manchester office 10

2.0 How has the standard methodology changed the system and process of planning for housing?

2.1 Introduction

The 2017 Housing White Paper announced the decision to formulate a standard methodology which would outline an objectively assessed method for local authorities to calculate an area’s housing need (Barton Willmore, 2019).This established a ‘one-size fits all’ methodology with the intention of eliminating local authorities’ ability to duck potentially difficult decisions. Under the previous arrangements they were allowed them greater methodological flexibility and subsequent variation in the establishment of housing need required in their areas (DCLG, 2017; Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019). The methodology was published by the government on 19th February 2019 and produced the following three-step approach for calculating housing need (Barton Willmore, 2019):

1. Setting the baseline Use of Office of National Statistics (ONS) household projections data to estimate how many new households there may be if these trends continue, without attempting to predict future political, economic or other changes.

2. Affordability adjustment Baseline adjusted to account for housing affordability using house to price earnings ratio of the local authority through measuring median house price against median annual salary. An affordability adjustment is only applied if median house prices are more than four times the median earnings in a local authority. For each 1% increase in the affordability ratio above this level, the baseline figure increases by 0.25%.

3. Capping the level of increase If the local authority has adopted relevant strategic policies in the last five years before the calculation is made, then the new housing need target is capped at 40% above the annual average housing need set out in those policies. This also applies if the authority has reviewed an older policy and kept or amended the target. If the policies were adopted more than five years ago, a cap may still apply. The new housing need target is capped at 40% above whichever is higher of two measures: the baseline identified in step 1, or the average housing need figure set out in the most recently adopted strategic policies. (Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019)

This provides a transparent, more consistent approach to calculating requirements, in turn providing clarity for developers. The idea of a standard methodology has been generally welcomed across both the public and private sectors (Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019; Savills, 2018). However, the methodology that eventually materialised has been less widely applauded (National Audit Office, 2019). Critics have questioned the methodology’s capacity to support the government’s ambitions of delivering 300,000 new homes annually by the mid-2020s (National Audit Office, 2019; Lichfields 2019). In the next Section we explore some of the main criticisms of the standard methodology.

2.2 Conceptual and Practical Criticisms of the Standard Methodology

In order to effectively assess the outcomes of this evidence-based approach to calculating housing need we must first unpack the reasoning behind its formulation; ultimately embedded in the intention of speeding and improving the consistency of the planning process for developers, landowners and promoters whilst ensuring these homes are delivered in the ‘right places’ (DCLG, 2017, pp. 14, 74-75; Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019, p. 33). As aforementioned, housing affordability ratios and ONS household projections are used to identify areas of highest housing need; producing what is intended to be an objective “single factor” policy (Smith, 1979; Turley, 2019). Whilst this fulfils its worthy intention of delivering a simple, formulaic process, it also produces a number of spatial implications. Chief amongst these is the risk of exacerbating long- standing socio-economic disparities between the north and south (Turley, 2019).

These problems come as a consequence of the one-dimensionality of the prescribed formulaic process (Turley, 2019). This approach, focusing upon a number of houses to be delivered, has, some claim, led to the internal composition of individual local authority housing markets becoming an afterthought, in terms of any mismatch between supply and demand for different size, location, type or tenure of new homes (Turley, 2019). The need for a more nuanced approach to formulating the methodology is highlighted by the intrinsic links between affordability and need and the size and quality of existing stock (Turley, 2019b; Whitehead, 1991). These links are reflected in the North having considerably higher affordability ratios along with significantly more homes in council tax bands A and B, illustrating the importance of adopting a multi-dimensional approach to calculating housing requirement (Turley, 2019).

Table 2.1 - Illustrates the regional polarity in housing affordability ratios used in the standard methodology; producing a lower housing requirement for Northern local authorities (ONS, 2019). Housing Affordability Ratios (2018) Lowest London Local Authority Ratios Highest Northern Local Authorities Ratios 1. Tower Hamlets 9.84 1. Harrogate 10.13 2. Barking and Dagenham 10.12 2. Trafford 9.43 3. Croydon 11.13 3. Ryedale 9.32

Table 2.2 – The considerably lower household Tax Bands across the North (Turley, 2019, p. 11)

Historically, a number of methods have been prescribed when using housing quality as a factor for calculating housing need (SaRC, 2019). One extreme is the assumption that all poor-quality dwellings must be replaced; therefore, increasing housing need more in areas where housing quality issues are most acute (Whitehead, 1991). Whilst places such as Sheffield and Rotherham

have drawn upon household formation data, housing affordability and stock through the use of surveys and analysis (Ferrari et al. 2015).

Conversely, the same assumption the standard methodology adopts can be prescribed which believes all dwellings can be bought up to necessary standards thus, lowering the housing need figure (Whitehead, 1991). This belief is evidenced by the House of Commons defining housing need last year as “…the amount of housing required for all households to live in accommodation that meets a certain normative standard”, ultimately not clarifying what the normative standard is (Wilson & Barton, 2018, p. 7). Whilst this is clarified in the Technical Housing Standards, these standards only apply where local authorities choose to introduce them and can demonstrate need and viability for their application (RIBA, 2015; DCLG, 2015).

However, even if these components of the methodology and the legislative loopholes surrounding it were to be mitigated, there are a number of other factors the methodology is still unable to account for as a consequence of its utilisation of fixed demographic figures and an ‘evidence based’ as opposed to ‘evidence informed’ approach (Turley, 2019; National Audit Office, 2019; Lichfields, 2018; Davoudi, 2006). These include factors such as location theory, contemporary market forces and behavioural geography within a LA and their interconnectedness with the housing market (Smith, 1979; Lichfields, 2018; Maclennan & O’Sullivan, 2012). As a result, it has been argued that the methodology fails to account for the regionalist nature of some market areas in the case they would typically fall under the 70% containment rate practice guidance suggests fulfilment of in order to conduct a self-contained HMA (Bramley, 2013; Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016).

Moreover, in the instance a self-contained HMA would be conducted, this can highlight the variance of the local authority’s internal housing market differentials and socio-spatial segregation (Ferrari, 2015; Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016). In turn these areas can have their own distinct housing character, type, tenure and quality they cater for and thus their own unique requirements. Wirral offers an excellent example that demonstrates the differences in character, strengths and weaknesses of different market areas and therefore how allocating a singular affordability ratio does not reflect such complexity (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016, pp. 64-67; Nomis, 2011; Public Health England, 2017). Table 2.3 illustrates the difference between Birkenhead & Tranmere and Hoylake & West Kirby, on either side of the Wirral, and in turn the difference between those wards and the national/regional averages.

Table 2.3 – Differentials within Wirral (Nomis, 2011; Public Health England, 2017).

Birkenhead & Hoylake & West Kirby England North West Tranmere Homes Owned 33.7% 82.6% 63.3% 64.5% Socially Rented 33.7% 6% 17.7% 18.3%

Private Rented 30.1% 9.9% 16.8% 15.4%

Detached Home 3.1% 38.7% 22.3% 17.7%

Sem-Detached Home 16.7% 32.8% 30.7% 35.7%

Terraced Home 50.1% 13.9% 24.5% 30.0%

Flat, Maisonette or Apartment 30.1% 14.5% 22.1% 16.4%

Occupancy Rating (Rooms) of -1 or 8.5% 1.8% 8.7% 6.2% Less Occupancy Rating (Bedrooms) of - 3.6% 1.3% 4.6% 3.6% 1 or Less Rooms per Household 4.8 6.5 5.4 5.4

Bedrooms per Household 2.4 3.2 2.7 2.7

Fuel Poverty 19.13 9.82 11.1 13.1

As demonstrated in Table 2.2, upon comparison of Hoylake and West Kirby’s housing stock to the west of the peninsula with Birkenhead and Tranmere’s to the east, the highly contrasting housing character and therefore markets they cater for mirror the extreme socio-economic polarisation the authority faces (Wirral Council, 2017). For example, whilst Birkenhead has a much more diverse mix of tenures, whilst Hoylake and West Kirby’s owner-occupancy rate exceeds 80% (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016; Nomis, 2011). The consequences of this polarisation are reflected in each ward’s fuel poverty figure; with Birkenhead and Tranmere’s figure nearly double the national average, in contrast with Hoylake and West Kirby’s sitting comfortably below (Public Health England, 2017). As a result, this generated some market areas suffering from poor accessibility due to affordability (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016).

Meanwhile, areas such as suburban Birkenhead, Wallasey and Bromborough suffer from a growing stock of homes no longer fit for purpose, reflective of their location within the more urbanised eastern side of Wirral (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016). Consequently, these areas are also amongst those with the highest proportion of residents required to move house in the next five years whilst the borough is demonstrating an inability to meet future resident housing needs and aspirations; reflective of the proportion of concealed households in Birkenhead and Tranmere (1.71%) being almost double that of West Kirby and Thurstaston (0.9%) (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016; Nomis, 2011). Collectively, these factors demonstrate how that application of a one-dimensional approach to defining housing requirements within an area might prove insufficient as a consequence of each internal market area having its own specific needs it must cater for (Smith, 1979; Lichfields, 2018; Maclennan & O’Sullivan, 2012; Nomis, 2011; Public Health England, 2017).

2.3 Underlying Issues with the Standard Methodology

The concerns surrounding the new standard methodology are ultimately rooted in its evidence base being based upon ONS data, which is inherently extrapolative by nature – i.e. being based upon what has happened in the past. It is therefore unable to account for socioeconomic factors such as suppressed demand (SaRC, 2019; Bramley, et al., 2010). These concerns were foreseen by Savills (2018) who highlighted issues surrounding reliance upon the 2014 ONS data. The 2014 ONS data starkly contrasts with 2016 data; the latter suggests a 26% lower population increase by 2030 nationally than projections anticipated in 2014 (Savills, 2018), thus translating to significantly lower housing need. This sudden reduction in the size of the projected population comes as a result of a recent stall in improvement of life expectancy, as a consequence of deterioration in health and social care for lower income households and lower domestic and international migration, due to slower than anticipated recovery from the 2008 economic crash and the uncertainties of Brexit (SaRC, 2018).

As a result, the government’s solution has been to ignore the 2016 projections (Herbert Smith Freehills, 2019), instead using the older 2014 ONS data to better position itself to fulfil the delivery of 300,000 homes annually amidst controversy and respondents to consultations heavily disagreeing with this decision (Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019). Despite little support, the government ultimately embedded the requirement to use 2014 ONS data to inform housing need through both Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 60 (Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019; MHCLG, 2019a,b).

Consequently, these national guidelines have been perceived as highly political, and not as objective as claimed. Of course, this is not dissimilar to any major housing policy of the past century, whether this be the large scale council housing developments of the 1950s and 1960s; Right to Buy during the 1980s or the Housing Market Renewal Initiative of the 2000s. Ultimately all these choices were the outcome of political decision making (SaRC, 2018). Building upon this, the ONS data utilised in the Standard Methodology extrapolates recent trends into the future unchanged; in turn, the output of particular projections and forecasts constantly change (SaRC, 2018, p. 11). Whilst this does not invalidate previous projections, based upon the contemporary consensus regarding the standard methodology, use of the most recent statistics appears to be more reliable (SaRC, 2018). Conversely, Lichfields have cited concerns regarding the newness of the data ONS utilises to inform future projections (Lichfields, 2018). These concerns come as a result of ONS only utilising data from as far back as 2001, as opposed to DCLG’s old methodology which used formation trends from as far back as 1971 (Lichfields, 2018; DCLG, 2016).

Currently, therefore, household projections are based upon the decade which seen a low level of household formation due to the economic climate following the 2008-onwards recession, thus ‘baking in’ trends which are probably not reflective of the genuine future ‘need’ for homes and risking exacerbating current issues of under-delivery (Lichfields, 2018; Savills, 2017). The use of this data to inform the housing projections could result in 150,000 less households being yielded between 2016-2026 (230,000 homes total) and collectively result in a 70,000-annual shortfall on the 300,000 homes the government wants to deliver annually as a consequence of disregard for other exogenous factors that have previously influenced the market (Savills, 2017; Lichfields, 2018). In response to the unreliability of this method, Lichfields recommend consideration of the following improvements to the methodology;

1. Removal of the logically flawed 40% above housing requirement cap for a local authority when calculating their housing need figure (standard methodology step 3). The enforcement of this cap subsequently encourages councils to oppose development to drive down their development ambitions; only to be ‘rewarded’ with lower housing need figures in future projections. 2. Consider the production of local variants for household projections and the undertaking of an approach which considers ‘what is likely to be needed in the future?’ as opposed to the current ‘what will happen in the future if current trends continue?’ approach. 3. Or alternatively a full departure from use of demographic projections in the standard methodology; rather, an approach focused upon stock growth and adjusted market signals in accordance with local pressures. (Lichfields, 2018)

Building upon this, another reason for the standard methodology’s adoption was the Government’s belief that inconsistent methods were costly and time consuming, to the extent of an overall cost of £3 million attributed to ‘unnecessary delay and wasting taxpayers’ money’ (DCLG, 2017, p. 23). This is due to lengthy debates during local plan examinations regarding the validity of the methodology used by the local authority, and and its opaqueness for local people who therefore do not fully understand the number of homes currently needed. The Government also argued that a more transparent approach would be more consistent with the Industrial Strategy (DCLG, 2017).

However, the standard methodology’s output may be counterintuitive in this respect, as it has been argues to pose a risk to the aims of the Northern Powerhouse, Transport for the North’s Strategic Plan and the National Industrial Strategy itself (Turley, 2019; National Audit Office, 2019). This is already evidenced through housing delivery ambitions being scaled back due to the political heat surrounding topics such as the Green Belt; demonstrated by Greater Manchester and Wirral revising their proposed Strategic Framework and Local Plan respectively (Lichfields, 2019; Pegasus Group, 2019; Chester Standard, 2018; Place North West, 2019). Critics have argued that this has resulted in less ambitious, more short-sighted delivery plans being produced, which fail to account for supressed demand and the long-term economic impacts less ambitious delivery could have regionally (Turley, 2019; SaRC, 2019; Lichfields, 2019a; Place North West, 2019; HM Infrastructure and Projects Authority, 2016; Brooks, 2019).

2.4 What might be the impacts of the standard methodology on housing delivery?

As a result of the ONS data and use of housing affordability ratios as a tool for calculating housing need, more southern regions have experienced an increase in housing need. Meanwhile, regions throughout the Midlands and North have seen considerable reductions in their housing need as demonstrated in Figure 2.1 (National Audit Office, 2019, pp. 23-25).

