BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Consultation Statement

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

The Council has now formally adopted the SPD on Affordable Housing as a part of its Local Development Framework (LDF) on 2 December 2008. The SPD was commenced in late 2007, has undergone an evidence gathering stage including a pre-draft consultation as well as the formal consultation between 25 July and 5 September 2008.

This Consultation Statement is produced as required by Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) () Regulations, 2004 (as amended by Regulations 2008), including how the formal consultation was undertaken, who were consulted, main issue raised and how those issues have been addressed in the SPD.

Relevant bodies (listed in Table 1) are sent copies of Affordable Housing SPD; notification were sent to all remaining bodies on the LDF database either by letters or emails; notices and documents were also published on the Council’s website to aid comments. The consultees are list as follows:

Table 1 List of Consultation Bodies/Individuals

Parish Council Parish Council Heydon Parish Meeting Parish Meeting Parish Council Town Council Parish Council Parish Meeting Horsham & Newton St Faiths Parish Council Beighton Parish Council Horstead and Stanninghall Parish Council Parish Meeting and Burlingham Parish Council Parish Council Marsham Parish Council Parish Council Morton-on-the-Hill Parish Meeting Booton Parish Meeting Parish Council Brampton Parish Council Oulton Parish Council Parish Meeting Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Burgh & Tuttington Parish Council Reedham Parish Council with Lamas Parish Council Reepham Town Council Cantley Parish Council Ringland Parish Council Cawston Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Salle Parish Meeting Parish Meeting Parish Council Drayton Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Swannington with & Parish Council Great & Little Plumstead Parish Council Parish Council

1 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Great Witchingham Parish Council Parish Meeting Parish Meeting Town Council Parish Council Upton with Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Meeting Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Government Angency & other Local Authority Council Regional Assembly Go East Borough Council County Council - Planning & Transportation District Council City Council District Council Authority Housing Association Housing Association Circle Anglia Housing Group Cotman Housing Association Flagship Housing Group Greater Norwich Housing Forum - Chair Hastoe Housing Association Housing Corporation Orbit Housing Association Reepham Housing Trust Ltd. Shelter (Norfolk) Space East Agent Barton Willmore Bidwells Property Consultants Boyer Planning Ltd Brown & Co Building Partnerships Ltd Cushman & Wakefield Chaplin Farrant Ltd Keys Professional Services Michael Haslam Associates Ltd. R. P. S. Savills Strutt & Parker The Planning Bureau Developer Allied Earth Developments Limited Balmforth Homes Beazer Homes Bovis Homes Ltd Calderwood Property Investments Ltd Cofton Ltd DN Grady & Sons Fairstead Homes Ltd. Foulsham Society George Wimpy Ltd Harnser Homes Home Builders Federation Hopkins and Moore (Developments Ltd) Lovell McCarthy & Stone Ltd National Federation of Builders Norfolk Homes Orchard Developments (East Anglia) Ltd Persimmon Homes Ltd R. G. Carter

2 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Steeles Tarmac Ltd Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd. WM Morrison Supermarkets plc Environment / Heritage Cred Friends of the Earth Health & Social Care Norfolk Adult Social Services St. Matthew Housing Crime & Safety Norfolk Constabulary - Central Area Norfolk Constabulary Norfolk Constabulary - Rural Area Community Groups Brundall Society Chenery Drive Residents Association Old Catton Society Reedham Community Association Reepham Society Thorpe End Residents Association Thorpe St Andrew Residents Association Wroxham Road Residents Association Elderly Peoples Group Age Concern Norfolk Broadland Older Peoples' Partnership Disabled Peoples Organisation Broadland Disabled Peoples' Forum Equal Opportunities Gypsy Council Faith Group Norfolk & Waveney Churches Together Land Owner National Landlords Association Regeneration Aylsham Partnership East of England Development Agency Rural Development Council for the Protection of Rural England National Farmers Union Norfolk Rural Community Council Youth Matthew Project YMCA

3 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

After the consultation period, comments were made to both the Draft Affordable Housing SPD and the SA and SEA Statement by 26 bodies/individuals. The following is a summary of the representations in the consultation followed by officers’ responses and recommendations of how these issues have been addressed in the SPD.

Consultation Point SPD Responder Brundall Parish Council Nature Of Response: Support Brundall Parish Council welcomes and supports the Response contents of this document Outcome Support noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Go East Nature Of Response: Support We consider that the SPD's format and approach would Response appear to be appropriate and we offer no specific comments. Outcome Support noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Brampton Parish Council Nature Of Response: Support The Village (Brampton) is small with good views & we wouldn't want to see it built up too much but I think it would Response benefit from a few more houses as the church & village hall suffers as there is not enough support. Outcome Support noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder D. N. Gary (individual) Nature Of Response: Object General comments made with concerns on wide range of Response planning issues.

4 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Noted. However, the comments made are beyond the scope Outcome of the SPD. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations •Appreciate that legislation stipulates a four to six week consultation period, and Broadland used the maximum time, but please as a Council, lobby upwards for a 12 week consultation period for future planning documents.

•BCP’s general position is to maximise opportunities for affordable housing and we would welcome the strongest safeguards possible to enable planners to achieve a 40% affordable housing outcome.

•That Broadland Council work towards an interim solution that Response endeavours to produce a seamless transition to the draft joint core strategy, which is still under development.

•Given that Broadland Council is now a member of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership, it would be useful to include within the SPD a statement of how Broadland works with the City of Norwich and South Norfolk planning teams.

•We note the consultation list does not include the Local Strategic Partnership, and feel that LSPs should be included. Procedure comments noted. Agree that BCP should be Outcome included in the database for consultations. This will be taken into account in the further production of similar documents. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder East of England Regional Assembly Nature Of Response: Support The Draft SPD on Affordable Housing is in general conformity Response with the adopted East of England Plan Outcome Noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

5 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Consultation Point SPD Responder East of England Development Agency Nature Of Response: Support Generally, EEDA supports a minimum provision of 35% affordable housing in line with policies H1 and H3 of the RSS. Response EEDA recognises the increase in the minimum affordable housing provision in the Council’s document from 30% to 40% for 15 dwellings and above. Outcome Noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder FFT Planning Nature Of Response: Object Gypsy and Traveller sites managed or owned by the Local Authority or a Registered Social Landlord are also types of ‘affordable housing’, see, for example, recent Communities and Local Government guidance "Local Authorities and Gypsies and Travellers: A Guide to Responsibilities and Powers" (May 2007), in particular paragraph 37 which states:

“In considering the location of sites, local planning authorities need to be aware that Gypsy and Traveller sites are considered as affordable housing where they are owned and managed by a local authority or Registered Social Landlord. Response Local planning authorities may therefore negotiate S106 agreements with developers to include Gypsy and Traveller sites in new developments, ensuring that mixed communities are created from the outset."

The Broadland Affordable Housing SPD is silent on this issue. The needs for affordable Gypsy and Traveller sites should therefore be considered when preparing policies on affordable housing. It should also be remembered that land affordability issues in the District may result in difficulties for Gypsies and Travellers wishing to establish their own private sites. Outcome Noted and Gypsy and traveller will be considered in the SPD. Officers' add after para 10.3 "including Gypsy & Travellers" Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Michael Haslam Associates Ltd. Nature Of Response: Observations

6 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

The document was written before the current housing market crisis emerged. The SPD will need to be more flexible than drafted to take account of the uncertainties that exist in the Response housing market and which look likely to continue for some years or it will reduce the number of affordable houses that might otherwise be provided. Flexibility is allowed for in the procedure with market Outcome conditions being able to be considered on a case by case basis. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We do wonder if the SPD should make mention of playing facilities. Whilst we appreciate that these will be specific to each scheme, the SPD should encourage the development of Response play facilities directly adjacent to the properties, and that there should be an imperative to develop appropriate play facilities in affordable housing developments. The guidance of providing playing facilities is set out in a separate document: SPD on Recreational Open Space, which Outcome includes detailed guidance on how open space is provided in relation to housing development. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Mr David Walker (Individual) Nature Of Response: Observations I am aware that legislation, which may be beyond the jurisdiction of the district council, relating to ownership for renting of residential property, does not encourage responsible tenure. As a result there is a reluctance to offer property for rent which is almost certainly the major source of accommodation for low income families.