Figure 2.1: Demonstrates the disparate impact the standard methodology has had across England at a regional level (National Audit Office, 2019, p. 25)

The standard methodology appears to have its biggest ‘positive’ impact in London where it has generated a 35% increase in housing need due to significantly higher housing affordability ratios across all Local Authorities when contrasted with the North West (National Audit Office, 2019; ONS, 2019). The discrepancy between these ratios is highlighted by Table 2.4, which encapsulates the regional polarity in housing affordability ratios – all North Western Local Authorities have a lower ratio than London’s lowest (Tower Hamlets)

Table 2.4 – 2018 Housing Affordability Ratios (ONS, 2019). Lowest London Local Authority Ratios: Highest North West Local Authorities Ratios: 1. Tower Hamlets 9.84 1. Trafford 9.43 2. Barking and Dagenham 10.12 2. Eden 8.57 3. Croydon 11.13 3. South Lakeland 8.34

As a consequence of this disparity, the North West has seen its housing need decline by 24% since the inception of the standard method; with Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East seeing similarly significant reductions (National Audit Office, 2019). Therefore, although the new methodology has perhaps pressurised local authorities in London to face up to the scale of housing need in their area and has thus substantially increased the calculated need in the area, the calculated need across northern regions has decreased (Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019; National Audit Office, 2019). In turn, the methodology has produced a number of ramifications; as the PPG describes the standard methodology as a ‘minimum starting point’ for determining the number of homes needed; there is no requirement for local authorities to plan for more than the minimum and thus they have no incentive to do so (MHCLG, 2019a; Barton Willmore, 2019).

Subsequently, during a time where national consensus is supposedly advocating for local authorities and private developers to ‘build more homes’ (DCLG, 2017, p. 5) – the ‘cornerstone’ policy of the 2017 Housing White Paper is counterintuitively discouraging a majority of areas from building homes (Savills, 2018, p. 1); many of which are eager to utilise housebuilding as a catalyst for regeneration, to create jobs and stimulate economic growth (National Audit Office, 2019). The incentive to utilise housebuilding as a mechanism for local growth is reflected by 41% of the 22

local authorities who are delivering more than their minimum housing requirement citing regeneration, jobs and economic growth as a primary reason for doing so in a study by Lichfields (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Stated reasons for local authorities going above their minimum need (Lichfields, 2019, p. 3).

This suggests how substantial an influence regeneration has on catalysing housing delivery above the minimum requirement, contributing to an increased 3,800 homes per year across 22 local authorities (Lichfields, 2019). Rather than capitalising upon the genuine aspirations of authorities exceeding their requirement to continue to grow, the reduction in the need for new homes in these areas could hamper plans to regenerate through the possible lowering of local support for housing (National Audit Office, 2019). Furthermore, the difficulty meeting delivery targets becomes increasingly more concerning upon considering London’s ability to actually fulfil it delivery targets in practice (Lichfields, 2019, p. 3) with 79% of London Local Authorities projected to fail the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) in 2020 (Table 2.5). Thus, bringing into question the effectiveness of the Standard Methodology and HDT, as despite London’s local authorities collectively being allocated a 36% increase in local housing need (National Audit Office, 2019), London saw a 20% decline in housebuilding from 2017 to 2018 (Lichfields, 2018). Building upon this, London fulfilled just 75.5% of its local housing in 2017/18 based upon its own methodology and this figure declines to 41% when aligned with its Standard Method local need figure (Table 2.5) (Lichfields, 2018, p. 17).

Table 2.5 The extent of under delivery against the HDT across all London Local Authorities (Lichfields, 2018, p. 17).

The development industry has suggested that there are varying extents to which London could ultimately fail to meet its local housing need (see Figure 2.3); one possible outcome is if London increases its delivery and fulfils the intended delivery outlined in the draft Local Plan of 66,000, the required need stated by GLA following the 2017 SHMA (GLA, 2019). If this pace were to be sustained this would deliver an 11,000-home annual shortfall; translating to a necessary 14% and 20% uplift elsewhere to compensate and deliver the 300,000 annual government targets (The Planner, 2019). However as aforementioned, increases in London’s stated local need has previously had no impact in stimulating its dwellings added per annum (Lichfields, 2018). If the new local plan target of 66,000 suffers the same fate as this, as anticipated by sceptics (Lichfields, 2018), this would translate to delivery of an estimated 27,500 homes annually and accumulate in the delivery of an estimated 234,500 homes nationally (The Planner, 2019). In turn, this would require the rest of the country to exceed the standard methodology by 39% in order to compensate for the shortfall (The Planner, 2019; Lichfields, 2018).

Figure 2.3: The extent of London’s consistently poor housing delivery figures (Lichfields, 2019, p. 3).

Yet, this does not account for other the substantial shortfall in local authorities outside London; as nationally 50% (160) of all local authorities (LA’s) expected to fail the 2020 HDT, with 34% (109 LA’s) below the presumption in favour of sustainable development threshold. A further 10% are projected to be forced to operate within the 10% land buffer and 6% are anticipated to require an action plan (Lichfields, 2018). The concerning proportion of Local Authorities currently on course to deliver below the presumption in favour of sustainable development threshold are broken down in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 – Scale of under-delivery nationally (raw data extracted from Lichfields, 2019, pp. 6-24) Housing Market Areas: Number of LA’s in Region Number of LA’s in Number of Below Presumption in region BPIFSOD as LA’s in region Favour of Sustainable % of all LA’s BPIFSOD as %

Development (BPIFSOD) nationally of all other LA’s BPIFSOD Bristol, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire 4 1.3% 3.6% and Somerset Cheshire, Greater Manchester and 7 2.1% 6.4% Merseyside Cornwall, Devon & Dorset 6 1.8% 5.5% East Anglia - Central and North 7 2.1% 6.4% Hampshire 6 1.8% 5.5% Hertfordshire and Essex 17 5.3% 15.5% Kent 7 2.1% 6.4% London 26 8.1% 23.8% Surrey 5 1.5% 4.5% Sussex 8 2.5% 7.3% Other 16 4.9% 14.4% Total 109 33.5% 100%

Table 2.6 also puts in to perspective the extent of under delivery outside London: whilst London is responsible for a substantial proportion of LAs below the presumption in favour of sustainable development, over three quarters of those LAs remain outside London. The reality of the extent to which regions will need to ‘over deliver’ to successfully compensate for the national shortfalls is 20

contextualised by Table 2.7, which analyses national housing delivery performance against the Standard Methodology requirement total and the stated government target. This demonstrates the reality of the national shortfall and necessary additional delivery to achieve government targets.

Table 2.7 – Implications of under-delivery (Authors’ Own). Total: Target: Overall Percentage Shortfall from Target Overall Net Additional Dwellings Added (2018) 221,000 273,000 Shortfall from Regional Methodology Targets 52,000 273,000 18.8% Shortfall from Government Target 79,000 300,000 27% Shortfall from Regional Methodology Targets if London 6,500 273,000 2.1% Shortfall is Fully Compensated For Shortfall from Government Targets if London Shortfall is Fully 32,500 300,000 11% Compensated For

Ultimately, Table 2.7 demonstrates how even if regions successfully exceed their required delivery at the pace they currently are, to compensate for London’s shortfall in contributing to government targets of 300,000 homes per annum, overdelivering regions will still need to deliver a further 32,500 homes. In turn, this highlights the standard methodology’s inability to account for local circumstances, reflected in Middlesbrough’s aspiration to exceed its standard methodology requirement by 37% (267 dwellings per annum to 425 dwellings per annum) to catalyse job creation and city-scale development (Lichfields, 2018). Meanwhile, Worthing is required to deliver 873 dwellings per annum under the Standard Methodology, yet seeks to deliver just 28% of its requirement according to its draft local plan (Worthing Borough Council, 2018; Lichfields, 2018). Worthing has made this decision based upon being bounded by the South Downs National Park thus limiting its ability to deliver sufficient land. This, argues critics, reflects the standard methodology’s disregard for crucial external factors of the housing market such as the absence of developable land and need for genuinely affordable housing in the south (e.g. Worthing) and counterintuitive ignorance toward the ambitious economic rebalance and job creation strategies of the north (e.g. Middlesbrough) (Lichfields, 2018; SLG, 2019).

Taken at scale, this has led to a reduction of delivery ambitions due to political pressures (Figure 2.4), at the same time as southern local authorities appeared to accelerate the local plan-making process at the start of 2019 (Figure 2.5) in order to secure a lower housing requirement; hence the January spike in Figure 2.5 (Lichfields, 2019). As a whole, this has resulted in local authorities in both the north and south tactically driving their housing requirement figures down, having the opposite effect than that intended by the standard methodology (Lichfields, 2019). In order to avoid this, it has been argued that the methodology must align housing requirements with economic growth strategies in the north (Lichfields, 2019; SLG, 2019).

Figure 2.4 – Reductions in housing targets in local plans (Lichfields, 2019)

Figure 2.5 – Number of local plans submitted per month over a 12 month period (Lichfields, 2019).

This chapter of the report has focussed upon concerns which have been expressed about the impacts of the standard methodology on a macro-scale, largely in terms of the absolute numbers of homes needed and being delivered. We have also sought in this research to explore the impacts the standard methodology might have at a smaller scale, within local authorities and city-regions. It has been suggested by some that an approach focussed purely on a single number of homes which local authorities must deliver runs the risk of ignoring issues such as where these

homes should best be located, what type of homes should be provided, at what density and in what form.

In a nutshell, on its introduction there was a concern from some that the standard methodology would accelerate existing trends towards too great a reliance on high density homes within city centres (Best Laid Plans, 2020), in contrast to a more diverse spread of provision which might have been identified by SHMAs. To explore initial experiences of the standard methodology in practice, we have undertaken eight interviews with representatives of public and private sector organisations with an interest in planning for housebuilding (see section 1.3 for more details). The interview data in relation to this research question is presented below

2.5 Empirical evidence

In our interviews, we asked interviewees several questions about the standard methodology, including how it was changing/had changed the system/process of planning for housing; what appear to be the outcomes for that area (for public sector planners) or for areas the interviewee had worked in (for private sector planners), in terms of evidence-based planning; and how the standard methodology is used to support evidence on the type and location of housing need in those areas.

It would be fair to say there was a fairly clear divide between public and private sector interviewees in their responses to these questions.

Overall, our public sector interviewees were positive regarding the introduction of the standard methodology, and the rationale behind it. One interviewee (at a local authority) expressed their sympathy for the government in trying to streamline the process of examining local plans, as the amount of time taken at examinations on housing numbers was/is huge. That interviewee went on to note that they didn’t perceive that the process of planning for housing within their area had changed significantly as a result of the introduction of the standard methodology. They emphasised that their authority was not solely focussed upon delivery of the number of homes prescribed by the standard methodology, with quality, location and type of homes equally important to them. They were particularly concerned to ensure more family homes were delivered within their area.

An interviewee at a combined authority went further, stating that the introduction of the standard methodology was a positive change to planning, as it “takes the heat out of the conversation” around housing numbers, giving the authority a stable point to start from. They are therefore focussed on defending their strategy for housing rather than their housing number, which was the case with previous iterations of their plan. The interviewee spoke about the “ludicrous amount of time and money” which had to be spent on commissioning demographic evidence re the number of homes needed, and the authority being challenged on both sides by the development sector and groups such as the CPRE opposing green belt release. Now, thanks to the standard methodology, they had a figure, and whilst “housebuilders are still saying it’s too low, green belt groups are still saying it’s too high; but actually that’s not really where the debate is – the debate is ‘does the strategy deliver the type of outcomes – is there inclusive growth – is there any type of redistribution that will make the north significantly better off than it is now’. It’s not about the number”.

Private sector interviewees varied as to whether the concept of a standard methodology was in itself positive. Several interviewees said they felt it was, and were sympathetic to the idea of reducing time spent at local plan examinations. Some saw the standard methodology as simplifying the process of planning for housing – previously it was too confusing and there were just too many models that would end up in widespread disagreement, which was costly for both local authorities and house builders. As there was now less debate, this was helpful in reducing arguments between participants in the process. This was reaffirmed by an interviewee in a Combined Authority, who felt that using a standard methodology has the potential to reduce points of contention and disagreement over different methodologies and calculations at local plan examinations.

Others were more sceptical, noting that whilst the system in place before the introduction of the standard methodology was not perfect, it seemed to be improving over time. Having participated in numerous local plan discussions, one interviewee noted that there were different ‘interpretations’ and debate about methods. But over time there was increasing agreement in these methods, questioning one of the underpinning rationales for the introduction of the standard methodology. One interviewee went further, expressing the view that “There are no positive outcomes from the standard methodology”, and that it was likely to perpetuate the short-term thinking which is currently predominant in plan-making.

Despite this variation of reviews on the principle of the standard methodology, there was broad agreement that the details of it, and how it was being interpreted was/is problematic. There were several aspects to the private sector’s concerns with the standard methodology.

The first was the oft-repeated question about numbers vs. strategy. Several interviewees saw the standard methodology as worsening an existing trend in this direction: “The OAN has put the focus on the overall number, whereas setting the right land supply (not just a number) to meet the right homes is needed”. This trend was observed amongst planning officers and local plan inspectors. Local authorities were cited as increasingly focussing on the delivery of any unit, rather than meeting the demands of citizens. Whilst there have been few, if any, local plan inspectors’ reports since the standard methodology was brought in, in the discussions one interviewee was involved in, inspectors generally seemed to be happy if the OAN number had been met, and weren’t too concerned about location, type, etc.

A second problem was the nature of the standard methodology’s approach to predicting need, which relies on ONS population projections. As noted above, “because it is a trend-based assessment it just takes forward what we’ve had in the past”. This was seen to both limit the potential for housing-led economic growth, and to perpetuate trends of limited growth in working age people in, for example, Greater Manchester. This was “because people have been moving out to the south or Cheshire East – but if there was an offer in Manchester they would have stayed. So the past is framing what should happen in the future”.

A third concern was that a single number for OAN established through the standard methodology did not consider phasing over the duration of a plan period. One interviewee observed that “There’s always going to be an element of the development cycle – so you need to be careful that you don’t provide all of the type of requirement in one year.”

These discussions illustrate some of the diverging views around the principle and overarching impacts of the standard methodology. In the next Chapter we move on to exploring in more detail 24

how the standard methodology might be working in practice, with a specific focus on the North West of England.

3.0 Does housing delivery match evidence on need?

In Chapter 2 we analysed, through literature and our interview data, the standard methodology and some of its (predicted) overarching impacts on planning for housing. In this chapter we explore the standard methodology in more detail, looking at how it might impact on the size, density and type of homes being delivered – and the extent to which any impacts relate to established need against these factors.