Response Further I am aware that the overwhelming interest of constituents, most of whom have a substantial part of their wealth invested in their owner-occupancy, is for the council to restrict the supply of housing in order to maintain its value, and certainly not using public funds to depreciate it.

The only resolution to this dilemma is in my opinion to

7 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

enhance the environment for rental ownership to encourage this sector of the market without deflating that of owner occupiers. The role of the Council is to make adequate provision but not Outcome restrict the supply. The SPD only seeks to assist the provision of one element of housing. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Levvel (McCarthy and Stone) Nature Of Response: Object The Draft SPD is unsound as it fails to correspond with the Core Strategy which suggests a different methodology for Response commuted sum calculation, contrary to the requirements of PPS12. If SPDs are produced they should not be used to take the place of the Core Strategy. The SPD supplements the Local Plan rather than the emerging Local Development Framework / Joint Core Strategy which is Outcome still at an early stage. The SPD will be updated once the LDF supersedes the Local Plan. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SPD Responder Thorpe St Andrew Town Council Nature Of Response: Observations We support the full document, although we still have concerns regarding the split between types of affordable housing. We Response believe it might be necessary to revisit this breakdown at a later date to restore the balance of housing in Broadland area to the current rate between owner occupied and social rented. Support noted. The SPD allows flexibility of the breakdown of Outcome affordable housing types on a case by case basis. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 1 Responder Norfolk County Council Nature Of Response: Support with conditions While supporting the broad approach taken towards affordable Response housing, it is felt that there ought to be a cross-reference in the introductory section of the SPD to the potential requirements of

8 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

other planning obligations. For example, developers may also be asked for contributions towards education, transport and open space provisions in line with adopted local plan policies and Norfolk County Council’s Planning Obligations Standards. It would therefore be useful if the SPD referred to the County Council’s Planning Obligations Standards and to the fact that they are updated annually. Agree that planning obligations not only include affordable housing, but also a range of categories. At application stage, it is a norm to consult County Council on related obligations as Outcome well as other requirements e.g. open space. Specific reference to other elements is neither necessary nor appropriate to this SPD. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 1.1 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Please clarify – are you specifying one Housing Needs Survey, Response or leaving open the possibility of others? This paragraph sets out the purposes of this SPD and the main emphasis is to establish a flexible approach for affordable Outcome housing and it is relying on the Housing Need Survey. Clarification is needed. Officers' add "the" before Housing Need Survey. Recommendation

Consultation Point 1.2 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Response A semi-colon after BDLP would help understanding. Outcome noted. Officers' add A semi-colon after BDLP. Recommendation

Consultation Point 1.4 Responder Levvel (McCarthy and Stone) Nature Of Response: Object It is recommended that monitoring should be kept up to date in Response real time rather than annually and should be publicly available. Affordable housing provision will be reviewed via Annual Outcome Monitoring Report (AMR) and on an ad hoc basis as

9 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

necessary. It is not practical to provide monitoring in "real time". Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 2 Responder Norfolk County Council Nature Of Response: Observations It would seem prudent for the SPD to refer to the Government’s emerging proposals for the introduction of a CIL. Paragraph 2.26 of The Community Infrastructure Levy (August Response 2008) published by the Department of Communities and Local Government sets out how affordable housing may be taken forward through CIL. CIL is not agreed and once adopted will be considered via Outcome Local Development Framework. It is not relevant to the SPD. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 2.4 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations In terms of the Housing Market Assessments, as lay readers, it Response would value greater clarity about where and what evidence should be gathered. Evidences, e.g. Housing Market Assessments are undertaken Outcome uder a specific procedure. It is not the role of the SPD to influent this process. Officers' No change to SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 2.5 Responder Savills Nature Of Response: Object The housing need survey referred to 2.5 was carried out using house prices plus buyers affordability on pre- "credit crunch" figures. Since the survey house prices have fallen dramatically Response and brought many more existing properties into the affordable range. By raising the percentage required you will rethink the future supply of development land coming forward. The SPD sets up a flexible approach towards the provision of Outcome affordable housing, including having regard to viability and market conditions. House price drops, as do people's income

10 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

and ability to obtain property. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 2.5 Responder Norfolk County Council Nature Of Response: Observations Table 1 (referred to in paragraph 2.5 as table 2.1) extracts some information from the Housing Need and Stock Condition Response Survey. It would be helpful in terms of clarification if the categories in Table 1 were simply referred to as ‘affordable/social housing need’. This table is directly extracted from the Housing Need and Stock Condition survey indicating the overall need of affordable housing in Broadland District. However, there are several approaches dividing the intermediate and social Outcome affordable housing elements. The breakdown shown in the table is the one of the options that officers consider most appropriate and used for the breakdown between social rented and intermediate affordable housing, but clarification of this would be useful. Officers' Add on to the first sentence: ... 5 years "and the breakdown Recommendation between social rented and intermediate affordable housing."

Consultation Point 2.5 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Response The table is headed Table 1, not Table 2.1. Outcome Noted. Officers' in para 2.5, change "table 2.1" to "table 1" Recommendation

Consultation Point 2.6 Responder CPRE Norfolk Nature Of Response: Support To meet the need for affordable housing CPRE supports the Housing Corporation and GNDP derived figure of 70% Response affordable houses on qualifying sites to ensure compliance with PPS3 (section 2.6). In other words a higher figure than 40% may be appropriate at particular developments. Noted. However, 40% is regarded as an appropriate starting Outcome point and not to stifle development. Officers' No change to SPD.

11 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Recommendation

Consultation Point 2.7 Responder Hainford Parish Council Nature Of Response: Object We object to blanket 40% target for affordable Housing for smaller villages with an evidenced housing need of much less, Response i.e. Hainford village housing need survey has indicated a need for approx 1% of village. The 40% requirement of affordable housing reflects findings from the Housing Need and Stock Conditions survey by ORS and the Housing Market Assessment by GNHP, taking into account specific considerations for Broadland. Also the 40% Outcome figure reflects the need at district level. "Local need", as may be identified in villages, is only relevant to the consideration of "exception" sites where 100% affordable housing to meet local needs would be expected. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 2.7 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations We suggest you refer to ‘homes’ rather than ‘houses’ as some Response dwellings might be flats or bungalows. Outcome Noted. Officers' replace "houses" with "homes". Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.1 Responder Flagship Housing Group Nature Of Response: Support It is vital that the affordable housing provision will be "negotiated" via these documents as in some instances achieving 40% affordable housing provision on site will not be Response possible and it is important that the provision of affordable housing does not act as a deterrent to new developments, especially in assisting in meeting housing targets across all tenures. Outcome Noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

12 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Consultation Point 3.2 Responder Flagship Housing Group Nature Of Response: Support It is crucial for the threshold to be reduced in smaller parishes to ensure that affordable housing is provided in areas that in the past have solely relied on exceptions policy developments to meet this need.

Response It is also useful reducing the overall threshold to help reduce the number of developments being designed specifically to miss the affordable housing requirement. Linking larger sites that can have a number of applications submitted is also key in achieving the affordable housing levels required. The threshold is set out in the Local Plan policies and has gone through statutory processes. An SPD alone will not be Outcome able to amend the threshold as long as it is consistent with national and regional policies. However, this will be reviewed in the future when developing new policies in the LDF process. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.2 Responder UK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED Nature Of Response: Observations A policy which financially penalises a Landowner or Developer for making an application, especially on small sites, for one house over the threshold set, will in many cases mean an application will be made for one less than the threshold.. A more sensible solution and one which would yield far more affordable homes would be to simply state a percentage of units built over a threshold would be affordable. In other words 40% (or 50% or whatever percentage) of all units built over a set Consultation Point would be affordable. Developers would then apply for as many units as they could and more affordable units would be built. Response

Applying for 4 units in a small town would result in 4 private units. Applying for 5 units would result in 2 being affordable and only 3 being private. This results in a loss of land value of one unit over applying for just 4 units..

Where the threshold is 15 units the scenario is considerably greater. An application for 14 units would result in 14 private open market sales. An application for 15 units would result in just 11 open market sales, a loss in value of 6 open market plots. An application would have to be made for 25 units to get

13 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

15 private ones built. By looking at applications around the County, many applications have been made just beneath thresholds, and therefore the policy as it is worked, simply does not provide for the affordable housing it is aimed at achieving. Larger sites are not affected and whilst Planning Officers can insist on more units to achieve threshold levels, where a site will only take 4 to 5 units or 14 to 16 units, very few Developers would apply for 5 or 15.

In relation to small sites, it is the Landowner who will be affected financially not the Developer. Landowners will be disadvantaged financially by the current method of calculation and so the financial implications of this method must be taken into account. The threshold is set out in the Local Plan policies and has gone through statutory processes. The Local Plan policy deals with this issue by applying to the area of site, as well as the Outcome number of units. An SPD alone will not be able to amend the threshold as long as it is consistent with national and regional policies. However, this will be reviewed in the future when developing new policies in the LDF process. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.2 Responder Bidwells Nature Of Response: Observations It continues to be our view that all new dwelling sites should contribute to the delivery of affordable housing, rather than only those sites above a certain size. Cumulatively the small sites (currently excluded) deliver the most value but the cost of the impact of the affordable housing is borne by the larger sites and developers.

Response Other forms of proposed obligations are likely to not be subject to a threshold, e.g. the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Proposed Change: Ensure that the future review of the SPD has the ability to review the threshold for the provision of affordable housing. The threshold is set out in the Local Plan policies and has gone through statutory processes. An SPD alone will not be able to amend the threshold as long as it is consistent with national Outcome and regional policies. However, this will be reviewed in the future when developing new policies in the LDF process. The SPD will also be reviewed once LDF policies supersede the

14 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Local Plan. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.3 Responder Hainford Parish Council Nature Of Response: Object Response Object to starting point of term 40% The 40% requirement of affordable housing reflects findings from the Housing Need and Stock Conditions survey by ORS Outcome and the Housing Market Assessment by GNHP, taking into account specific considerations for Broadland. Please also note that the 40% figure reflects the need at district level. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.3 Responder Bidwells Nature Of Response: Observations There is still a concern that 40% is too high a figure and is disincentive for development. There are ever-increasing demands placed on developers in terms of contributions from their sites, which could make future development financially unviable. In particular the contributions proposed under the Standard Transport Charge will have a significant impact, and may well see developers look to reduce contributions in other areas with affordable housing arguably an obvious target.

The Officer's comments are noted that 40% affordable is required across the district and this is consistent with National Guidance. It is therefore difficult to argue against this figure as Response the starting point for discussion. However given the issues raised above, it should be clear that 40% is a maximum figure. Discussions should be based on a reduction in this figure where other contributions or costs make development of the site financially unviable. There is a concern that without setting a maximum figure of 40%, under the SPD there could be flexibility for a higher figure than 40% to be sought during future discussions, without the need for new policy and a formal consultation process.

Proposed Change: Clarity that 40% is the upper limit for negotiations The 40% requirement of affordable housing reflects findings Outcome from the Housing Need and Stock Conditions survey by ORS

15 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

and the Housing Market Assessment by GNHP, taking into account specific considerations for Broadland. However, the SPD is flexible in terms of deliverability and viability by adopting the "open book appraisal" approach to ensure that financial conditions can be considered and help schemes come forward. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.3 Responder Levvel (McCarthy and Stone) Nature Of Response: Object If the Council were to attempt to adopt a threshold below 15 units/0.5 hectares, it would need to be proven that it is both viable and necessary to meet the conditions of PPS3 and Response PPS12. The impact on overall levels of housing delivery has not been examined, failing to consider the requirements of PPS3. The impacts of a lower threshold on future housing supply must be considered before such a policy adjustment is applied. The threshold is set out in the Local Plan policies and has gone through statutory processes which demonstrated that lower thresholds were appropriate and necessary to provide for Outcome housing need, and reflected the nature of development in the rural area. However, this will be reviewed in the future when developing new policies in the LDF process. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 3.5 Responder Flagship Housing Group Nature Of Response: Support with conditions It is important to consider the possibility of providing affordable Response housing on conversion sites as well as new build sites although negotiation of the provision is vital in these circumstances. Noted. Conversion also constitutes development and therefore will be subject to the requirement of affordable housing Outcome provision although sometimes difficulties are proven. The Council will endeavour to negotiate affordable housing as a starting point in these circumstances. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 4 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations

16 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

In this depressed market economy, we would request the Council and RSLs be creative in developing solutions to minimise the need for re-possession of properties. Consideration should be given to maximising use of mortgage rescue schemes, new shared equity products and bringing Response forward funding streams to build affordable housing.

At the same time, we would ask the Council and RSLs to consider new ways to ensure tenants receive good debt advice; and what housing options are available for those subject to re- possession of their homes. Comments noted. However, these are outside the scope of the Outcome SPD. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 4.2 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations This paragraph gives a useful general definition, and the specific types are also useful to quote but there should not be ‘weight’ attached to them here (ie “...normally comprise Shared Ownership...” or “...sometimes Discounted Market Housing...”) but factual identification only. Furthermore, this should neither Response be seen as a conclusive list as there are other forms of such tenure not mentioned here (ie Interim Rent) and no-doubt may become new products available, particularly under the Governments current recent drive, which will fall in to this category so the wording should represent that such named types within are examples of such products only. Types of affordable housing stated in this section are for explanatory purposes. Further statement is given in section 5 Outcome that the breakdown is also indicative. Flexibility will be given to applications on a case by case basis. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 4.2 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Please clarify this paragraph. Are you intending to restrict tenure options? Delivering Affordable Housing (CLG, November 2006, Response paras. 38-41) refers to more tenures than you list. It refers to ‘discounted sale’, not ‘discounted market housing’. Outcome Noted.

17 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Add new para 4.6 "The affordable housing types listed above do Officers' not restrict tenure options. Other types of affordable homes will Recommendation also be considered to meet specific needs and will be negotiated on a case by case basis.

Consultation Point 4.3 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations I am not sure that the “...rent [element] being capped at 2.75%...” is useful or necessary as prescribed here; Response identification (ie for example) perhaps but I feel that there may be variables to this and/or future flexibility needed? Outcome Noted. Officers' amend last sentence in para 4.3: ... be capped (currently at Recommendation 2.75%) on unsold equity ...

Consultation Point 4.3 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations The Partnership would like to suggest a minimum initial stake of 25%. Although this does seem very low, Wherry Housing have been able to give examples, (including amongst their own staff) Response where this low threshold did enable first steps onto the housing ladder to be made. SPD does not explicitly mention that all properties on rural exception sites must remain as affordable housing in perpetuity. The SPD endeavours to bring flexibility. However, setting minimum initial stakes would reduce the level of flexibility and Outcome may set barriers for negotiation. However, clarification on exception sites being remained affordable in perpetuity is necessary. Officers' add after para 7.2: ...specific locality "subject to property Recommendation keeping "affordable" in perpetuity."