We firstly report on secondary evidence we have gathered in relation to a city region and local authority in the North West of England – Greater Manchester and Salford City. We have focussed upon Salford for several reasons, conceptual and practical. In its Greater Manchester context it provides an example of a local authority which includes both a city centre and rural areas subject to development pressure for family housing – unlike, for example, Manchester City Council, which is very tightly bounded. In the course of this research we have also discovered Salford City Council to be an exemplar in the publication of detailed longitudinal data on housing delivery – unlike, for example, Manchester City Council.

Through our analysis we explore the degree to which practice, in terms of homes delivered, conforms to the concerns we have seen expressed that the prevailing system is geared towards encouraging ‘homogeneity of type and tenure’. We then present interview data on the same topic.

3.1 Statistical evidence

3.1.1 Introduction

In developing planning policy, local planning authorities must have regard to their Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). In Salford this is now the Greater Manchester SHMA, the most recent iteration of which was published in January 2019 (GMCA, 2019). Key pieces of information from the SHMA of relevance to this study include that “Manchester and Salford both have significantly higher proportions of flats than the Greater Manchester, regional and national averages” (p. 84) and that Salford has a large proportion of one bedroomed dwellings (13%) – higher than the national average but lower than Manchester City Council. Those two local authorities also have lower proportions of owner-occupied homes than the rest of Greater Manchester, and correspondingly more social renting and private renting. Regarding migration, data from the 2011 census shows that Salford had the highest net inflow of households of all the Greater Manchester authorities, with households aged 25-49 the largest group. Despite these and other differences, the SHMA concludes that Greater Manchester can be conceived of as a single housing market, and housing provision planned for accordingly.

Based on this data and assumptions, the SHMA then goes on to “estimate the need for homes of different types, sizes and values in Greater Manchester” (p. 100), using these three scenarios to do so:

“Scenario 1: Applying the 2011 size and type and tenure mix to the Greater Manchester household projections: This scenario assumes no change to the size and type or tenure of dwelling mix until 2035.

Scenario 2: Continuing the 2001-2011 change to the Greater Manchester household projections: This scenario assumes that the changes in housing type and size and tenure between 2001 and 2011 would be continued until 2035. Scenario 3: Applying the 2011 size and type and tenure mix found in London to the Greater Manchester household projections: This scenario assumes that Greater Manchester achieves a density, type and tenure mix comparable with that of a global city such as London by 2035 and so models a household type, size and tenure mix more similar to that of the capital” (p. 103).

These scenarios suggest progressively more 1 and 2 bedroom flats and maisonettes and fewer 3 and 4 bedroom detached or semi-detached houses and bungalows. This newest SHMA does not suggest a preference for any of these scenarios, in contrast to the previous iteration of the document, published in 2016. The 2016 SHMA likewise explored four scenarios on dwelling mix, concluding that “Dwelling Mix 4”, was the preferred scenario. In this scenario, 55% of all homes to be built between 2014 and 2035 in Greater Manchester were to be houses, and 45% apartments. The mix in Salford was to be 50-50.

The SHMA is one of the central pieces of evidence used by the GMCA to produce the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. This document provides a strategic overview for the development of the Greater Manchester conurbation. Housing plays a significant role in the document and describes a varied approach across the Greater Manchester City Region but with the overarching purpose of meeting policy GM-H 1, the delivery of “a minimum of 201,000 net additional dwellings will be delivered in Greater Manchester over the period 2018-37, or an annual average of around 10,580”. (GMSF, 2019, p. 112).

This policy target follows the ONS methodology referred to above. Consequently, it is the local authorities that comprise Greater Manchester which are forecast to have the greatest level of net new household formation that are understood to make the largest contributions to these targets – principally, Manchester City Council itself and Salford. Table 3.1 illustrates the distribution of housing need across the geography of Greater Manchester.

Table 3.1: The distribution of housing need in Greater Manchester (GMSF, 2019, p.113)

This annual target of 1,720 dwellings for Salford provides the fundamental framing context for the development industry in understanding the volume of development that is intended to be accommodated in this local authority area. However, beyond this specific target there is much less detail on the nature of the development that will be required. Whilst the GMSF makes it clear that it would be desirable for development to comprise a mixture of types and tenures it provides only clues as to what this might mean in practice, only making specific reference to the demands of an ageing population and pointing to the fact that “smaller households are forecast to account for over half of the growth in households” (GMSF, 2019, p. 117). The question of how developers might respond to some of this evidence with proposals that are commercially viable on their understanding of market conditions and consistent with these target-orientated policies are devolved to individual local planning authorities: “The precise mix of dwelling types and sizes will be determined through district local plans, masterplans, and other guidance, in order to reflect local circumstances and deliver an appropriate mix of dwellings across Greater Manchester as a whole” (GMSF, 2019, p. 118).

But what does this look like in practice? How is local delivery matching to this overview of a diverse developments that are mixed by type and tenure?

3.1.2 Recent delivery in Salford City

To explore these questions we can consider residential development in Salford over the period 2003-2019. Table 3.2 shows gross residential completions and additions in Salford, 2003-2019 (by ward). Table 3.3 displays the data in Table 3.2 as proportions of the total of gross residential completions. For example, in 2003/4 Ordsall saw 478 new dwellings from a total of 1,165 for Salford as a whole. Table 3.3 records this as 41.03%. The value of looking at the data in this way lies in the way in which we can consider variation between years and also the degree to which the expected levels of future delivery accord to those that have been achieved in the past.

Table 3.2 shows that only in 5 years out of the 16 for which records are presented has the future target of 1,720 been reached (2006/7, 2007/08, 2008/09, 2016/17 and 2018/19).

Furthermore, the variance and standard deviation for the row and column values in both Tables 3.2 and 3.3 point to the fact that, when considered at the scale of each individual ward, the levels of development are generally quite consistent. This points to the fact that over the period in question development has been quite concentrated in some wards. For example, Ordsall consistently accommodates 40%-60% of the annual total; other wards typically see under 4% (e.g. Swinton South; Swinton North).

Figure 3.1 shows the ward boundaries for Salford City in relation to Manchester city centre to the South and East, demonstrating that the focus for urban development in recent years has been the areas closest to the city centre – Ordsall, Irwell and Broughton.

Whilst the spatial pattern of development is quite consistent across Salford the mix of type and tenure is more revealing. Concentrating on the most recent year (2018/19) it can be seen from Table 3.4 that 17% of all residential development were houses/bungalows (575) whilst 83% (2769) were apartments. When considered in conjunction with Table 3.3, it can be seen that the principal location for development in Salford, Ordsall, actually saw the production of 1,782 one and two bedroom apartments – 53% of all net new dwellings in total. 28

Figure 3.1 – Ward boundaries in Salford (Source: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/13206)

Table 3.2 – Gross residential completions and additions in Salford, by ward, per annum (1st April - 31st March), 2003-2019 Total 2003- Wards 2003-20042004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Variance Mean St. Dev. 2019 Barton 504 39 38 3 14 58 57 9 3 3 0 2 27 79 64 55 53 727.33 31.5 26.97 Boothstown and Ellenbrook 191 5 19 4 1 2 8 1 4 0 0 15 2 54 46 1 29 287.4 11.94 16.95 Broughton 2,051 11 29 6 169 351 350 11 204 105 116 146 197 193 37 7 119 12,767.90 128.19 113 Cadishead 1,008 53 163 230 148 53 34 4 10 86 87 46 49 1 35 9 0 4,369.87 63 66.1 Claremont 372 44 26 1 1 3 3 1 1 9 103 101 45 15 0 16 3 1,159.40 23.25 34.05 Eccles 1,178 17 75 99 255 169 66 20 8 3 0 7 79 36 189 98 57 5,570.65 73.63 74.64 Irlam 83 24 34 5 4 4 0 0 0 2 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 95.36 5.19 9.77 Irwell Riverside 1,792 44 65 55 21 101 130 0 82 17 0 60 23 369 81 154 590 24,113.60 112 155.29 Kersal 426 1 3 11 39 62 47 31 46 25 23 52 27 37 6 2 14 375.45 26.63 19.38 Langworthy 1,497 14 22 31 25 196 113 178 181 72 29 68 197 130 106 106 29 4,500.26 93.56 67.08 Little Hulton 527 38 0 35 34 0 2 0 61 3 0 82 180 19 0 21 52 2,188.73 32.94 46.78 Ordsall 10,293 478 533 335 1,121 1,296 948 380 54 130 180 188 382 116 1,482 662 2,008 326,407.70 643.31 571.32 Pendlebury 927 161 148 37 116 146 55 34 32 0 4 0 1 5 10 40 138 3,749.93 57.94 61.24 Swinton North 322 45 145 49 3 1 3 2 3 5 26 3 6 5 2 22 2 1,351.05 20.13 36.76 Swinton South 289 45 20 64 52 21 22 4 1 0 10 10 4 11 17 6 2 374.2 18.06 19.34 Walkden North 1,079 22 55 115 98 15 65 2 9 24 42 45 93 95 273 104 22 4,398.40 67.44 66.32 Walkden South 813 24 28 13 30 112 1 5 6 2 0 1 9 39 126 248 169 5,418.16 50.81 73.61 Weaste and Seedley 1,136 36 131 1 27 134 87 151 118 30 112 2 0 97 126 42 42 2,869.47 71 53.57 Winton 449 37 52 58 22 45 1 3 16 8 2 38 60 50 47 1 9 501 28.06 22.38 Worsley 308 27 36 10 57 31 20 36 1 24 21 29 2 3 3 2 6 268.2 19.25 16.38 Total 25,245 1,165 1,622 1,162 2,237 2,800 2,012 872 840 548 763 895 1,385 1,354 2,650 1,596 3,344

Variance 4,815,613.14 10,836.93 13,801.78 7,239.88 60,895.50 81,763.68 46,064.57 8,681.94 3,689.26 1,508.46 2,731.82 2,698.93 9,741.04 7,744.43 106,129.00 22,921.33 205,043.96 Mean 1,262.25 58.25 81.1 58.1 111.85 140 100.6 43.6 42 27.4 38.15 44.75 69.25 67.7 132.5 79.8 167.2 St. Dev. 2,194.45 104.1 117.48 85.09 246.77 285.94 214.63 93.18 60.74 38.84 52.27 51.95 98.7 88 325.77 151.4 452.82

Table 3.3 – % of gross residential completions and additions in Salford, by ward, per annum (1st April - 31st March), 2003-2019 Total 2003- Wards 2003-20042004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Variance Mean St. Dev. 2019 Barton 2.00% 3.35% 2.34% 0.26% 0.63% 2.07% 2.83% 1.03% 0.36% 0.55% 0.00% 0.22% 1.95% 5.83% 2.42% 3.45% 1.58% 0.02% 1.72% 1.57% Boothstown and Ellenbrook 0.76% 0.43% 1.17% 0.34% 0.04% 0.07% 0.40% 0.11% 0.48% 0.00% 0.00% 1.68% 0.14% 3.99% 1.74% 0.06% 0.87% 0.01% 0.72% 1.04% Broughton 8.12% 0.94% 1.79% 0.52% 7.55% 12.54% 17.40% 1.26% 24.29% 19.16% 15.20% 16.31% 14.22% 14.25% 1.40% 0.44% 3.56% 0.61% 9.43% 8.06% Cadishead 3.99% 4.55% 10.05% 19.79% 6.62% 1.89% 1.69% 0.46% 1.19% 15.69% 11.40% 5.14% 3.54% 0.07% 1.32% 0.56% 0.00% 0.34% 5.25% 6.01% Claremont 1.47% 3.78% 1.60% 0.09% 0.04% 0.11% 0.15% 0.11% 0.12% 1.64% 13.50% 11.28% 3.25% 1.11% 0.00% 1.00% 0.09% 0.16% 2.37% 4.10% Eccles 4.67% 1.46% 4.62% 8.52% 11.40% 6.04% 3.28% 2.29% 0.95% 0.55% 0.00% 0.78% 5.70% 2.66% 7.13% 6.14% 1.70% 0.10% 3.95% 3.28% Irlam 0.33% 2.06% 2.10% 0.43% 0.18% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.36% 1.05% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.71% Irwell Riverside 7.10% 3.78% 4.01% 4.73% 0.94% 3.61% 6.46% 0.00% 9.76% 3.10% 0.00% 6.70% 1.66% 27.25% 3.06% 9.65% 17.64% 0.48% 6.40% 7.13% Kersal 1.69% 0.09% 0.18% 0.95% 1.74% 2.21% 2.34% 3.56% 5.48% 4.56% 3.01% 5.81% 1.95% 2.73% 0.23% 0.13% 0.42% 0.03% 2.21% 1.90% Langworthy 5.93% 1.20% 1.36% 2.67% 1.12% 7.00% 5.62% 20.41% 21.55% 13.14% 3.80% 7.60% 14.22% 9.60% 4.00% 6.64% 0.87% 0.41% 7.55% 6.64% Little Hulton 2.09% 3.26% 0.00% 3.01% 1.52% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 7.26% 0.55% 0.00% 9.16% 13.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1.32% 1.56% 0.14% 2.63% 3.86% Ordsall 40.77% 41.03% 32.86% 28.83% 50.11% 46.29% 47.12% 43.58% 6.43% 23.72% 23.59% 21.01% 27.58% 8.57% 55.92% 41.48% 60.05% 2.39% 34.89% 15.89% Pendlebury 3.67% 13.82% 9.12% 3.18% 5.19% 5.21% 2.73% 3.90% 3.81% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.07% 0.37% 0.38% 2.51% 4.13% 0.13% 3.43% 3.75% Swinton North 1.28% 3.86% 8.94% 4.22% 0.13% 0.04% 0.15% 0.23% 0.36% 0.91% 3.41% 0.34% 0.43% 0.37% 0.08% 1.38% 0.06% 0.06% 1.56% 2.43% Swinton South 1.14% 3.86% 1.23% 5.51% 2.32% 0.75% 1.09% 0.46% 0.12% 0.00% 1.31% 1.12% 0.29% 0.81% 0.64% 0.38% 0.06% 0.02% 1.25% 1.50% Walkden North 4.27% 1.89% 3.39% 9.90% 4.38% 0.54% 3.23% 0.23% 1.07% 4.38% 5.50% 5.03% 6.71% 7.02% 10.30% 6.52% 0.66% 0.09% 4.42% 3.16% Walkden South 3.22% 2.06% 1.73% 1.12% 1.34% 4.00% 0.05% 0.57% 0.71% 0.36% 0.00% 0.11% 0.65% 2.88% 4.75% 15.54% 5.05% 0.14% 2.56% 3.84% Weaste and Seedley 4.50% 3.09% 8.08% 0.09% 1.21% 4.79% 4.32% 17.32% 14.05% 5.47% 14.68% 0.22% 0.00% 7.16% 4.75% 2.63% 1.26% 0.28% 5.57% 5.46% Winton 1.78% 3.18% 3.21% 4.99% 0.98% 1.61% 0.05% 0.34% 1.90% 1.46% 0.26% 4.25% 4.33% 3.69% 1.77% 0.06% 0.27% 0.03% 2.02% 1.69% Worsley 1.22% 2.32% 2.22% 0.86% 2.55% 1.11% 0.99% 4.13% 0.12% 4.38% 2.75% 3.24% 0.14% 0.22% 0.11% 0.13% 0.18% 0.02% 1.59% 1.50% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Variance 0.76% 0.80% 0.52% 0.54% 1.22% 1.04% 1.14% 1.14% 0.52% 0.50% 0.47% 0.34% 0.51% 0.42% 1.51% 0.90% 1.83% Mean 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% St. Dev. 8.69% 8.94% 7.24% 7.32% 11.03% 10.21% 10.67% 10.69% 7.23% 7.09% 6.85% 5.80% 7.13% 6.50% 12.29% 9.49% 13.54%

Table 3.4 – Gross residential completions and additions in Salford, 2018/19 (by type and ward) Ward Houses/Bungalows Apartments Overall 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Total 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed Total Total Barton 0 0 0 0 0 33 17 3 53 53 Boothstown and Ellenbrook 0 0 14 15 29 0 0 0 0 29 Broughton 0 0 4 0 4 27 80 8 115 119 Cadishead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Claremont 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 3 Eccles 0 0 26 17 43 5 9 0 14 57 Irlam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irwell Riverside 0 40 64 14 118 368 91 13 472 590 Kersal 0 0 0 7 7 3 4 0 7 14 Langworthy 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 29 29 Little Hulton 0 5 47 0 52 0 0 0 0 52 Ordsall 0 0 13 0 13 677 1,105 213 1,995 2,008 Pendlebury 0 18 84 18 120 15 3 0 18 138 Swinton North 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 Swinton South 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 Walkden North 4 9 9 0 22 0 0 0 0 22 Walkden South 0 1 81 27 109 0 60 0 60 169 Weaste and Seedley 0 0 20 19 39 1 1 1 3 42 Winton 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 Worsley 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 Total 4 73 372 126 575 1,158 1,373 238 2,769 3,344

Looking more closely at the distinction between houses/bungalows and apartments, as shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6, we can see the 93% of all apartment developments (2,582 units) were initiated in just three wards – Ordsall, Irwell Riverside and Broughton. The concentration of development in this limited number of wards is reflected in the variance and standard deviation values.

Table 3.5 – Gross apartment completions and additions in Salford, 2018/19 (by type and ward) % of total Wards 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed Total by ward Barton 33 17 3 53 1.91% Boothstown and Ellenbrook 0 0 0 0 0.00% Broughton 27 80 8 115 4.15% Cadishead 0 0 0 0 0.00% Claremont 0 1 0 1 0.04% Eccles 5 9 0 14 0.51% Irlam 0 0 0 0 0.00% Irwell Riverside 368 91 13 472 17.05% Kersal 3 4 0 7 0.25% Langworthy 29 0 0 29 1.05% Little Hulton 0 0 0 0 0.00% Ordsall 677 1,105 213 1,995 72.05% Pendlebury 15 3 0 18 0.65% Swinton North 0 2 0 2 0.07% Swinton South 0 0 0 0 0.00% Walkden North 0 0 0 0 0.00% Walkden South 0 60 0 60 2.17% Weaste and Seedley 1 1 1 3 0.11% Winton 0 0 0 0 0.00% Worsley 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total 1,158 1,373 238 2,769 100.00%

% of total 41.82% 49.58% 8.60% 100.00% Variance 27,874.94 60,286.87 2,251.57 202,131.52 Mean 57.9 68.65 11.9 138.45 St. Dev 166.96 245.53 47.45 449.59

Table 3.6 provides the equivalent data contained in Table 3.5 for houses and bungalows. Whilst the values in question are smaller – houses and bungalows only comprised 17% of new dwellings in Salford in 2018/19, the descriptive statistics at the bottom of the table imply that development is more evenly spread.

Table 3.6 – Gross houses and bungalows completions and additions in Salford, 2018/19 (by type and ward) % of total by Wards 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Total ward Barton 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Boothstown and Ellenbrook 0 0 14 15 29 5.04% Broughton 0 0 4 0 4 0.70% Cadishead 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Claremont 0 0 1 1 2 0.35% Eccles 0 0 26 17 43 7.48% Irlam 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Irwell Riverside 0 40 64 14 118 20.52% Kersal 0 0 0 7 7 1.22% Langworthy 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Little Hulton 0 5 47 0 52 9.04% Ordsall 0 0 13 0 13 2.26% Pendlebury 0 18 84 18 120 20.87% Swinton North 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Swinton South 0 0 0 2 2 0.35% Walkden North 4 9 9 0 22 3.83% Walkden South 0 1 81 27 109 18.96% Weaste and Seedley 0 0 20 19 39 6.78% Winton 0 0 9 0 9 1.57% Worsley 0 0 0 6 6 1.04% Total 4 73 372 126 575 100.00%

% of total 0.70% 12.70% 64.70% 21.91% 100.00% Variance 0.80 92.87 769.62 74.75 Mean 0.20 3.65 18.60 6.30 St. Dev. 0.89 9.64 27.74 8.65

Looking at data on apartments vs. houses longitudinally, we can see some variability in delivery since 2014. The 2016 SHMA, referenced above, suggested a mix of 50-50 apartments-houses in Salford from 2014 to 2035. Tables 3.7 and 3.8 and Figure 3.2 below show how delivery over the years since then has rarely been at this split, with an overall split in the years since 2014 of 36% houses/bungalows and 64% apartments; and a clear downward trend in the proportion of houses/bungalows being delivered.

Table 3.7 - Gross homes completions and additions in Salford, 2014/15-2018/19, by type and size Houses/Bungalows Apartments

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed+ Sub-total 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed+ Sub-total Totals 2014-15 2 144 449 158 753 167 398 67 632 1385 2015-16 11 178 364 202 755 281 101 217 599 1354 2016-17 0 217 449 193 859 591 1,073 127 1,791 2650 2017-18 0 92 424 233 749 332 448 67 847 1596 2018-19 4 73 372 126 575 1,158 1,373 238 2,769 3344 Totals 17 704 2058 912 3691 2529 3393 716 6638 10329

Table 3.7 - Gross homes completions and additions in Salford, 2014/15-2018/19, by type and size, as a proportion of totals Houses/Bungalows Apartments

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed+ Sub-total 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed+ Sub-total 2014-15 0.14% 10.40% 32.42% 11.41% 54.37% 12.06% 28.74% 4.84% 45.63% 2015-16 0.81% 13.15% 26.88% 14.92% 55.76% 20.75% 7.46% 16.03% 44.24% 2016-17 0.00% 8.19% 16.94% 7.28% 32.42% 22.30% 40.49% 4.79% 67.58% 2017-18 0.00% 5.76% 26.57% 14.60% 46.93% 20.80% 28.07% 4.20% 53.07% 2018-19 0.12% 2.18% 11.12% 3.77% 17.19% 34.63% 41.06% 7.12% 82.81% Overall 0.16% 6.82% 19.92% 8.83% 35.73% 24.48% 32.85% 6.93% 64.27%

Figure 3.2 – Proportion of houses vs. apartments in Salford, 2014/15-2018/19

Taken together the data presented in this chapter describes a situation where the volume of development experienced across Salford is generally quite stable in terms of location. Those wards that contributed the majority of new dwellings in earlier years continue to do so in later years. The overall scale of delivery has increased in recent years.

However, the type of development that is being delivered is changing. In recent years, the dwellings that are being added are predominantly smaller apartments in areas with large brownfield sites. In 2018/19 2,769 new apartments were added in Salford. This represented 83% of all new development and it was overwhelmingly concentrated in three wards (Ordsall, Irwell Riverside and Broughton).

By contrast, at the other end of the spectrum, only 126 four bedroom houses/bungalows were added in 2018/19. This represents just 4% of the total. Against the future target of 1,760 new dwellings per annum 2018/19 would be considered a successful year. Almost twice as many homes as required were provided. Moreover, the new developments have overwhelmingly been small apartments – again as implied by the newest iterations of GMSF policy. However, the degree to which a one-bedroom apartment and a four-bedroom home should be considered as equivalents is a point of debate (Best Laid Plans, 2020) – as recognised by the 2016 SHMA.

3.2 Qualitative evidence

As with section 2.5, here we draw on our interviews with Planners who are representatives of a range of public and private sector agencies involved in planning for housing. We asked two relevant questions to our interviewees: Does delivery match need?; and Are you confident that the use of the standard methodology helps with the planning and delivery of the ‘right’ types of housing? We present their responses to these questions below, and it is again helpful to contrast the public and private sectors. We begin with the private sector, who were almost uniformly consistent in arguing that recent delivery in places they were familiar with (including the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Regions) did not match need.

The first area of discussion was that of numbers, relating to Chapter 2 but providing more detail. Government planning practice guidance is explicit that the standard methodology “identifies a minimum annual housing need figure. It does not produce a housing requirement figure” (MHCLG, 2019a). The NPPF further states that the standard methodology should be used “unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals” (MHCLG, 2019b, p. 17). However, going beyond the standard methodology figure did not seem to be an approach frequently adopted by local authorities. One private sector interviewee put this down to local politics:

The standard methodology has given everyone a need number. Greater Manchester has 10,000 homes, so then that’s passed on to Councillors and it’s taken as THE number. If having a higher number doesn’t play well on the doorsteps then why would you do the step in the NPPF which asks to consider whether this is reasonable. You’d just accept it.

As discussed in Section 2.5, beyond the scale of “the number”, we have heard concern expressed that the number itself becomes the focus of local authority planners (and local plan inspectors), with the type and location of delivery less of a concern. The implications of this in terms of delivery were made explicit by another private sector interviewee: “Salford Quays regenerated the area and that’s great, but it didn’t deliver family housing need and that put more pressure on Cheshire”.

A third private sector interviewee again related a shift towards previously developed land (PDL) and city centre sites to local politics. They observed that any such shift tends to be in line with public opinion, so local authorities have little disincentive to depart from that approach.

In turn, one of our public sector interviewees confirmed that their guiding principle regarding the location of new housing is to make best use of PDL. This has largely meant redistribution from outlying districts in their city region into the urban core, and this was felt to be entirely appropriate – “Making the most of the city centre is a sensible thing to do”. In the Liverpool City Region, one interviewee affirmed that there is a prioritisation of developing brownfield land but that this is “what we’d generically do anyway”, with or without the standard methodology.

This was justified in various ways, including the contribution such development makes to city centre regeneration. The example of Manchester city centre was highlighted, and the contribution that Planning and regeneration activity made to the revitalisation of the city centre, while in Liverpool development of 1-2 bed apartment units close to the urban core was seen as responding to aspirations around graduate retention. In response to criticism from the private 36

sector that this approach does not cater for, for example, families, the prevailing view from the public sector Planners we spoke to was that Planning should seek to change the market and make the city centre a viable place to live for families. There was quite a strong top-down ethos, around the notion that “people might need to think differently about where they live”. Other interviewees caveated that while there is an aspiration to provide housing in city centres, there remains “the natural prevalence to want your own castle” amongst parts of the population, which it was felt was provided for in Liverpool through a mix of higher-density housing in the urban core and family-oriented units elsewhere.

Several public sector interviewees did note that their strategies assume an ongoing high proportion of delivery on PDL sites, which often require significant public subsidy to overcome problems of viability, land contamination, etc. If such subsidy was not available, a revision to the planned approach may be necessary. One interviewee sought to move away from a perceived dichotomy between city-centre apartments and family homes on greenfield sites, arguing that what was most needed in their local authority was medium density development, for example townhouses, on the fringes of the city centre. This, however, was not of interest to mainstream housing developers, they argued.

3.3 Summary

The evidence in this Chapter suggests that perceptions about recent delivery, and planned future delivery, are being borne out in reality – that there is an ongoing, and increasing, focus on city- centre apartments, typically smaller in size and at higher density, in the Liverpool and Greater Manchester City Regions. Indeed, several interviewees with broader experience referred to a similar pattern in other places, including the West Yorkshire and West Midlands City Regions (around Leeds and Birmingham).

If this is to be the trend for new housing developments, then the next stage of the research was to explore the factors that would make such developments sustainable. This is the focus of the next Chapter.

4.0 What does sustainable high-density development look like?

4.1 Introduction

In Chapter 3 we presented both statistical and interview data on recent housing delivery in the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Regions. This data suggests that an ever-increasing proportion of housing delivery in those city regions (as in other parts of England) is taking the form of city-centre apartments, what we might call high density housing development. In this Chapter we explore, through literature and best practice examples, key factors which are necessary to ensure that such development is sustainable.

Land use planning decisions have had polarising, long term impacts on physical environments to varying degrees around the world; some lasting generations (De Roo & Miller, 2000). This is encapsulated in the effects of the post-war era of low-density, mass decentralisation of countries such as Canada, the United States and Australia who would go on to be deemed as the automotive-dependant, congested, freeway embracing ‘planning horror stories’ of the 20th century (De Roo & Miller, 2000; Sudjic, 1992). Thus encouraging homogenous, uncoordinated sprawl since described by Jane Jacobs and others as ‘sterile and modernist’.

At the same time, Britain embraced the clean sweeping dictatorial tendencies of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement and Le Corbusier’s ‘Radiant City’ (Couch, 1990, p. 31), reflected in the government aims set out by the WWII reports and New Towns Act of 1946. These policies would ultimately translate into comprehensively planned new towns and urban extensions under an assumed consensus (Taylor, 1998). More recent analysis suggest that New Towns largely overemphasised the evils of the city whilst neglecting the social elements of urban life (Ng, 2015) whilst also incorporating ‘Radiant City’ inspired grey, concrete, high-rise council blocks which ultimately went on to be considered as Britain’s ‘disastrous embrace of high-rise housing’ due to mass public outcry regarding building quality and suitability for families (Taylor, 1998; Couch, 1990). Building upon this, high-density development has frequently been subject to critique as an unattractive residential setting due to noise concerns, loss of visual privacy, localised pollution, negative perceptions, a lack of greenery and even traffic and parking problems (Ng, 2015; De Roo & Miller, 2000). Thus bringing to question to what extent higher density living actually achieves the sustainable development goals it sets out to achieve when long term sustainability begins to come at the expense of contemporary living conditions and resident quality of life (De Roo & Miller, 2000).