Consultation Point 4.4 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations It may be useful to follow the RICS’s updating on wording so that the “Open Market Value” phrase is correctly construed as “Market Value” in valuation terms but also in general terms: the Response word “Market” could only be construed as that, ie unrestricted by its own definition, and not need the word ‘Open’ with it: restricted market, affordable housing, etc are clearly what they are too, and distinct from “Market”.]. Interim Rent is an important

18 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

tenure (ie typically half-way between Social Rent levels and Market Value rent levels) that should be mentioned here; it (like many of the other forms of Intermediate Housing) is very important to (i) add-in rungs on the ladder that are otherwise too far apart (ii) meet further needs and thus (iii) help release some other forms of tenure (ie social rent) that may be occupied by people who are ‘clogging up’ the system by not having an affordable alternative although social rent might be/have become effectively ‘too cheap’ for their lesser needs. Finally, this tenure, and indeed others like it, often get challenged by people who say such comments as “it does not meet the real need” - well, all need is need, at whatever level, ie a “Home for All” is exactly that not just the extremes of social rent and market) and “it does not get [proportionally or otherwise] people off the waiting list/no or limited demand for it” but that is often based upon information that is real but only partially informed – ie ‘hidden need’ with such tenures still being relatively new (particularly in Norfolk) and thus little known for people to even know they are there, let alone to ask about them or get on lists (which are usually perceived “just for social rent”). Noted. However, the phrase "open market" is clear and therefore useful. The "market" can vary depending on the Outcome restriction that applies to it. For the "Intermediate Rent", please refer to para 4.2. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 4.4 Responder Bidwells Nature Of Response: Support The consideration of discounted market housing is also welcomed as a Consultation Point of Local Authorities are moving away from this as a source of intermediate housing. Similarly there appears to be a pragmatic approach to try and deal with the issue of delivering discounted market housing and Response also ensuring appropriate monitoring so that it is retained in perpetuity, within the response to the original consultation exercise, the Officer's comments on flexibility of provision and delivery are welcomed and we agree that discussions early on in the process can be particularly worthwhile. Outcome Support Noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5 Responder CPRE Norfolk

19 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Nature Of Response: Observations Developers need to have compelling reasons for wanting a lower figure than 40% affordable homes on sites. The economic downturn, including the housing and construction industries, may lead to pressure to accept a lower figure for affordability. Broadland should resist this pressure. Even with further house Response price falls, the salary multiples for first time and other buyers is still likely to form a barrier to entry to the housing market. Thus a combination of affordable housing types, as identified in section 5 of the draft SPD, is necessary to ensure an appropriate housing mix in Broadland. 30% affordable will be too low. Outcome Noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5 Responder Levvel (McCarthy and Stone) Nature Of Response: Object Where a particular form of affordable housing results in a residual value that is lower than the existing or alternative use or if a scheme cannot be delivered on viability grounds then Response alternative affordable housing proposals must be considered. In other words a ‘cascade’ mechanism should operate whereby alternative forms/tenures of affordable housing should be considered or reduced levels. Viability of affordable housing provision has been considered in Outcome the SPD specifically in the "economics of provision" section by having open book appraisal to ensure flexibility and viability. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5.1 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations Breakdown of Mix the 60/40 social rent/intermediate mix is a welcome acceptance of realism against many LPA’s historic “safety’ net in refusing to acknowledge anything much than social rent “plus a token few shared ownership” indeed. However, trying Response to prescribe the mix within the Intermediate is probably a little random currently, particularly as it only identifies SO and DMH – excluding other current (ie Interim Rent) and potential new products of equal importance. The subsequent definitions /proportions should be changed/non-prescriptive accordingly. Noted. However, Flexibility has been given and the breakdown of Outcome tenure types are worded as "possible breakdown" and this is

20 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

indicative. There is scope in the delivering stage to negotiate affordable housing types on a case by case basis. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5.1 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations No mention of an intermediate rent option is made in this section. Could this option be added to the end of the final Response sentence – ie “…..likely to be 75% shared ownership and 25% discounted market housing including intermediate rent”. Outcome This is covered in para 4.2. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5.1 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Response The phrase ‘likely to be’ might create uncertainty. Noted. However, it will create opportunities for flexibility. This Outcome does not stop the Council's effort on negotiating affordable housing levels. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5.2 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We’re happy with this section and the table, and appreciate the Response flexibility offered by the “basis for negotiation”. We feel that flexibility is required given the current economic climate. Noted. Flexibility has been given and stated in the later Outcome sections, e.g. open book appraisal. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 5.3 Responder Levvel (McCarthy and Stone) Nature Of Response: Object Response The 2006 Housing Needs Study, pre PPS3, considered

21 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

discounted open market housing to be a form of affordable housing. PPS3’s (adopted in November 2006) definition of affordable housing excluded discounted market housing. No viability exercise carried out on the old basis could be considered to be valid for the purposes of assessing the viability of a particular proportion of affordable housing.

Also, the Draft SPD proposed tenure mix seeks an element of the affordable housing to be discounted market housing even though it is not defined as an affordable housing product by PPS3. We find the proposed tenure mix and evidence base unsound. The Housing Needs Study was carried out before the publication of PPS3, but it is till valid. The requirements Outcome reference to PPS3 is incorrect, as this excluded "Low cost market housing" i.e. cheap, small units. It did not exclude "discounted market housing". Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 6 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations We suggest that your approach to options could be made clearer. What is your attitude to public subsidy? You refer to the Housing Corporation’s Economic Appraisal Toolkit, but not as a basis for calculating public subsidy. The reader might infer that you would Response prefer to reduce the amount of affordable housing, or permit tenures which are cheaper for the developer, rather than use public subsidy to deliver policy targets. We would not support such an approach by Broadland DC. Outcome Noted. Officers' Add a new sentence at the end of para 6.3: "This will also take Recommendation into account availability of public subsidy."

Consultation Point 6.2 Keymer Cavendish Chartered Surveyor & Development Responder Consultants Nature Of Response: Object In order to highlight the financial fragility of housing development in this slump and to protect my clients. Changes should be made to 6.2 First sentence 2nd line: add text "and Response market" - ...account specific site "and market" conditions Last sentence: add in text ... "Other examples" where provision of affordable housing may be threatened could be "when there is a

22 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

very weak housing market or" where there are areas of contaminated ... Flexibility has been given in the para 6.3 by providing the Outcome opportunities of open book appraisal which should have considered market conditions. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 6.2 Responder Bidwells Nature Of Response: Support We support the acknowledgement of the viability of the provision but consider that the circumstances effecting viability may also include other matters such as existing use values and infrastructure requirements.

In Norfolk there has been recent consultation on the Standard Transport Charge. This has the potential to significantly increase the amount of the amount of S106 obligations which are sought from sites and therefore effecting the viability. Response

Suggested additional wording: Reference of other infrastructure examples effecting viability should also be included. Furthermore there should be additional wording which makes reference to the availability of Housing Corporation funding. e.g. 'the Council will in accordance with PPS3 take a flexible approach in negotiating for affordable housing taking into account specific site conditions and the availability of Housing Corporation funding'... The SPD supplements Local Plan policies and specifically relate Outcome to affordable housing. Other requirement from will be considered at application stage in a case by case basis. Officers' Add a new sentence at the end of para 6.3: "This will also take Recommendation into account availability of public subsidy."

Consultation Point 6.3 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Support The Partnership approves of the transparency offered by open book economic appraisals. Whilst appreciating the need to Response protect commercial information, we would recommend more of this practice. Outcome Noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

23 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Consultation Point 6.3 Responder Norfolk County Council Nature Of Response: Support We support the approach taken in the SPD that financial Response evidence will be needed if a developer tries to justify levels of affordable housing below the threshold Outcome Support noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 6.4 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations Financial Contributions should be spent in the reasonable area of the donor site (ie within 5 miles), not just unconnected anywhere in the District – this would prove unpopular with the Response local landowner who effectively funded such and more so, local people who often like to see the good of what comes from accepting such in their village spent locally. Although the starting point should the locality of the Outcome development, the need being triggered is district wide, restrictions would not be justified. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 6.4 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Final Sentence: The reference to exception sites is restrictive, and conflicts with paragraph 7.3. It might be possible to use the Response funding on windfall sites within development boundaries which are not obliged to deliver affordable housing through S106. Outcome Noted. Clarification of flexibility would be useful. Officers' Replace "exception sites" with "other affordable housing Recommendation schemes".