Despite this, there is a general consensus in much of planning literature and practice regarding the benefits of higher density development in terms of its potential and ability to contribute positively to urban sustainability. This is reflected in qualitative studies in some the most densely populated developing cities in the world for example Curitiba, Kerala and Nayarit (Ng, 2015; Basiago, 1999; Macedo, 2013; Burton, 2000, p. 1969). Following United Nations Agenda 21, the European Commission advocated a ‘return’ to the compact city (Ng, 2015). This is primarily centred upon a development model supporting higher densities around public transport nodes; thus conforming with the UK’s subsequent advocation for higher density development through policies such as PPG/PPS3 which promoted high levels of development on previously developed land and density targets as a way of encouraging high density and a compact urban form (Ng, 2015; Boddy, 2007). Further to this, the government also placed emphasis on this high density development being sustainable through prioritising higher densities around transport nodes (Ng,

2015; Burton, 2002). Yet, whilst high density development was being actively encouraged by the early 21st century, little had been done to mitigate the design limitations that can come with the approach such as a lack of domestic living space, affordability, increased crime levels and typically lower levels of walking and cycling (Ng, 2015; Burton, 2000; Couch, et al., 2009). This came as a consequence of British urban policy’s contradictory attitude toward sustainable development and tendency to reinterpret concepts in order to support economic growth; further encouraged by the UK planning systems’ inherent tendency to encourage vagueness when setting policy, thus allowing this reinterpretation (Couch & Dennemann, 2000; Amati & Yokohari, 2006).

The implications of this approach to sustainable development are shown in in the example of Liverpool’s early 21st century delivery of high density development which is seen by some as a highly compromised approach to regeneration through re-use of unwanted commercial and industrial floorspace (Couch & Fowles, 2019; Boddy, 2007) and as a result of inadequate planning control has created an over-supply of small one- and two- bedroom apartments - a majority of which are poorly served by amenities (Couch & Fowles, 2019; Couch, et al., 2009). Building upon this, new purpose-built apartment blocks have generally been built on individual, brownfield plots thus delivering housing piecemeal demonstrating both the absence in coherent delivery and prioritisation of economic growth over sustainable development (Couch & Fowles, 2019; Couch & Dennemann, 2000).

In response, the 2017 Housing White Paper and NPPF 2019 are more explicit in what constitutes sustainable development through acknowledging the anticipated shortage of land and thus expressing the importance of minimum density standards whilst simultaneously advocating for maximising use of land, importance of well-designed, attractive and healthy spaces and ensuring access to an appropriate mix of facilities, amenity, infrastructure, services and transport networks (DCLG, 2017; MHCLG, 2019a; Garton-Grimwood & Barton, 2019). This transition in recent years reflects the realisation that over-simplistic, quantitative measures of density do not result in sustainable development; in fact, qualitative factors make an equal or potentially greater contribution to the sustainability of development (Ng, 2015; Wheeler & Beatley, 2004). Thus, it could be said that current government policy aims to place an importance upon the more comprehensive, new urbanist principles advocated by planners such as Jane Jacobs and Kevin Lynch who emphasise the importance of good urban design when formulating highly dense, sustainable developments (Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1980; Ng, 2015).

In turn, this places importance upon adopting a holistic view to residential development through considering the relationship between population density and the viability of services, facilities, transportation and energy efficiency; all critical elements to ensuring a sustainable city (Larice & Macdonald, 2007, p. 341). There is also a need to ensure high density development has wide appeal, beyond the current predominant market of highly transient young professionals who occupy higher density developments in cities such as Liverpool and Manchester who predominantly move out to the suburbs once they start families (Couch, et al., 2009). It seems likely that it will only prove acceptable to these middle- and higher-income groups to remain in higher density housing if it provides the same quality of living as the suburbs or a country town would; in order to achieve this, it is important to recognise the interdependency between the economic viability of nearby services and the attainment of a certain population threshold (Larice & Macdonald, 2007). This interdependency can only be achieved by making development quality and density meet people’s aspirations and the level at which they are prepared to trade-off prices, density and location dependent upon personal circumstances (Ng, 2015; Whitehead, 2012).

In order for these demands to be met, national and local policy must maintain the delicate balance between regulating land in a way that is effective enough to fulfill sufficent development quality, whilst not detering developer investment (Whitehead, 2012). Thus, heightening the importance of maintaining a strong regional competitive advantage in order to sustain the bargaining power necessary to deliver high-quality, high-density development; so enough quality can be secured to offset costs of residents making the decision to live in high-density development (Smyth, 1994; Whitehead, 2012). With these critical elements to delivering successful high-density sustainable development in mind, we have conducted secondary research into a number of case studies of best practice at a variety of scales to help identify the necessary elements for successful comprehensive delivery.

4.2 Case study 1 (City-Regional; International): Portland, Oregon

Portland followed a similar post-war development trajectory to most other US cities; seeing its urban area sprawl throughout much of the 1960s in particular (Abbott et al., 1994). Yet over the past 25 years the city has made a conscious effort to enforce policies to protect its distinct fine- grained, human scale street blocks (Schiller et al., 2010). Through passing the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) bill in 1973 (Abbott et al., 1994) the concept was established of concentrating development within a newly established urban growth boundary (UGB). This is often considered Portland’s greatest policy accomplishment, outlining a 20-year supply of developable land across various zoning subdivisions (Gibson & Abbott, 2002), allowing growth to be redirected inward and prioritising urban densification over extensive suburbanisation (Goodling, et al., 2015).

Subsequently, this policy has catalysed sustainable, inward growth through environmental regulation; in turn, transforming Portland’s urban core and central districts through use of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and transforming warehouse lofts and brownfield sites into apartments (Goodling, et al., 2015). Simultaneously, TOD has been used to better connect the existing suburbs and central districts to contain sprawl (ibid.) by promoting development along transport corridors through incentives such as the 1995 TOD Tax Exemption which gives developers a ten-year tax exemption to property developers developing along key transportation corridors (Gibson & Abbott, 2002; Schiller, et al., 2010). Meanwhile, the 2001 Vertical Housing Programme encourages residential and mixed-use development in areas designated by communities through partial property tax exemptions (Oregon.Gov, 2017). Moreover, the exemption is varying dependent upon the number of floors the development is; further encouraging higher density development (Schiller, et al., 2010). Additionally, the city’s 1994 Growth Management Plan outlined regulations for developments outlining growth targets, parking maximums, density minimums and street connectivity standards (Schiller et al., 2010). This has resulted in high accessibility of services across the city (see Figure 4.1).

Finally, Portland’s sustainability programmes have attracted attention from places such as Toronto and Copenhagen (Portland Business Journal, 2014). Portland leads the green building movement through state-wide market incentives and policies ensuring all buildings comply with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards (Schurtz, 2012, p. 241). Portland implemented this through its Green Building Policy - adopted in 2001, requiring all new buildings to achieve at least LEED Silver standards (OpenEI, 2015). The success of these policies is reflected in the city now having 390 Eco-Roofs across the city and the city now having 180 certified green buildings (Portland Business Journal, 2014; The Worldwatch Institute, 2016).

Furthermore, the Clean Energy Works has achieved multifaceted benefits for 3,700 homes and catalysed $70 million in economic activity (The Worldwatch Institute, 2016, pp. 293-294). Additionally, development in this form has paved way for the development of the necessary diverse social infrastructure to compete with suburban development; with the district offering parks, public, semi-public and semi-private transition spaces (Ozawa, 2004).

Figure 4.1 – Map indicating provision of amenities within 20-minute walking radii (The Portland Plan, 2012, pp. 127-128).

Collectively, these policies and incentives have paved the way for development to adopt a form similar to that which British urban policy has aspired to achieve dating as far back as the Urban Task Forces ‘Urban Renaissance’ sustainable housing agenda, summarised as:

- Compact, medium to high density forms (but not high rise) - Mix of land uses based upon overlapping zones of living, working, leisure and shopping - Public transport orientated urban design - Pedestrian friendly streets - Well defined public spaces - Integration of development and nature on site (Edwards & Turrent, 2005, p. 44)

Overall, these regulations and incentives have encouraged developers to build at high densities in a sustainable manner, through clustering around key transport nodes whilst integrating mixed- use and ensuring appropriate sustainable building standards are met (Gibson & Abbott, 2002; OpenEI, 2015). In doing so, this has ensured inner-city living offers enough quality to offset costs of residents making the decision to live in high-density development (Smyth, 1994; Whitehead, 2012). The success of this is reflected in the transformation of the Pearl District since the 1980s, transforming from an industrial neighbourhood of typically single-room occupancy into an upscale, mixed-use and mixed-tenure neighbourhood diverse in building heights (3-15 storeys) (Ozawa, 2004).

Portland provides insight to the holistic approach necessary in order to deliver successful high- density sustainable development through undertaking an integrated approach to formulating transport, environmental and land use policy. Simultaneously the city has enforced robust legislation in order to encourage its desired type of development whilst offering incentives and reliefs to encourage developers to meet design requirements. Portland’s UGB has catalysed much of the city’s planning success over the past 50 years and paved way for the successful implementation of subsequent policies. Simultaneously, it has created income disparities and issues surrounding equity (Portland Business Journal, 2015); thus, bringing to question the sustainability of the city’s UGB in providing genuinely affordable HDD and mixed tenures. In turn, this is an area the city acknowledges requires improvement and is addressing in the ‘Framework for Equity’ in The Portland Plan (2012, pp. 62-63).

4.3 Case Study 2 (Development scale; UK): Greenwich Millennium Village

4.3.1 Introduction

Located on the Greenwich peninsula, London the Greenwich Millennium Village (GMV) is poised to deliver 2,700 units and already contains five use classes; providing an on-site Ofsted ‘outstanding’ primary school, health centre, hotel, retail and leisure facilities, numerous other commercial facilities and a park (GMV, 2019a; GMV, 2019b; Countryside Properties, 2010; Morag, et al., 2010; GMV, n.d.). With 1,095 homes already developed, its proponents claim that it has already become a beacon for 21st century living; this is reflective of the principles and aims of the project which set out to deliver a range of technical, social and economic options for sustainability (GMV, 2019b; Countryside Properties, 2010; Edwards & Turrent, 2005). The Greenwich peninsula was a high profile site, subsequently, this demanded designers of the same stature, resulting in Scandinavian architectural pioneer Ralph Erskine being appointed to lead the master-planning (GMV, 2019b; Edwards & Turrent, 2005). Subsequently, the Village became reminiscent architecturally to Erskine’s 1970’s work on Byker Wall in Newcastle, whilst designs drew parallels more so with continental Europe; whether this be the mix of building heights to enhance character and environmental sensitivity or its diverse mix of use classes and tenures which engendered a sense of community (Architecture Week, 2019; Urban Land Institute, 2006).

Overseen by Taylor Wimpey, those behind the GMV would like to see it serve as an example of the growing trend of developers transitioning from working on ‘mixed-use buildings’ toward more comprehensive ‘mixed-use neighbourhoods’ (Taylor Wimpey, 2019; PwC, 2016). Through adopting this comprehensive approach; this allowed for effective creation of four neighbourhoods, each distinct in its character and linked to each other by a necklace of open space (Edwards & Turrent, 2005). Yet, as each neighbourhood was overseen by the same developer these neighbourhoods all adhered to various sustainability targets (Countryside Properties, 2010). We look to the approaches the GMV undertook to fulfill these targets in the following sections.

4.3.2 Construction

The aspirations of the GMV are to deliver innovative, sustainable approaches within typical economic and technological constraints; thus, adoption of efficient construction techniques was crucial to fulfilment of this goal (Edwards & Turrent, 2005). In order to adhere to efficiency targets, off-site prefabrication was maximised; this approach also provided significant flexibility in dwelling form and layout, therefore simultaneously easing the creation of mixed tenures 42

helping to fulfil the GMV’s social agenda too (Countryside Properties, 2010; Edwards & Turrent, 2005; URBED, 2009).

Furthermore, this approach made it easier for GMV homes to adapt to tenants’ evolving needs; thus acknowledging and attempting to mitigate the factors that had previously deterred middle- and higher-income groups from starting families in higher density, inner-city housing, such as a lack of indoor space, and private, outdoor garden space (Edwards & Turrent, 2005; Couch, et al., 2009; Larice & Macdonald, 2007). Through providing tenants the ability to modify their flat by extending it downstairs or purchase a conservatory from the management trust, the GMV attempted to tackle the prevalent issues surrounding the instability of transient young professionals living in inner-city HDD to date (Edwards & Turrent, 2005; Couch, et al., 2009).

Yet, although this flexibility is provided at GMV, this came at no extra cost to the developer (Countryside Properties, 2010; Edwards & Turrent, 2005). HTA still managed to fulfil their ambitious construction cost targets of 30% reduction in building costs, 25% reduction in construction time and zero defects at handover; all whilst maintaining high safety and maximum waste production (Edwards & Turrent, 2005). This reflects HTA’s delivery of sustainable approaches whilst remaining in line with typical economic and technological constraints.

4.3.3 Liveability and Management

In addition to the absence of living space, poor social infrastructure is frequently considered a contributing factor to young professionals leaving the inner-city upon starting families (Couch, et al., 2009). As a result, the GMV ensured services were available from the outset to attract families to occupy the village (URBED, 2009). This approach was only possible through land acquisition undertaken by English Partnerships (now Homes England) which provided the land mass necessary for effective execution of the ‘mixed-neighbourhood’ approach which incorporated the health centre, school, supermarket and leisure facilities in Erskine’s GMV; furthermore, English Partnerships funded the provision of this infrastructure (URBED, 2009; GOV.UK, 2019).

Furthermore, intensive Neighbourhood and Estate Management, along with community engagement are other key elements in securing the development’s longevity and particularly the success of the mixed-tenure approach; relevant stakeholders agree this has been key to the scheme’s success (URBED, 2009; Edwards & Turrent, 2005). This success came due to the principle of architects Hunt Thompson Architects (HLA that you cannot divorce ‘place-making from the issue of how its managed’ (Edwards & Turrent, 2005). Subsequently, HLA’s winning competition entry to secure the development included an outline of how they would ensure residents inherited the ability to participate in community development and enabled them to become stakeholders and directors involved in the Village’s long-term management; this also included reinvesting funds from the development process into the establishment of a Village Trust (Edwards & Turrent, 2005; URBED, 2009).