Consultation Point 7.1 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Sentence 1: You use the word ‘circumstances’. We suggest Response replacing it with ‘housing need’, unless you anticipate other

24 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

reasons for exceptions sites.

Sentence 4: The phrase ‘with a need to live in the locality’ could cause complications. We believe that evidence of local need should suffice, without also having to prove a need to live in the locality. However, we acknowledge that this phrase could apply to people who have left the village and wish to return, or who have a job in the village. We suggest you clarify this. Comment for sentence 1 noted. However, in sentence 4, regarding to eligibility criteria, it will be related to the housing Outcome register and based on the Choice Based Letting System, under which criteria are set. Officers' change "circumstances" to "housing need". Recommendation

Consultation Point 7.3 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Response Final Sentence conflicts with paragraph 6.4. Outcome Noted. Officers' Refer to recommended changes of para 6.4. Recommendation

Consultation Point 7.4 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations Response The first sentence is ungrammatical. Outcome Noted. Officers' Change part of the first sentence to: ...exception sites "is" Recommendation demonstrated, one way...

Consultation Point 7.5 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations There is a lot of process detail here, which might cause problems if you wish to amend it. We suggest: ‘The Council can Response provide on request advice and guidance on how to produce housing needs survey forms and/or how to undertake local housing needs surveys’. Outcome Noted. Officers' Replace para 7.5 with: "The Council can provide on request Recommendation advice and guidance on how to produce housing needs survey

25 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

forms and/or how to undertake local housing needs surveys."

Consultation Point 8.2 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations S.106 issues is a bit over-reaching to specify the affordable price (which is often variable over time anyhow): this is not a Response matter for the Council. Sticking with the AH tenure mix alone is more than sufficient. Noted. However, it is useful to set out requirement of s106 Outcome agreement. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 8.2 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations First bullet point: This is ambiguous, especially read in the context of the lines above. We assume you wish to agree affordable housing issues when negotiating S106 Agreements Response for outline and full planning applications, and that an applicant for outline consent cannot expect to defer the matter until the detailed stage. Noted. Agree that for outline applications, it cannot expect to defer s106 until the detailed stage, negotiation of this will be Outcome started at outline stage and an starting point of negotiation should be set out. Clarification of this will be useful. Officers' Replace "or" with "and". Recommendation

Consultation Point 8.3 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object Terms such as “Grampian Conditions” need to be explained if non-specialists are expected to participate in any consultation.

In the case of Grampian Conditions, something in brackets along the lines of “restrictive, negative or onerous planning Response restrictions” would probably suffice. In addition, to help make the documents more accessible and the consultation more inclusive the authority could consider appending a glossary of terms.

Also, in the draft SPD it is far from clear that Grampian Conditions are different from obligations so it is difficult to

26 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

understand how they can be used “as a prelude to obligations being entered into”. Perhaps this could be clarified. Noted. However, this SPD is published for particular group who Outcome use the SPD in planning applications and it relies on people using the SPD to find out specific definition themselves. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 8.5 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations One recommendation arising from the previous consultation which the Partnership finds interesting is that of the Community Response Land Trust. The Partnership would encourage the Council to investigate this concept to see if it offers affordable housing opportunities. Outcome Noted. Community Land Trust has been referred to in para 8.5. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 8.5 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object Similarly, “Community Land Trusts” need to be explained (see preceding comment on paragraph 8.3 suggesting a glossary). The term is used in this paragraph without explanation, lead in Response or context, almost as if they had previously been discussed elsewhere in the document (“Alternatively, the Community Land Trust can …”). Noted. However, this SPD is published for particular group who Outcome use the SPD in planning applications and it relies on people using the SPD to find out specific definition themselves. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 8.6 Responder Michael Haslam Associates Ltd. Nature Of Response: Observations Paragraph 8.6 is predicated on an aim that is not set out in policy HOU4. The objective of the SPD is the delivery of Response affordable houses; how they are financed is surely a matter for the developer and the RSL to resolve between themselves and it is wholly inappropriate for the local planning authority to seek

27 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

to dictate how they are funded. If this paragraph is not deleted, it will reduce the number of affordable houses that might otherwise be provided. Outcome Noted. Some clarification is needed. Replace para 8.6 with the following: "In a scheme, the financial arrangement for delivering affordable housing will need to be determined by the RSL and the Officers' developer. Normally, grant from the Housing Corporation will not Recommendation contribute to a scheme, unless it is to provide some term of "added value", such as higher standards of energy efficiency or specific adaptations."

Consultation Point 8.7 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations We suggest housing resister, not housing list. We suggest the Response final sentence starts: Should no local purchaser… Outcome noted. Officers' Replace "housing list" with housing register; final sentence: Recommendation Should no local purchaser...

Consultation Point 9.1 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We feel bullet point two, and specifically “integrity or viability” needs to be clearer as it has the potential for challenge by Response developers. Can this be beefed up so it doesn’t turn into a potential loophole. The circumstances for a possible off-site contribution will be assessed on a case by case basis at application stage. Too Outcome specific and detailed guidance will reduce flexibility and perhaps make it even easier for developers to avoid. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 9.1 Responder Levvel (McCarthy and Stone) Nature Of Response: Object The Council should consider and illustrate a list of potential Response circumstances whereby certain factors would deem on-site provision inappropriate. The circumstances for a possible off-site contribution will be Outcome assessed on a case by case basis at application stage. Too

28 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

specific and detailed guidance will reduce flexibility and perhaps make it even easier for developers to avoid. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 9.2 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations The phrase ‘difficult to manage’ is very broad. Applicants might Response seek to take advantage of it to justify off-site provision on spurious social grounds. The circumstances listed in this paragraph are set as examples. This does not mean specifically that these situations will Outcome necessarily be justified. The discretion will be made on a case by case basis at application stage. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 9.3 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Object It is not clear to us why the value of the site will suffice to fund affordable dwellings elsewhere. We suggest the sum should be based on the cost of providing the specified dwelling(s).

Response An alternative approach would be to require the delivery of the affordable dwellings elsewhere, without involving a commuted sum. This will ensure delivery and leave any risk with the private sector. Outcome Noted. Some clarification is needed. Amend para 9.3 as: In these circumstances the Council will negotiate for a commuted sum. The contribution or commuted sum will normally be calculated based on a land valuation, including any enhanced value to the site accruing from there being only market housing on the site. The sum will be calculated using the Officers' following formula: Value of site (based on all market Recommendation housing)/Number of units X Number of affordable housing required (i.e. normally 40% of site value). In addition, where there would be a shortfall between the construction costs of affordable units and the achievable contribution from a RSL (based on rental value etc) this should also be paid by the developer. Valuations will normally need to be undertaken by the District Valuer at the developers' expense.

29 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Consultation Point 9.4 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations (Commuted Sums) to be updated post s.106 (“...updated to reflect actual land values at that time [commencement of construction]...”cannot remain if considered to be on the basis of re-valuation, as it does not provide certainty for the developer Response (which may not have been the original landowner/person who obtained the consent) and I believe thereby fails one of the necessary tests for obligations. Instead, index linking should be used (ie to a house price index perhaps). The SPD has taken flexibility into account, the up-dated cost will be calculated on a case by case basis under officer's discretion Outcome at the time of application. Specifying re-valuation or index- linking will add inflexibility. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 10 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We reiterate the comment made in the previous consultation that affordable housing tenants are likely to be the poorest within our communities and that the energy efficiency and Response insulation qualities of affordable homes therefore need to be as high as practically possible, and would ask this be consciously stated within policies. Noted. Design and Quality Standards (QDS) of the Housing Outcome Corporation include energy efficiency measures, and currently subscribe the Eco-home standard code level 3. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 10.1 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object For clarity and the avoidance of misunderstandings, change Response “Developers should take into account…” to “Developers must take into account…”. Outcome Note. Officers' Change first sentence to: "Developers are required to take into Recommendation account ..."