The success of this reinvestment has been reflected in 55% of residents expressing how the sense of community the Village has established was ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important to them; this was initially encouraged through the use of I.T.as the GMV website was established which included a resident forum, allowing residents to trade services at a local level and gain access to training and jobs (Urban Land Institute, 2006; Edwards & Turrent, 2005). Building upon this, further investment was made to the service to create links with environmental control and security (Edwards & Turrent, 2005). As technology has advanced this website has closed and these 43

services have moved to social media, now attracting 1,200 members across two resident groups and a WhatsApp group (GMVA, 2019). Moreover, the Village has an appointed a Community Development Officer who helps devise engagement, programmes and activities (Urban Land Institute, 2006). This has translated to effective management of local issues such as CCTV coverage of streets, parks and open spaces, alongside effective street lighting and permanent security guards (Maghsoudi, 2007).

4.3.4 Energy Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability

Alongside the aforementioned construction targets set out for the development, stringent targets were also set out to ensure the development remained energy efficient upon occupation (Proctor & Matthews Architects, 2019). The GMV is currently working toward achieving these targets and is almost in line with them as shown in Figure 3.1.

Table 4.1 – Achievement against targets and benchmarks (based on data from Ingenia Online 2001; 2009)

Innovation Target Initial 1999 Benchmark Improvement Target Current Achievement

Primary Energy 28,920kWh 70% 66% with CHP and Biomass Consumption for Typical Dwelling

Embodied Energy 55t CO2/Unit 50% 37% for Typical Dwelling

Water 165L/Person/Day 30% 33% Consumption

Building upon this, water consumption targets have been exceeded through adoption of a comprehensive water saving initiative which included more efficient appliances (Ingenia Online, 2001). Finally, adoption of a ‘mixed-use neighbourhoods’ approach as a result of Homes England’s land acquisition provided the land mass to devise a masterplan; designating one-sixth of land to 50 hectares of parkland and open space (URBED, 2009; GOV.UK, 2019; PwC, 2016; GMV, n.d.). Amongst these 50 acres are ‘landscaped courtyards’ which the GMV markets as space to be used for getting to know neighbours occupying a variety of homes, aiming to create a village feel (GMV, n.d.). Furthermore, these 50 acres of parkland include 60,000 shrubs, 12,000 trees and a 4 acre freshwater ecology park which includes two lakes, a beach, marsh and meadowland and a network of boardwalks (Taylor Wimpey, 2019; GMV, n.d.). This bio-diverse park is owned by the land trust charity and acts as the focal point of the of the GMV, making it ideal for community events; it is also deemed a ‘haven’ for wildlife containing 85 different species of birds (Countryside Properties, 2010; GMV, n.d.). This unique and natural environment has won a sustainability award at the RIBA Housing and Design Awards and a Civic Trust Award; further to this, 80% of home buyers stated the villages environmental agenda was a contributing factor to their purchase (Countryside Properties, 2010).

4.3.5 Summary

Overall, the comprehensive approach adopted enabled the GMV to successfully accommodate the growing family through mitigating the factors which have historically pulled transient age groups away from the inner-city HDD development toward the suburbs. The inclusion of appropriate facilities, services, social infrastructure and the adaptability and flexibility of the

common HDD unit, have arguably delivered an environmentally sustainable development (Edwards & Turrent, 2005; Countryside Properties, 2010; Couch, et al., 2009). This was all achieved despite delivered within the common technological and economical means of development, reflecting how good planning can deliver an economically viable, successful and environmentally sustainable development HDD (Edwards & Turrent, 2005). This is reflected in each phase of the GMV achieving a BREEAM rating of excellent, attaining CABE Building for Life Gold Standard and former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott stating the lessons learnt at the GMV ‘will point the way forward for building other new urban communities around the country’ (Countryside Properties, 2010, p.2).

4.4 Case Study 3 (Development Scale; UK): Saffron Square, Croydon

4.4.1 Overview

Saffron Square is a large brownfield regeneration project in the centre of Croydon. Completed in the summer of 2017, the scheme is being trumpeted by its developers as having successfully delivered a modern, contemporary exemplar of HDD development (WLA, 2015; Berkeley Homes, 2019). The development constitutes 791 dwellings across 5 podium buildings and a 43 storey tower delivering high quality, high density residential accommodation with new pedestrian routes and one acre of public space weaving between (WLA, 2015; LSE, 2016). The development conforms with conditions attached to the planning application approval by Croydon Council which ensure the scheme delivers a large proportion of affordable units in line with the Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) Integrated Impact Assessment which outlines statutory requirements for developments within the opportunity area in areas such as equality, liveability and accessibility requirements (LSE, 2016; GLA, et al.,2013). Furthermore, the opportunity area had its own designated requirements conveyed in Croydon’s Local Plan; reflected in SP4 and SP8 of the 2013 plan in place when Saffron Tower was granted permission (Croydon Local Council, 2013, pp. 38, 40-41, 46, 60-61).

Saffron Square has successfully balanced effectively delivering these principles, creating a vibrant, lively and safe community with a number of complementary services (Berkeley Homes, 2018; Homes & Property, 2013). Research commissioned by the developer, Berkeley Homes, suggests that through Berkeley’s concurrent adherence to its own principles, planning conditions and the local OAPF, Saffron Square has successfully attracted young singles and couples to scheme (LSE, 2016). This achieves the council’s goal of attracting a more affluent demographic to central Croydon to attract further residents and investment and counter Croydon’s somewhat down-market image (LSE, 2016).

One of the key points highlighted when marketing Saffron Square has been its location. City centre HDD will commonly be well connected to high street retail, restaurants and commercial businesses. However, carefully planning a development within close proximity to transport links, a quality environment and good access to everyday services such as schools, convenience stores and amenities is often a larger pull factor when attempting to retain more transient young professional and also attract families to developments (Couch, et al., 2009).

The developers of Saffron Square promote its location as being central to a high-quality transport network, within the context of Croydon (Berkeley Homes, 2018). As Saffron Square is designated as the key northern gateway site to the Town Centre and sits at the core of its five-part regeneration masterplan (WLA, 2015; Berkeley Homes, 2018); this has positioned it in close 45

proximity to nearby transport infrastructure; providing efficient links to the city centre despite being located in TfL zone 5 (LSE, 2016; Network Rail, 2016).

Moreover, the development has with three high-performing primary schools within 2 miles and three secondary schools within 3.5 miles (Berkeley Homes, 2018). Additionally, the scheme boasts close proximity to Croydon Clocktower, an arts and cultural venue with a library and cinema and Fairfield Halls in East Croydon which hosts regular concerts. Despite these pre-existing features, Saffron Square sought to enhance resident interaction by utilising frontages within the public square of the development to provide services such as a cafe, an ATM, a gym and shops (LSE, 2016).

4.4.2 Communal facilities

All units in the development are connected to satellite TV and the development provides communal features such as roof gardens and the ‘Arthouse Lounge and Library’ (LSE, 2016; Berkeley Homes, 2018). There are 155 underground car parking spaces on a right to park basis for selected units. Moreover, the scheme runs a car-sharing club to enable residents to travel more sustainably, provides green vehicle charging points and 755 cycle parking spaces; thus, conforming with a number of points outlined in SP8 of the Croydon Local Plan (LSE, 2016; Berkeley Homes, 2018; Croydon Council, 2013).

4.4.3 Sustainability, Efficiency and Delivering High-Quality Design

The delivery of high-quality, high-efficiency, sustainable design is encapsulated in Saffron Square’s attainment of ‘Very Good’ in the Governments EcoHomes certification scheme (Berkeley Homes, 2018; Ramboll, 2017). Saffron Square has achieved this through a number of methods, including energy saving features such as low-energy lighting and energy efficient ceiling downlighters or energy efficient A+ rated fridge freezers and A rated dishwashers (Berkeley Homes, 2018). Concurrently, Saffron Square benefits from high-levels of thermal insulation and energy-efficient building fabric which reduce heat loss from all properties (Berkeley Homes, 2018).

The development’s communal green roof terraces with gardens and landscaped public realm meets Croydon Council’s sustainable, biodiverse ecological agenda and GLA’s play space requirements (WLA, 2015; Croydon Local Council, 2013; Berkeley Homes, 2018). The public realms design connects the site with the wider urban area through creation of a new pedestrian route better connecting east and west Croydon (WLA, 2015; LSE, 2016; Croydon Local Council, 2013).

Whilst these features enhance the design’s quality, longevity and aesthetic appeal, execution of these elements has allowed the development to provide these features alongside maximisation of capital value (WLA, 2015). This is reflected in the scheme providing a number of additional amenities at roof level, allowing a significantly higher plot ratio than conventional approaches, additionally, incorporation of water features into the public realm design at dwelling entrances has noticeably increased sale values whilst providing a SUD (WLA, 2015). In turn, whilst this secures benefits for the developer, it simultaneously conforms with SP6 of the Croydon Local Plan and significantly contribute to the improved permeability of the public realm as outlined in SA2 (Water Resources) of the OPAF (Croydon Local Council, 2013; GLA, et al.,2013).

4.4.4 Summary

Saffron Square offers some exemplary features of how a singular HDD scheme can successfully deliver high quality, more aspirational living at a manageable cost through mindful selection of the development’s location and acknowledgement of the benefits of attentively integrating high- quality, sustainable design (Homes & Property, 2013; Berkeley Homes, 2019; Couch, et al., 2009; WLA, 2015). These benefits are reflected in how design features have become multifunctional through contributing positive social and environmental outputs whilst simultaneously proving economically beneficial to the developer through improving marketability and heightening plot ratio sizes thus securing greater capital value whilst adhering to local development requirements (WLA, 2015). However, fewer than 5% of Saffron Squares units are genuinely affordable (LSE, 2016). Planning permission was only secured through Berkeley agreeing to deliver 104 affordable dwellings off-site in order to meet a Croydon Opportunity Area requirement of 10% of dwellings being affordable (GLA, et al., 2013). Subsequently, although Saffron Square reflects a model by which high-quality, aspirational dwellings can be delivered at a manageable cost in a city centre setting through conformance with planning conditions, it falls short of demonstrating how HDD can be delivered at high quality whilst ensuring genuine affordability (LSE, 2016).

4.5 Summary

In this chapter of the report we have, through a review of literature and practice examples, identified some important success factors for high density urban development. These factors can be categorised in a number of ways, but for the purposes of this report it is helpful to think about the scale at which they should be introduced/aimed for.

At the scale of individual projects/buildings, a vitally important principle is that of sustainable construction and, particularly in view of the fact that high density urban development is likely to take place on previously developed land, including the incorporation of green infrastructure within developments. A second important issue at this scale is to aim to ensure that the scheme makes a broad contribution to housing markets through the inclusion of a diversity of units. This is important both in terms of affordability, something which Manchester City Council has been criticised about recently (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/05/british-cities- developers-affordable-housing-manchester-sheffield) and in terms of size and type. In order to open up high density housing to groups beyond the stereotypical student/young professional market, a range of sizes, and/or the opportunity to extend/expand dwellings (as in Greenwich) is important.

A diversity of unit size and type may be easier to attain at a slightly higher scale, e.g. that of neighbourhoods (Barton et al., 2010), or “urban villages”. Where multiple sites/buildings are to be developed, there may be more scope for introducing variety of type. At this scale it is also important to think about the (re)development in a holistic way – again as in Greenwich, or Portland – to consider design and phasing to achieve complementarity and continuity, without homogeneity. At this scale, or perhaps that of the individual building, depending on size, it is important to ensure some level of service provision – Saffron Square in Croydon illustrates the benefits of including a range of services, including retail provision, for residents and others to make use of.

At the scale of the local authority or city-region, then a wider range of principles are important, focusing around infrastructure provision at a larger scale (or where a larger catchment is 47

relevant). The integration of transport provision, or planning around existing transport nodes (as in Portland, with their TOD approach) is important, as of course is the provision of other services such as health and education.

5.0 Does recent high-density housing development meet established best practice criteria?

In the preceding Chapter we used a review of theoretical and practical approaches to high density housing development to identify several key factors essential to ensure that such development is sustainable. In this Chapter we explore, through our interview and statistical data, whether these factors can be said to present in relation to recent housing delivery in the North West of England.

5.1 Diversity of provision, open space, etc.

Based on our analysis of housing delivery in Salford (see Section 3.1), 8.6% of the 2,769 apartments built in 2018/19 were three bed or higher. This does not suggest a great deal of diversity in the size of apartment delivery in Salford. Data for other areas is markedly less comprehensive – Salford is an exemplar in how it publishes data, through it’s Annual Monitoring Reports. Manchester City Council has not published an AMR since 2016/17. In that report they do not provide the detail of data on housing completions which Salford Council does, but they do specify that of the 1,872 completions in 2016/17, 63% were apartments. This was up from 40% in 2015/16 and 58% in 2014/15. These figures are much higher than averages across the North West – Government data (MHCLG, 2020) shows apartments accounting for only 7% all completions in the North West in 2018/19. At that scale, the proportion of apartments of three bed or higher is so small as to be reported as zero.

Our interview data supports the thesis that very few apartments that are being constructed meet the requirement for a diversity in unit size identified in the previous Chapter. Several of our private sector interviewees referred to viability and the challenges of delivering mixed-use or mixed-tenure/size housing schemes on PDL sites which might be (a) too expensive, with commercial land values at present high enough to outbid residential as a land use; and (b) too small to achieve the mix of uses and include enough garden/outdoor space to make places attractive to families. There were also concerns about oversupply, and references back to the period before 2007/08 and the large numbers of 1 and 2 bed apartments built in city centres, with accompanying low occupancy rates.

Concerns were also expressed to us about the management of the Private Rented Sector (PRS) apartments which make up a large proportion of completed apartments, particularly in the longer term. One of our public sector interviewees addressed this issue directly, after noting, tongue in cheek, that “these are housing issues, not planning”. This interviewee pointed out that the scale of supply in Manchester city centre at present means that good quality management is a key selling point, and that apartments might not be sold/let without this.

5.2 Infrastructure provision

The provision of transport and social infrastructure (such as schools and health services) at a range of scales was identified in the previous Chapter as being important for the long term sustainability of all forms of housing development.

Our interviewees observed that in city-centre locations, due to the relatively recent increase in housing provision therein, there can be a historical undersupply of some forms of infrastructure,

particularly schools, doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries. Conversely, transport infrastructure can be very well provided, in contrast to more peripheral locations.

Both private and public sector interviewees affirmed these issues, one private sector interviewee pointing out that the high cost of land in city centres can make the provision of health services and schools prohibitively expensive. A public sector interviewee acknowledged that this was a problem, in relation to Manchester city centre in particular, and reflected that there was work to do to provide more services, but argued that planning for more demand was preferable to the situation in that local authority in the late 1990s, when the population was falling and school numbers likewise declining. They also pointed out that local people across the city region, in both city centre and outlying areas, argue against the provision of more housing near where they live on the grounds of a shortage of infrastructure, city centres not being unique in this regard.

A public sector interviewee also emphasised that Local Planning Authorities are not in direct control over several sectors of infrastructure provision, for example rail transport and utilities. This limits the scope for them to take action to improve the provision of these types of infrastructure, highlighting the limitations of our sectoral development model.

5.3 Other aspects of sustainability

In several interviews the broader sustainability of a model of housing delivery which relies on urban intensification, and building upon PDL in city centres. Our public sector interviewees argued that this mode of development was more sustainable than permitting more housing on more peripheral green field sites. A counter-argument made by some of our private sector interviewees highlighted factors such as the lack of public and green space in many city centres – research has shown that “the higher the residential density, the lower the overall provision of public and green space” (Dempsey et al., 2012, p. 133); and the potential risks of densifying upon what open space there is, increasing the prevalence of non-permeable surfaces and contributing to the urban heat island effect.

A different set of issues was identified with town (as opposed to city) centre housing developments, proposed by at least one public sector interviewee as a possible intermediate location for new homes. Building on car parks, a relatively common approach, was criticised by a private sector interviewee as contributing to problems with town centre viability; and likewise reductions in the permeability of urban areas if formerly public areas were developed for housing.

5.4 Summary

The aim of this Chapter of the report was to answer Research Question 4: Are the factors emerging from Research Question 3 (re sustainable high density urban development) being delivered upon in relation to trends in housing development (planned for/implemented) in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region? The short answer to this question appears to be “no”.

An issue which can contribute to the lack of diversity in unit size and problems with infrastructure provision is size of housing developments, in terms of number of units. As we noted in Chapter 4, larger housing developments have more scope to include a variety of types of accommodation, and are more likely to reach a critical mass to ensure provision/viability of infrastructure. If we

take the most recent year in Salford, which as noted above is the subject of high quality data, then we can perform some basic analysis on this topic.

The 3,344 homes completed in Salford in 2018/19 were spread across 84 sites, with a mean site size of 40 and a maximum of 571 units. The latter is more the exception than the rule – only eight sites featured more than 100 units, and there were 58 sites with less than 30 units. From our interview data, the larger sites were perceived to be doing better in relation to meeting the requirements for high quality and sustainable high density urban development – for example the Greengate scheme (https://livegreengate.com/); or in neighbouring Manchester the Great Jackson Street development (http://www.renakerbuild.com/great-jackson-street). The latter will eventually include over 6,000 units, along with the breadth of services and infrastructure a community of that size requires. However, our private sector interviewees in particular stressed that these examples were an exception, and most apartments which were being built in Liverpool and Manchester/Salford city centres involved individual buildings or parts of buildings and consequently much fewer units. Development in such a piecemeal fashion, they argued, meant that those proposing and delivering each development could argue that the scale of their development indicated that substantial social infrastructure was not required.

A lack of comprehensive masterplanning was cited by some as being an issue in many urban areas, this in turn being a consequence of reduced local authority capacity. That, and other issues, are explored in the next Chapter of this report.

6.0 Other factors and possible changes

The concluding sections of our interviews addressed Research Question 5:

If the answers to Research Questions 1-4 suggest that there is a problem with current processes of planning for housing, what amendments/additions to the Standard Methodology might be helpful in addressing this? Are there other factors influencing the process, e.g. a reduction in local authority budgets and hence capacity due to “austerity”?

Here we present our interviewee’s responses to the questions we asked in relation to this issue.

6.1 What changes to the Standard Methodology, or other factors in planning for housing, would be helpful in addressing any problems?

There was near-unanimity across our interviewees that changes to the Standard Methodology were needed.

A common concern was the decision to rely on the 2014 population projections (see Section 2.3). These are increasingly out of date, so one public sector interviewee told us they don’t know who a large proportion of their housing is going to be for. Further, the 2016 population projections are used in other parts of local authorities and by other agencies to plan for service and infrastructure provision, including new school places. It is clearly a bizarre and unhelpful situation wherein different parts of the same organisation are using different population projections.

Many interviewees argued for more radical changes.

Several private sector interviewees stressed that a purely numbers-based approach is too simple, and does not reflect the complexity of housing markets. One felt that the Standard Methodology should go further in breaking down the steps needed in planning for housing, and be explicit about which steps can be discussed at examination and which cannot. The same interviewee felt that there were problems with non-Standard Methodology planning policy, for example in relation to SHMAs. The Planning Practice Guidance regarding these now states that local authorities do not need to gather primary data, e.g. from residents’ surveys – a change from previous guidance. The interviewee felt that without such data, it is hard to separate need from demand from aspiration re housing location. Another problem was that allowing local authorities to do their five-year reviews of their local plans without scrutiny is not helping objective planning

A different private sector interviewee emphasised the need for plans to consider more factors than simply the Standard Methodology and its Objectively Assessed Need (OAN):

The guidance could be much more explicit in requiring authorities to align their policies, for example through employment growth. The NPPF kind of implies that you do the OAN and then that’s the number. But we should be doing a sense check, if the authority has a growth strategy than this needs to fit in with the housing need number.

This is related to another well-established issue, that of the Standard Methodology being based upon trend-based population projections. One interviewee told us:

You can’t just base it on the past. Look at Lancashire, or the larger conurbations, if you’re trying to do something different rather than lose people to the South then you need to do something different. It requires more ambition for those local authorities when the need numbers are lower.

This latter point, about ambition, was echoed by others. A different private sector interviewee felt that “Planners need to be brave enough to supply infrastructure in order to drive housing growth and economics growth”.

6.2 Are there other factors influencing the process of planning for housing, for example “austerity”?

One of our private sector interviewees was of the view that an issue with the sector more broadly is that “MHCLG don’t understand the regions”, i.e. how housing markets operate outside London and the South East. Little research has been done outside these areas regarding the development sector and housing need, with the result that policy and guidance tends to be based upon what (it is hoped) will work in London and the South East, with other areas neglected.

Both the public and private sector interviewees agreed that “austerity” and the significant cuts to local authority budgets which have been consequent upon it have impacted severely on Planning, and the ability of local planning authorities to plan proactively for housing. This reinforces the picture found by others (for example Kenny, 2019). Specific areas which were identified as problematic included a simple lack of capacity in planning policy teams, resulting in some pieces of work simply not being done – or taking a very long time to be done. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) were identified as being particularly slow in being produced.

The standard methodology does “make policy planners’ lives easier”, said a private sector interviewee, but the many other things they are required to do, including producing a brownfield land register, means they still have limited capacity, so struggle to develop high quality spatial plans based on the data they gather. The quality of local authority planning teams was critiqued by some private sector interviewees – many senior planning staff have retired in recent years, leading to junior colleagues, in some cases, being promoted perhaps too soon.

This lack of capacity and expertise within local authority planning teams, it was felt by many interviewees, has led to a tendency for them, perhaps unsurprisingly, to default to the easiest option – focusing upon delivering the number of houses specified through the standard methodology, as they are required to do by national policy and guidance. It has to be pointed out that our public sector interviewees did not accept that this was their approach – they insisted that they focussed upon their wider strategy, indeed that the standard methodology allowed them to do so. But it would be surprising if introducing an emphasis on numbers into national policy did not result in local authorities adopting this as their focus. In a context of austerity, government pressure to increase housing supply and local political pressure to avoid housing on green field and green belt land, it is easy to see why the unintended outcomes of the introduction of the standard methodology which we have discussed have come about.

6.3 Summary

The discussion in this Chapter shows that amongst our interviewees there were commonly held view from those in the private sector who operate in the Greater Manchester, Liverpool and other 53

city-regions (including Leeds and the West Midlands) that the Standard Methodology should be changed. However, one interviewee with a wider remit observed that there is no nationwide consensus in the development industry that the standard methodology is problematic – in areas where OAN is higher than local authorities were planning for, it is being used by developers to secure more housing. So fundamental changes to the Standard Methodology may be unlikely in the immediate term.

The onus therefore may be on local authorities to be bolder in how they interpret policy and guidance from the Government, to seek to deliver a pro-growth approach and to ensure their plans and delivery do not simply default to a “numbers first” approach. As we noted above, however, it is unsurprising that many local authorities do so.

7.0 Conclusions

This report, and the research it summarises, set out to answer five Research Questions. In this concluding Chapter we present our answers thereto. It is important to caveat at this point that the Standard Methodology for establishing an Objectively Assessed Need for housing has been in place a relatively short time, and few, if any, local plans have been adopted which have used the Standard Methodology. By necessity, therefore, the findings of this research must be considered as provisional. We have, however, drawn on a range of data sources which collectively suggest that the Standard Methodology is likely to continue an existing direction of travel regarding planning for housing. A second caveat is that our research has focussed upon one region of England – the North West. Our justification for this is partly that much previous research has focussed upon London and the South East, and that a corrective to this is necessary. Further, many of our interviewees have experience of recent practice regarding planning for housing in other parts of the country, and have drawn on that experience in addition to that which is focussed upon on the North West.

7.1 Research Question 1

Question 1 was “How has the Standard Methodology changed the system/process of planning for housing? What appear to be the outcomes for evidence-based planning?”.

Based on our review of the literature, including reports from a range of organisations, it is fair to say there are a range of views in relation to this question. Some of our public sector interviewees felt that it has, and would continue to have, very little impact on how they planned for housing in their area. Others felt it had had a positive impact, in that time and money they had previously spent on justifying the quantum of housing they were planning for could now be re-allocated, and their focus instead could be on their strategy for housing delivery. Our private sectors interviewees, by contrast, were much more critical, in general feeling that the Methodology would lead to an (increasing) focus purely on delivering that quantum of housing, regardless of location, size or type. One interviewee who has been involved in a number of local plan examinations since the Standard Methodology was brought in, reported that planning inspectors seemed in general to be mainly concerned with whether the number was going to be delivered. Only when the reports of those and subsequent examinations are published will we be more confidently able to assert that the Standard Methodology has had this effect.

7.2 Research Question 2

Question 2 was “How does the housing stock, recent developments and planned for housing development in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region relate to the evidence base on need as expressed in previous Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs), in terms of: a) Quantity of development? b) Location of development? c) Type of development (re tenure, size, etc.)?”

We can be more confident about this question because it does not rely on the implementation of the Standard Methodology. We have been able, through analysis of housing delivery in one local authority, supported by our interview data, to explore where and in what form homes are being delivered. The data suggests that the quantity of development may be meeting targets but that a

very high proportion of homes built are small (1 or 2 bed) apartments within or adjacent to the city centres of these, and other, City Regions. This does not reflect the data in the 2016 Greater Manchester SHMA, which argued for a 55-45 split in favour of houses across the City Region, and a 50-50 split in Salford. Our analysis of delivery in Salford shows that since that SHMA was published, 35% of homes built have been houses, and 65% apartments. These are very highly concentrated in a small number of wards in and adjacent to Manchester city centre. Our public sector interviewees argued that this pattern of development was more “sustainable” than allowing more housing development in peripheral parts of the city regions.

7.3 Research Question 3

Question 3 was: “If high density development is to be adopted as the prime focus for housing development in the urban cores of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, what are the critical factors to make that form of development sustainable, for example re: a) Equality of mobility (access to public transport in non-car developments) b) Access to social infrastructure and green space c) Other factors, including long-term management of non owner-occupied housing d) Funding of later-life welfare (currently heavily-dependant on mortgage equity)”

Through an in-depth literature and best practice review we established that, where high density urban development had succeeded, it reflected a number of key success factors. These included a mix of size and type of homes, inclusion of green and open space, the provision of social infrastructure (e.g. health services and schools) and proximity to shopping and leisure opportunities.

7.4 Research Question 4

Question 4 was “Are the factors emerging from (3) being delivered upon in relation to trends in housing development (planned for/implemented) in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region?”.

In summary, our answer to this question is “no”. There are some exemplary developments, particularly in Greater Manchester, but the evidence from our data analysis and interviews is that these are exceptional, and that most recent high density housing development in these, and other, city regions, does not reflect the factors emerging from Research Question 3. A key reason for this is the scale of much of this development, in single buildings or parts of buildings, which does not tend to allow the planning for, and hence inclusion of, diversity in housing mix; and at this scale it is harder for local planning authorities to insist on inclusion of affordable housing and infrastructure provision.

7.5 Research Question 5

Question 5 was: “If the answers to 1-4 suggest that there is a problem with current processes of planning for housing, what amendments/additions to the Standard Methodology might be helpful in addressing this? Are there other factors influencing the process, e.g. a reduction in local authority budgets and hence capacity due to “austerity”?”.

There are two aspects to this question. Firstly, what amendments/additions to the Standard Methodology might be helpful? Some of our private sector interviewees were of the view that the Standard Methodology had had no positive outcomes and should be abandoned. Others felt that it had the potential to be a positive tool, but to do so it should be developed to take a broader view of housing markets, including variations within them. They felt local planning authorities should be encouraged to adopt housing figures which reflected economic growth aspirations more closely, or indeed should choose to do this within the existing guidance.

Secondly, are other factors affecting planning for housing? There was near-unanimity from our interviewees that this was the case. “Austerity”, and cuts to local authority budgets, have affected planning severely, and planning policy teams in particular. This is coupled with additional responsibilities to produce, inter alia, brownfield land registers which are of questionable utility. These factors were collectively seen to lead to a lack of capacity to plan for housing in a proactive manner, and equally importantly a lack of senior, experienced planners. The latter might be expected to have more knowledge and expertise about planning and to be able to argue for politically unpopular approaches, e.g. more housing on greenfield/green belt sites. As such staff had retired or moved on from local authorities, some interviewees felt that in some places more junior staff had filled their positions but lacked experience or gravitas.