30 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Consultation Point 10.2 Responder Anglian Water Services Ltd Nature Of Response: Support The Code for Sustainable Homes should be implemented at a Response minimum of level 3 to ensure water efficiency measures are achieved. Outcome Support noted. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 10.2 Responder Norfolk Constabulary Nature Of Response: Observations This document fails to emphasise the need to comply with The Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards 1.4.2. relating to Safety and Security, which states " Security provision for internal and external environments should be appropriate for scheme location and building types and should reflect advice obtained from local Police architectural Liaison officers/Crime Prevention Design Advisers prior to detailed planning stage".

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) circular 1/2006 “Guidance on changes to the Development Control System” emphasises the PPS1 policy that a key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear Response of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Paragraph 87 of this document states unequivocally that Design and access Statements for outline and detailed planning applications should therefore demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe sustainable places set out in ‘Safer Places – the planning system and crime prevention (ODPM/Home Office 2003)’. If adequate crime prevention is not included in the explanation of the design principles applied to the amount, layout, scale, landscaping, appearance and context of the development, this may hinder the application as crime is a potential adverse economic, social and environmental impact of development and PPS1 requires such impacts to be avoided or mitigated. Outcome Noted Officers' amend the last sentence of para10.1: ... positive community Recommendation mixture "and safety/security" into account ...

Consultation Point 10.2

31 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We would ask the Council and RSLs to encourage best practice and the development of affordable housing to Lifetime Home Standards. Response Please can the words “Where possible” be removed from the opening sentence. Section should commence “The design of affordable housing….” The Council will endeavour to negotiate high standard of design including Lifetime Home Standards. However, the wording Outcome "where possible" will add flexibility into the SPD, and it does not affect officers' discretion on negotiation. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 10.2 Responder South Norfolk Council Nature Of Response: Observations ‘Where possible’ could create uncertainty. We suggest that these standards should apply unless the Council agrees Response explicitly to waive them. The applicant would have to provide a satisfactory reason to justify waiving. The Council will endeavour to negotiate high standard of design including Lifetime Home Standards. However, the wording Outcome "where possible" will add flexibility into the SPD, and it does not affect officers' discretion on negotiation. Officers' No change of the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 10.2 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object For clarity and the avoidance of misunderstandings, remove “Where possible” from 1st sentence so that it reads “The design of…” then insert “new” before continuing “…affordable housing units should comply…”. As “should” is not definite then that could also be replaced with “shall”, “will” or “must”.

Response Similarly, the 2nd sentence would be stronger if “where possible” is removed so that the sentence reads “Affordable housing should meet the ‘lifetime homes’ standard.” Again, "should" could be replaced with a more definite word.

Similarly, “should” could be strengthened in the 3rd sentence as

32 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

well. The Council will endeavour to negotiate high standard of design including Lifetime Home Standards. However, the wording Outcome "where possible" will add flexibility into the SPD, and it does not affect officers' discretion on negotiation. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 10.3 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We feel that there is little within the SPD that directly relates to homes for the elderly and vulnerable and would have appreciated a stronger and more explicit set of statements on Response the priority given to identifying appropriate sites for groups requiring supported housing; and the need for gypsy and traveller sites, domestic violence refuges, hostels, care homes, etc. The groups mentioned in the comment are included by stating "variety of client groups". Stating them specifically would cause Outcome inflexibility. The SPD is to address all affordable housing needs, but is not intended to identify sites for specific groups. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 11 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object Policy HOU18: Bearing in mind how many affordable schemes are accepted by parishes on the understanding that it is “local housing for local people”, NRCC considers that there may be some danger that paragraph (d) of this policy could encourage NIMBYism if not applied very sensitively. There can sometimes be intense rivalries between rural villages, for example, so that people from one village (A) may object to people from a rival village (B) getting housed ahead of people from that village (A). Response Similarly, people from village A may not want to be housed in rival village B. Thus, if need is to be met in a neighbouring settlement or parish, this should only be where there is sufficient cohesion between the respective communities and the policy needs to be worded accordingly [eg. “(d) The need which has been demonstrated arises in that particular locality, ie. in the parish concerned or in an adjacent one if there is a sufficient degree of community cohesion.”]. Outcome The Local Plan has gone through the statutory process leading

33 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

to its adoption. The SPD cannot amend the Local Plan policies. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.2 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations •Current trigger points seem to match the proposed joint core strategy. However, would Broadland review the Norwich District Council solution of graduated thresholds for affordable housing, if it is considered that this might deliver a greater number of affordable houses.

•Alternatively, a statement to say that the Council will be alert to the potential for sub-dividing of large sites to avoid affordable housing obligations, and that sub-division of a site will be monitored to ensure that the overall site, over time, WILL be expected to deliver the full amount of affordable housing. Response •We would ask Broadland Council to ensure that the SPD is as strong as possible in requiring developers to “pepperpot” affordable housing tenures, so that they are sprinkled within a large new development, and not kept in groups in single streets.

•We would ask the Council to promote best practice development designs achieved elsewhere in the UK, such as those achieving Beacon status.

•Continue to promote high quality energy efficient homes, such as the recent Greengauge development at Lingwood. The SPD must supplement the Local Plan policy which does not include graduated thresholds; sub-dividing of large sites is Outcome subject to higher level policies and is not appropriate for the SPD to address, which may cause inflexibility should the higher level policies change. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.2 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations As PPS3 allows for, the larger settlement threshold should be below the suggested 15 – ie also at 0.2ha/5 dwellings for the Response smaller settlements. Firstly, this is appropriate as within larger settlements there is more likely to be such provision (ie more windfalls/previously developed land) and also the schemes are

34 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

likely to be denser – both valuable sources. Not only is this equitable, but balances site values (which will otherwise have a big disparity). Most importantly this should, and can only, be related to the overall proportion being sought (at 40%) which is to take account of the otherwise ‘escaping’ provision – by lowering the threshold to a more palatable, say 30-35% overall AH: particularly in the current and coming economy where deliverability is too low and every bit of gain is necessary to bring schemes forward, and especially so noting NCC’s vastly disproportionate and ever increasing over-burden of S.106 claims in addition to new construction standards/eco- homes/CfSH3+ that is a substantial cost to be absorbed in itself. Concluding, 40% AH of an overall little supply is no-where near as effective as 30% AH of a lot supply in real terms; with the LDF enabling further AH review in only 2/3 years time, this is a stance worth taking currently to then be reviewed. The SPD supplements the Local Plan policies which have Outcome undergone statutory process leading to adoption. The threshold is set in the policies. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.2 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object NRCC would welcome a statement to the effect that the council will be alert to the potential for sub-dividing large sites to avoid affordable housing obligations, and that such sub-division will be monitored to ensure that the overall site will, over time, be expected to deliver the full quota of affordable units that would otherwise be required.

NRCC would also ask the council to ensure the SPD is as strong as possible in requiring developers to “pepperpot” affordable housing tenures so that they are sprinkled within any Response new large developments rather than being kept in groups or single streets.

We would ask the council to promote best practice development designs achieved elsewhere in the UK, such as those awarded/achieving Beacon status.

We would also ask the council to continue to promote high quality energy efficient homes, such as the recent Greenguage development at Lingwood. Sub-dividing of large sites is subject to higher level policies and Outcome is not appropriate for the SPD to address, which may cause

35 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

inflexibility should the higher level policies change; tenure mix has been considered and stated in paragraph 10.1. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.3 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations We suggest improvement to Choice Based Lettings is required to improve the evidence base. The Partnership feels it is important to understand the local housing needs. We would ask the Choice Based Lettings Partnership to invest in new ways to look at housing need on an individual parish basis.

Within the October ‘07 consultation, there was frustration amongst local people over the perceived inability for local people to access local affordable housing due to the Choice Based Lettings system. The BCP suggests there is room for an awareness raising, and a “myth busting” campaign at parish level, for lay personnel who have dealings with housing. This might include parish council members, and tenants, and members of the public who may wish to access, or fear, affordable housing developments.

The Partnership just wish to comment that there is no robust system in place at present for recording local interest and local connections. Existing problems with the current systems include the following: Response

i)local connections are monitored through bidding. However, as individuals only have three bids, this discourages bidding for low stock sites, and an unintended outcome is likely to be that local interest is discouraged on small sites.

ii)Its important that Housing Registers are updated annually. We believe this is the case in Broadland, but stress the importance of this.

iii)the Housing Register doesn’t include people who – desperate for accommodation – accept a property away from their preferred location. As soon as they accept a property, they disappear from the register and their interest in a future move back is lost.

iv)The Housing Register does not include all local interest. If people are interested in living in a place where they have family or a local connection, but they fall outside the financial criteria, they will not consider registering, and likewise those with a very low “need” often – assuming it is unrealistic to be awarded

36 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

accommodation – also fail to register their interest.

We do think there is a need to raise awareness of the advantages to the community, and to the planning teams, or registering interest on the Housing Register.

We would also recommend that housing needs surveys are broadened to include adjacent villages. Noted. However, the issues mentioned are beyond the scope of Outcome the SPD. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.3 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Object NRCC is of the view that the general housing needs register (regardless of Choice Based or otherwise) does not reliably capture specific local needs information because many people will tick every area in a district and other people from or connected to smaller parishes won’t put those parishes as an option because they believe there is no hope of getting housed there due to existing shortages of affordable housing in those localities. Local (ie. parish level) housing needs surveys tend to capture that need much better and more reliably. Response

However, there may be instances where a more cluster based approach is appropriate, for example where there is a settlement capable of sustainable expansion with smaller settlements nearby where there is likely to be a need but where HNSs would probably not be undertaken in isolation and new schemes would probably not be viable, but only so long as the level of local community cohesion is adequate (ie. all use same local school, GP, PO, shops, etc). Noted. It is useful to include the option to include neighbouring Outcome parishes when conducting a Housing Need Survey. amend second sentence in para 7.4: Officers' ... to reach every home in the village "(possibly to incorporate Recommendation neighbouring parishes where possible)" to maximise response rate.

Consultation Point 12.4 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations Response Free land is often not enough in itself; for example it costs more

37 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

to build Social Rent housing than a RSL can pay (without grant); and the bigger the houses get (ie 3 or 4 bed) the void (greatly) grows. Schemes should be analysed “with AH” and “without AH” and the difference taken in to consideration for payments in-lieu. Outcome Noted and some clarification is needed. Amend para 9.3 as: In these circumstances the Council will negotiate for a commuted sum. The contribution or commuted sum will normally be calculated based on a land valuation, including any enhanced value to the site accruing from there being only market housing on the site. The sum will be calculated using the Officers' following formula: Value of site (based on all market Recommendation housing)/Number of units X Number of affordable housing required (i.e. normally 40% of site value). In addition, where there would be a shortfall between the construction costs of affordable units and the achievable contribution from a RSL (based on rental value etc) this should also be paid by the developer. Valuations will normally need to be undertaken by the District Valuer at the developers' expense.

Consultation Point 12.5 Responder Broadland Community Partnership Nature Of Response: Observations The Partnership’s view is that the Council should attempt to maximise opportunities to achieve affordable housing. We would be concerned that the option to incorporate an element of market housing on exception sites might lead to developers/land owners “holding out” for market housing, and thereby unwittingly water down opportunities for affordable housing, and would want to see strong safeguards to avoid this outcome.

We note the suggestion in Additional Question 12.5, page 19 of your consultation document. We understand they desire to increase the potential viability of exception sites, but feel that the suggestion should be treated with the utmost caution. Response

Exception sites come forward from local landowners, usually because local people will benefit. Ratios of rental: shared ownership might vary, but the properties have always been 100 % affordable.

If you allow the potential for market value housing on the site, you will raise “hope” in achieving a greater economic benefit. We do feel that the unintended result might be that exception sites are either not delivered because landowners “hold out” for a market value element of delivery - or that the total numbers of affordable housing units reduce as demand for a market value

38 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

element increases. Once any new system is in place, there will be ongoing pressure to “stretch” existing rules – so any change must be carefully crafted.

We also note the potential divisiveness of a combination of market and affordable housing on an exception site.

i)there will be lack of commitment from the community if a site is regarded as supporting market housing:

ii)this may result in a barrier to future exception site development from the local community, where a previous site delivered a proportion of market housing.

iii)The incongruity of 2 x 4 bed executive houses with double garages occupying the prime area of a site, with semi-detached affordable housing jammed into corners is not uncommon, and hardly conducive to developing community spirit.

iv)There tends to be less community buy in from business people commuting to jobs elsewhere, then there is from local people, who tend to work locally. Executive houses have also been purchased as buy to let, which also reduces commitment to the local community. Exception sites are intended to help deliver sustainable communities, and the suggested amendment to current practice might put this in jeopardy.

The Partnership approves the principle of doing everything possible to maximise delivery of affordable homes via exception sites, but feel the Council should handle cautiously any consideration of market housing onto exception sites. Please note that this section is to test the options for future policies and will not be included in the SPD. The issue will be Outcome considered in the production of future policies for affordable housing. This SPD only supplements the current policies during the Local Plan period. Officers' No change to the SPD Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.5 Responder Salhouse Parish Council Nature Of Response: Object This proposal is unacceptable as it completely undermines the principle of an exception site; it breaches the policy and Response principle of the green belt by allowing unrestrained commercial development; it is not justifiable except from the developers' point of view; it will distort the market values of those properties

39 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

within the site; it will encourage the speculative purchase of agricultural land, which may then be removed from agricultural use; it will create suspicion over landowners' motives when they offer land for exception sites. The policy should remain unchanged in that exception site status should be granted for affordable housing to meet local needs only. Please note that this section is to test the options for future policies and will not be included in the SPD. The issue will be Outcome considered in the production of future policies for affordable housing. This SPD only supplements the current policies during the Local Plan period. Officers' No change to the SPD Recommendation

Consultation Point 12.5 Responder Norfolk Homes Nature Of Response: Observations Because of the above, exception sites often fail before getting off the ground because of no element of market housing being allowed [to cross-fund the AH]; this is a serious shortcoming and also does not assist cohesive communities; developments of AH alone should not be permitted, socially, and only mixed ones Response meeting all rungs on the ladder for all people. The only (potential) perceived problem is landowners creating substantial values for their own benefit rather than cross-funding alone, but this should realistically be unlikely with either RSLs involved buying the land or open book appraisals being submitted to support such (subject to independent scrutiny). Please note that this section is to test the options for future policies and will not be included in the SPD. The issue will be Outcome considered in the production of future policies for affordable housing. This SPD only supplements the current policies during the Local Plan period. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SA and SEA Statement Responder Brundall Parish Council Nature Of Response: Support Brundall Parish Council welcomes and supports the contents of Response this document. Outcome Support noted. Officers' No change to the document. Recommendation

40 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Consultation Point 9 Responder Hainford Parish Council Nature Of Response: Object 40% target for affordable housing is unreasonable in villages with low identified housing need and unsustainable in the long term as too far from infrastructure / employment / facilities / transport Response leading to problems associated with rural isolation especially for families on low income. So we believe it impacts negatively on social and economic issues. 40% is the requirement that would impose on qualifying housing development. However, comments on infrastructure, employment, Outcome facilities etc are outside the scope of the SPD. It is important to provide rural affordable housing for people with particular need to live in a locality where they cannot afford housing at market price. Officers' No change to the SPD. Recommendation