8.0 References

Amati, M. & Yokohari, M., 2006. Temporal changes and local variations in the functions of London's green belt. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1-2), pp. 125-142. p. 139 Barton, H., Grant, M. & Guise, R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For Local Health and Global Sustainability, 2nd edn, Routledge, Abingdon. Barton Willmore, 2019. New PPG Clarifies Methodology For Assessing Housing Need. [Online] Available at: http://www.bartonwillmore.co.uk/Knowledge/Intelligence/2019/New-PPG- clarifies-methodology-for-assessing-housing [Accessed 13 October 2019]. Basiago, A., 1999. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist, Volume 19, pp. 145-161. p. 151 Bentley, D. (2016) We aren’t building enough houses – and we aren’t building them in the right places. Prospect Magazine. Available at: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/we- arent-building-enough-houses-and-were-building-them-in-the-wrong-places [Accessed 25 January 2020]. Berkeley Homes, 2018. The Tower: Saffron Square, London. [Online] Available at: https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/1/0/berkeley-homes-saffron- square-the-tower-brochure.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2019]. Best Laid Plans, 2020. The Lost Decade [Online] Available at: https://mikesbestlaidplans.wordpress.com/ [Accessed 31 January 2020]. Boddy, M., 2007. Designer neighbourhoods: new-build residential development in nonmetropolitan UK cities - the case of Bristol. Environment and Planning A, Volume 39, pp. 86-105. pp. 92-93 Burton, E., 2000. The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), pp. 1969-2001. pp. 1970, 1987 Burton, E., 2002. Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Volume 29, pp. 219-250. p. 276 Couch, C., 1990. Urban Renewal: Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Hampshire: Macmillan Education Limited. Couch, C. & Dennemann, A., 2000. Urban regeneration and sustainable development in Britain: The example of the Liverpool Ropewalks Partnership. Cities, 17(2), pp. 137-147. p. 146 Couch, C. & Fowles, S., 2019. Metropolitan Planning and the Phenomenon of Reurbanisation: The Example of Liverpool. Planning Practice & Research, 34(2), pp. 184-205. pp. 188, 192, 194 Couch, C., Fowles, S. & Karecha, J., 2009. Reurbanization and Housing Markets in the Central and Inner Areas of Liverpool. Planning Practice & Research, 24(3), pp. 321-341. Countryside Properties, 2010. Case Studies: Greenwich Millennium Village, London. [Online] Available at: https://ecoquartier.ch/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/GreenwichMillenniumVillage-Presentation2010.pdf [Accessed 15 December 2019]. Croydon Local Council, 2013. Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies. [Online] Available at: https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/articles/downloads/localplan- adopted.pdf [Accessed 17 December 2019]. DCLG, 2017. Housing White Paper, 2017: Fixing our broken housing market. [Online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/590464/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_print_ready_version.pdf [Accessed 13 October 2019].

Dempsey, N., Brown, C. & Bramley, G., 2012. ‘The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability’. Progress in Planning, vol. 77 (3), pp. 89-141 De Roo, G. & Miller, D., 2000. Compact Cities and Sustainable Urban Development: A Critical Assessment of Policies and Plans From an International Perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate. Edwards, B. & Turrent, D., 2005. Sustainable Housing: Principle and Practice. London & New York: E&FN Spon. Garton-Grimwood, G. & Barton, C., 2019. House of Commons Briefing Paper: What next for planning in England? The National Planning Policy Framework. [Online] Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP- 8260#fullreport [Accessed 2019 October 2019]. GLA, 2019. The Draft London Plan. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/ efault/files/draft_london_plan_-_consolidated_changes_version_july_2019.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2019]. GLA, Croydon Council & TFL, 2013. Croydon OAPF. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london- plan/opportunity-areas/opportunity-areas/croydon-opportunity [Accessed 17 December 2019]. GMCA, 2019. Greater Manchester Strategic Housing Market Assessment January 2019. Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Available at: https://www.greatermanchester- ca.gov.uk/media/1733/gm-shma-jan-19.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2020]. Greater Manchester Spatial Framework,2019. Greater Manchester’s Plan for Homes, Jobs and the Environment. Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Available at: https://www.greatermanchester- ca.gov.uk/media/1710/gm_plan_for_homes_jobs_and_the_environment_1101-web.pdf [Accessed 25 January 2020]. GMVA, 2019. Greenwhich Millenium Village Association. [Online] Available at: https://www.gmva.today/ [Accessed 9 December 2019]. GMV, n.d. The Plaza: A Stylish Collection of 2, 3 and 4 Bedroom Houses at London's Favourite Village. [Online] Available at: https://www.gmv.london/files/7815/4262/2229/21883_THE_PLAZA_HOUSE_BROCHURE_56 P_312X220_LRES2-ilovepdf-compressed-min.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2019]. Hannah, F. (2017) Seriously, why aren’t we building enough homes? Love Money, available at: https://www.lovemoney.com/news/68449/why-uk-not-building-enough-homes [Accessed 25 January 2020]. Herbert Smith Freehills, 2019. Back to Basics: Housing Need and Delivery. [Online] Available at: https://hsfnotes.com/realestatedevelopment/2019/01/23/back-to-basics- housing-need-and-delivery/ [Accessed 16 October 2019]. Homes & Property, 2013. Saffron Square is set to bring afforfable flats to Croydon alongside piazzas and redeveloped shopping centres. [Online] Available at: https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/first-time- buyers/saffron-square-is-set-to-bring-afforfable-flats-to-croydon-alongside-piazzas-and- redeveloped-29881.html [Accessed 16 December 2019]. Ingenia Online, 2001. Homes for the new millennium: new technology and innovation at Greenwich Millennium Village. [Online] Available at: https://www.ingenia.org.uk/getattachment/Ingenia/Issue-41/Millennium- Homes-Revisited/Cherry_Hodkinson.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2019].

Ingenia Online, 2009. Article - Issue 41, December 2009 Millennium Homes Revisited. [Online] Available at: https://www.ingenia.org.uk/Ingenia/Articles/b6e50165-b020-412a-afc2- 1dab1b3826cd [Accessed 16 December 2019]. Johnston, C., 2015. Why can’t Britain build enough homes to meet demand? BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33539816 [Accessed 25 January 2020] Kenny, T., 2019. Resourcing Public Planning: Five stories about local authority planning in England and recommendations for the next chapter, Royal Town Planning Institute, London Larice, M. & Macdonald, E., 2007. The Urban Design Reader. London : Routledge. Letwin, O., 2018. Independent Review of Build Out - Final Report. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, London. Lichfields, 2018. Planning matters: Planning for enough homes in the first place? By Bethan Haynes. [Online] Available at: https://lichfields.uk/blog/2018/june/27/planning-for-enough-homes-in-the-first- place/ [Accessed 13 October 2019]. Lichfields, 2019. Insight Focus: Above Standard? Plans for housing under the new NPPF. [Online] Available at: https://lichfields.uk/media/5263/above-standard-plans-for-housing-under-the- new-nppf_lichfields-insight-focus.pdf [Accessed 13 October 2019]. LSE, 2016. Living at Saffron Square: A social sustainability report commissioned by the Berkeley Group. [Online] Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/business-and- consultancy/consulting/assets/documents/Living-at-Saffron-Square.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2019]. Maghsoudi, M., 2007. The Survey of the Urban Space: New pattern A Case study of Greenwich Millennium Village, London, U.K. Environmental Sciences, 4(3), pp. 21-40. MHCLG, 2019a. Guidance: Housing and economic needs assessment. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-development-needs- assessments [Accessed 14 October 2019]. MHCLG, 2019b. National Planning Policy Framework. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, London. MHCLG, 2020. Table 254: permanent dwellings completed, by house and flat, number of bedroom and tenure, England. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-house-building [Accessed 4 March 2020]. Morton, A. (2012) Why aren’t we building enough attractive homes? Myths, misunderstandings and solutions. Policy Exchange, Available at: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/why-arent-we-building-enough-attractive-homes.pdf [Accessed 25 January 2020]. Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2016. Wirral SHMA and Housing Needs Study. [Online] Available at: https://www.wirral.gov.uk/sites/default/files/all/planning%20and%20building/Local%20plans %20and%20planning%20policy/Local%20Planning%20Evidence%20Base%20and%20Resea rch/Wirral%20Documents/Wirral%20SHMA%20Final%20Report%20May%202016.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2019]. National Audit Office, 2019. Planning for new homes. [Online] Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Planning-for-new- homes.pdf [Accessed 13 October 2019]. Ng, E., 2015. Designing High-Density Cities: For Social & Evironmental Sustainability. Oxfordshire: Earthscan. ONS (2018a) Household projections in England: 2016-based, Statistical bulletin, Office for National Statistics, Titchfield. 60

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populatio nprojections/bulletins/2016basedhouseholdprojectionsinengland/2016basedhouseholdprojec tionsinengland [Accessed 25 January 2020]. ONS (2018b) Household projections for England, comparisons with other sources: 2001 to 2018, Office for National Statistics, London. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populatio nprojections/articles/householdprojectionsforenglandcomparisonswithothersources/2001to2 018 . [Accessed 25 January 2020] ONS, 2019. Dataset: House price to workplace-based earnings ratio. [Online] Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/ratioofhousepric etoworkplacebasedearningslowerquartileandmedian [Accessed 16 October 2019]. Proctor & Matthews Architects, 2019. Greenwich Millennium Village: an adaptable model for housing set within a lively and intimate environment. [Online] Available at: https://www.proctorandmatthews.com/project/greenwich-millennium-village-0 [Accessed 16 December 2019]. Public Health England, 2017. Public Health Profiles. [Online] Available at: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/search/fuel%20poverty#page/3/gid/1/pat/15/par/E92000001/ati/ 6/are/E12000004/iid/90356/age/-1/sex/-1 [Accessed 19 December 2019]. SaRC, 2018. Evaluating the validity of the population and household projections underpinning the Wirral Local Plan: A response to public submissions. [Online] Available at: https://www.wirral.gov.uk/sites/default/files/all/planning%20and%20building/Local%20plans %20and%20planning%20policy/Local%20Planning%20Evidence%20Base%20and%20Resea rch/Wirral%20Documents/Review%20of%20population%20household%20projections.pdf [Accessed 2019 December 2019]. SaRC, 2019. Determining Housing Need on Wirral: a review of the commissioned evidence. [Online] Available at: https://www.wirral.gov.uk/sites/default/files/all/planning%20and%20building/Local%20plans %20and%20planning%20policy/Local%20Planning%20Evidence%20Base%20and%20Resea rch/Wirral%20Documents/Review%20of%20housing%20evidence.pdf [Accessed 1 December 2019]. Savills, 2018. Policy Response: Calculating Housing Need. [Online] Available at: https://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/uk/residential---other/policy-response---housing- need---september-2018.pdf [Accessed 13 October 2019]. SLG, 2019. Two key failings of the Standard Method for calculating housing need. [Online] Available at: https://strategiclandgroup.co.uk/2017/10/13/two-key-failings-of-the-standard- method-for-calculating-housing-need/ [Accessed 21 October 2019]. Stokel-Walker, C. (2015) Why we cant build enough homes and why that matters. Buzzfeed. Available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/one-day-we-will-be- homebuilding [Accessed 25 January 2020]. Taylor, N., 1998. Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. London: Sage Publications Ltd.. The Planner, 2019. Standard method not helping to deliver government’s housing ambitions - By Laura Edgar. [Online] Available at: https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/standard-method-not-helping-to-deliver- government%E2%80%99s-housing-ambitions [Accessed 13 October 2019]. Turley, 2019. Research Paper 2: Regional Imbalances in Population Growth and Housing Provision. [Online] 61

Available at: https://www.peel.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Turley-Regional- imbalances-in-population-growth-and-housing-provision-July-2019.pdf [Accessed 29 October 2019]. UK Construction Online (2017) The real reasons why we aren’t building enough new homes. Available at: https://www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/features/real-reasons-arent-building- enough-new-homes/ [Accessed 25January 2020]. Urban Land Institute, 2006. ULI Development Case Studies: Greenwich Millennium Village. [Online] Available at: https://casestudies.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/C036003.pdf [Accessed 2019 December 2019]. Whitehead, C. M., 1991. From Need to Affordability : An Analysis of UK Housing Objectives. Urban Studies, 28(6), pp. 871-887. Wilson, W. & Barton, C., 2018. Tackling the under-supply of housing in England. [Online] Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7671 [Accessed 19 December 2019]. Wirral Council, 2017. Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 - Biennial Progress Report. [Online] Available at: https://www.wirral.gov.uk/sites/default/files/all/Housing/information%20and%20advice/Wirr al%20Council%20HECA%20Progress%20Report%202017.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2019]. WLA, 2015. Saffron Square, London, UK, HTA Design. [Online] Available at: https://worldlandscapearchitect.com/saffron-square-london-uk-hta- design/#.Xffil4j7SUk [Accessed 16 December 2019]

Appendix A – Public sector interview questions

1. How do you feel the standard methodology has changed the system/process of planning for housing?

2. What appear to be the outcomes for your Local Planning Authority/City Region in terms of evidence-based planning?

3. How is the standard methodology used to support evidence on the type and location of housing need in your area?

a. How does this evidence compare to previous SHMAs?

4. Are you confident that the use of the standard methodology helps with the planning and delivery of the ‘right’ types of housing?

a. If not, what are the major barriers towards the ‘right’ types of housing being planned and delivered?

5. Are you confident that any high density development being planned for and delivered in the urban core of your local authority/city region is sustainable, for example re:

a. Equality of mobility (access to public transport in non-car developments) b. Access to social infrastructure and green space c. Other factors, including long-term management of non owner-occupied housing d. Funding of later-life welfare (currently heavily-dependant on mortgage equity)

6. Are there any amendments to the standard methodology which might be helpful in addressing any problems with it?

7. Are there other factors influencing the process of planning for housing, for example “austerity”?

Appendix B – Private sector interview questions

1. Please describe your professional experience, including the kinds of housing and planning markets you operate in over the last five years (approximately). - Where have you been working? (location and market context) - How many LPAs have you worked with that have used the standard methodology?

2. How has the standard methodology changed the system/process of planning for housing? What appear to be the outcomes for LPAs you’ve worked with / evidence-based planning?

3. How is the standard methodology used to support evidence on the type and location of housing need within LPAs you’ve worked with/in? a. How does this evidence compare to previous SHMAs?

4. Do you think that the ‘right’ types of housing are being planned for and delivered in LPAs you’ve worked in/with? a. If not, what are the major barriers towards the ‘right’ types of housing being planned and delivered?

5. If high density development is to be adopted as the prime focus for housing development in the urban cores of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, what are the critical factors to make that form of development sustainable, for example re: a. Equality of mobility (access to public transport in non-car developments) b. Access to social infrastructure and green space c. Other factors, including long-term management of non owner-occupied housing d. Funding of later-life welfare (currently heavily-dependant on mortgage equity)

6. Are there any amendments to the standard methodology which might be helpful in addressing any problems with it?

7. Are there other factors influencing the process of planning for housing, for example “austerity”?