Consultation Point SA and SEA Statement Responder East of England Development Agency Nature Of Response: Observations In this context the impacts of proposed development on the following issues are likely to be particularly significant and we request that, where appropriate, they have been considered: – provision for businesses (particularly based in science and technology, research and innovation) including the supply of high quality business premises in sustainable locations; – improving the region’s skills base and human capital (and especially to address skills gaps and shortages); – tackling deprivation and social exclusion, equality and diversity (giving communities improved opportunities to participate fully in the regional economy); – improving provision of port, airport and transport infrastructure so as to enable corridors of economic activity, and deliver Response growth and sustainable communities; – promoting sustainable development, urban renaissance and rural vitality, including the supply of high quality and affordable housing/ residential environments, balanced with provision for employment; – managing growth and development sensitively and effectively; – complementing and enhancing the position of as a world city; and – protecting and enhancing the region’s landscapes and environmental assets. In particular, your sustainability appraisal report should take account of the following Sub-regional Policies contained in the RES for the Norwich area (see p. 98 of RES):

41 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

– reinforcing the role of Norwich city as a regional centre by supporting its service-based sectors, redeveloping brownfield opportunities and supporting links to its rural hinterland – strengthening productive interaction between research institutes and business through the availability of business land and premises, for example at Norwich Research Park – realising the potential of cluster development along the A11 corridor, particularly the biotechnology sector, with links with the Cambridge sub-region – supporting the urban renaissance of the city and developing the economic potential of the rural hinterland through workspace creation and re-use – tackling the issues caused by the concentration of deprivation in Norwich and harnessing the economic growth potential of its deprived urban neighbourhoods – facilitating the sustainable expansion of and working in conjunction with the airport operator on route development options – establishing appropriate sub-regional partnership mechanisms, based upon existing networks and examining the advantages of partnership links to Great Yarmouth and . By addressing these key elements of RES the sustainability appraisal will provide the context needed to appraise whether the plan will help maintain the prosperity of the East of England, enhancing its regional competitiveness and giving support to business growth. Some of the criteria listed have been considered in the SA report. However, the SPD’s function is limited and only Outcome supplements the Local Plan policies, therefore, most of the assessment criteria are beyond the scope of the SPD. Officers' No change to the document. Recommendation

Consultation Point 7 Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Objection NRCC takes the view that it is going too far to assume social benefits outweigh environmental impact in every individual development proposed and that each proposal ought to be assessed on its own merits. NRCC understands that PPG3 has Response already been cancelled and replaced by PPS3, which doesn’t appear to carry forward that sentiment, so the reference to PPG3 ought to be removed. NRCC considers that the suggested approach of treating each proposal on its own merits is more in line with PPS3. Outcome Noted.

42 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

Officers' Remove last sentence in para 7. Recommendation

Consultation Point 13. Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Observation “The appraisal demonstrates the balance attributable to the criteria above [presumably the criteria listed at paragraph 12] and the allocations made in the plan.” This sentence raises a number of issues.

Firstly, it is rather opaque. The balance of what is attributable to the criteria above? Secondly, we assume that “appraisal” means sustainability appraisal but it is unclear that there has been any sustainability appraisal carried out. Certainly this document does not appear to contain the actual appraisal so NRCC made further enquiries. From our enquiries NRCC understands that, because the Local Plan Replacement was Response apparently subject to a sustainability appraisal and the SPD is deemed to fit within the Local Plan, there is no need for a separate sustainability appraisal. However, our researches have been unable to locate the Sustainability Appraisal Report, referred to at paragraph 16, that was supposedly carried out for the Local Plan Replacement so it remains unclear that a sustainability appraisal was ever conducted. Without that we are unable to accept that the SA demonstrates anything at all. Perhaps more fundamentally, without having seen the SA Report NRCC cannot accept the Sustainability Appraisal and Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment for Affordable Housing (SPD). Noted. A copy of the SA document will be forwarded to NRCC Outcome for information. Officers' No change to the document. Recommendation

Consultation Point 16. Responder Norfolk Rural Community Council Nature Of Response: Objecting to the procedure followed. As indicated in the preceding section, NRCC has not been able to locate the Sustainability Appraisal Report referred to in this paragraph. Thus, it is difficult to accept the conclusion “that the impact of the proposed SPD will not go any further that the Response policies set out in the replacement plan…”. It is suggested that in consultations of this type, where an earlier document or policy is referred to, those documents or policies are either provided with the consultation papers or are at least made easily

43 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

accessible. Noted. A copy of the SA document will be forwarded to NRCC Outcome for information. Officers' No change to the document. Recommendation

Reflecting the representations made above, the following changes are proposed to the SPD document and the Sustainability Appraisal:

1. In para 1.1, add "the" before Housing Need Survey.

2. In para 1.2, add A semi-colon after BDLP.

3. In para 2.5, add on to the first sentence: ... 5 years "and the breakdown between social rented and intermediate affordable housing."

4. In para 2.5, change "table 2.1" to "table 1".

5. In para 2.7, replace "houses" with "homes".

6. Amend last sentence in para 4.3: ... be capped (currently at 2.75%) on unsold equity ...

7. Add new para 4.6 "The affordable housing types listed above do not restrict tenure options. Other types of affordable homes will also be considered to meet specific needs and will be negotiated on a case by case basis.

8. In para 5.2, change “table 5.1” to “table 2”

9. Add a new sentence at the end of para 6.3: "This will also take into account availability of public subsidy."

10. In para 6.4, replace "exception sites" with "other affordable housing schemes".

11. In para 7.1, change "circumstances" to "housing need"

12. Add after para 7.2: ...specific locality "subject to property keeping "affordable" in perpetuity."

13. In para 7.4, change part of the first sentence to: ...exception sites "is" demonstrated, one way...

14. Amend second sentence in para 7.4: ... to reach every home in the village "(possibly to incorporate neighbouring parishes where possible)" to maximise response rate.

44 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing Consultation Statement

15. Replace para 7.5 with: "The Council can provide on request advice and guidance on how to produce housing needs survey forms and/or how to undertake local housing needs surveys."

16. In para 8.2, replace "or" with "and".

17. Replace para 8.6 with the following: "In a scheme, the financial arrangement for delivering affordable housing will need to be determined by the RSL and the developer. Normally, grant from the Housing Corporation will not contribute to a scheme, unless it is to provide some term of "added value", such as higher standards of energy efficiency or specific adaptations."

18. In para 8.7, replace "housing list" with housing register; final sentence: Should no local purchaser...

19. Amend para 9.3 as: In these circumstances the Council will negotiate for a commuted sum. The contribution or commuted sum will normally be calculated based on a land valuation, including any enhanced value to the site accruing from there being only market housing on the site. The sum will be calculated using the following formula: Value of site (based on all market housing)/Number of units X Number of affordable housing required (i.e. normally 40% of site value). In addition, where there would be a shortfall between the construction costs of affordable units and the achievable contribution from a RSL (based on rental value etc) this should also be paid by the developer. Valuations will normally need to be undertaken by the District Valuer at the developers' expense.

20. In para 10.1, change first sentence to: "Developers are required to take into account ..."

21. Amend the last sentence of para10.1: ... positive community mixture "and safety/security" into account ...

22. Add after para 10.3 "including Gypsy & Travellers".

23. Remove last sentence in para 7 in the SA and SEA Statement.

45 Policy Unit, Broadland District Council Thorpe Lodge, 1Yarmouth Road, Norwich NR7 0DU Tel:(01603) 430567 Fax: (01603) 430591 Email: [email protected] www.broadland.gov.uk