Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council Executive Member-Environment 9 March 2004 Addendum to Supplementary Planning Guidance `Implementing Policy H4' Report of the Director of Environment |
Item 3 |
Contact: Sue Clark, ext 5890 email: [email protected]
1. Summary
1.1 The Structure Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance, called `Implementing Policy H4', outlines the processes to be followed in deciding if, and then where, to release the Structure Plan's reserve housing provision. A draft addendum to the document has been prepared to amplify the process and the factors for deciding where to trigger a release, in the event that a release is necessary. This report summarises the main comments arising from the consultation on the draft addendum and proposes some minor changes.
1.2 The following decisions are sought:
(i) That the Addendum to the Supplementary Planning Guidance, `Implementing Policy H4' be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance with the changes set out in paragraph 10.2, but subject to a further review of the timetable in response to the Minister for Planning's request that a report be published on the need to release the reserve early in the calendar year.
(ii) That, once approved by the three strategic planning authorities, it be submitted for clear English accreditation.
2. Reason
2.1 This decision supports Aim 2, Stewardship of the environment, by facilitating new development opportunities and enabling people to have the facilities (new homes) they need.
2.2 To clarify the mechanism which will trigger the release of reserve sites.
3. Other Options Considered and Rejected
3.1 Not to amend the addendum following consultation on the draft.
3.2 Not to adopt the addendum to Supplementary Planning Guidance `Implementing Policy H4'.
4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.
5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.
6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.
Approved by: Date:
Councillor K B Estlin
7. Introduction
7.1 The Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) `Implementing Policy H4' was adopted by the strategic planning authorities in February/March 2001. It explains how in the light of monitoring information, the strategic and local planning authorities will decide if, when and where any of the Structure Plan's reserve housing provision will be released for development.
7.2 The draft addendum adds further clarification of the process of deciding where the release will be made, in the event that a release is needed. It has been prepared now, so that it is in place prior to the need to make decisions on where to release the reserve housing provision.
7.3 The draft addendum was approved for public consultation by the Strategic Joint Advisory Panel (JAP) on 19 November 2003. The document was circulated to a wide variety of organisations for comments by 16 January 2004.
7.4 Respondents were invited to answer four questions about the draft Addendum:
(i) Is the process set out in sections 3 and 4 clear and reasonable?
(ii) Are the factors set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 4.2 the right ones to inform decisions on where to make any necessary release of reserve housing provision?
(iii) Should a weighting (high, medium, low for example) be given to those factors?
(iv) Should and could the decision-making sequence proposed in paragraph 5.2 be speeded up?
7.5 Section 8 below provides an overview of the response of consultees to these four questions.
8. Consultation Response
8.1 There were 40 respondents, including Hampshire County Council's Environment Policy Review Committee, district councils (all except New Forest and Rushmoor), parish councils (3), housebuilders (3), the House Builders' Federation, planning consultants (8), almost all on behalf of housebuilders, local interest/pressure groups (4), a statutory body, a water company and several individuals (7). The draft addendum was also sent to the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) but no comments were received from them.
(i) Is the process set out in sections 3 and 4 (of the draft Addendum) clear and reasonable?
8.2 The clarification of the process provided by the draft Addendum was welcomed by many respondents, especially Hampshire District Councils. A minority of the respondents said it was neither clear nor reasonable and one respondent called for the use of plain English.
(ii) Are the factors set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 4.2 (of the draft Addendum) the right ones to inform decisions on where to make any necessary release of reserve housing provision?
8.3 The factors proposed by the draft Addendum to help guide decisions on where to release sites were supported by several District Councils. A minority of respondents thought some of the factors were poor indicators of the housing market and/or questioned how they would be measured. Several development interests argued that reserve sites should be released in the same district as that in which the shortfall/need occurred, and that the analysis should be on a district basis rather than drilling down through sub-areas to districts.
8.4 Half the number of respondents commented on the draft Addendum's suggestion that it would not be sensible to trigger the release of the reserve Major Development Area at Winchester City North unless the whole of it needed to be released. Winchester City Council was amongst those who welcomed this statement; some others argued against it.
(iii) Should a weighting (high, medium, low for example) be given to those factors?
8.5 Relatively few comments were received on whether weightings should be given to the factors. Some called for the housing shortfall/need to be an overriding consideration, with the remaining factors only coming into place once/if that test was passed.
(iv) Should and could the decision-making sequence proposed in paragraph 5.2 be speeded up?
8.6 Views were divided over whether the proposed process was about right or too long/slow. There were calls for a timetable to be added to the process.
Other Comments
8.7 A few respondents made comments on matters other than those addressed by the four questions. These mainly related to the lead-in time between reserve site release and dwelling completion, how the district councils would be involved in decision-making, and the non-identification of the reserve provision in some district council areas.
8.8 A fuller summary of the responses to each of the four questions and other comments is set out in Appendix 1. The comments made by each individual respondent are set out in Appendix 2.
9. Environment Policy Review Committee Views
9.1 The Environment Policy Review Committee considered the draft addendum on 3 December 2003. The Minutes state that "Concern was expressed that there appeared to be no reference to house price inflation and how this factors into the release of reserve house provision. It was also noted that in respect of 3.1 (ii) and (iii), a view was expressed that affordability was a more important factor than buoyancy."
10. Officers' Response
10.1 The endorsement given by respondents, including district councils, to the principle and broad thrust of the draft Addendum is to be welcomed. Inevitably there were conflicting views on particular parts of the document, in some instances reflecting the perspective of those concerned with speed and certainty, compared to others who recognised that this had to be balanced with consultation and due process. In addition, clarity was sought over the Districts' role in the decision-making process.
10.2 In light of the comments, the strategic planning authorities can justifiably adopt the Addendum with relatively few amendments. The proposed amendments are as follows:
(i) to give some weighting to the factors, such that performance on dwelling completions and land supply are the most important, the size of the release and ability to deliver completed dwellings in the year(s) required are important factors, and that the remaining factors are of lesser importance;
(ii) that vacancy rates should be removed from the list of factors;
(iii) to clarify the role of the strategic and local planning authorities in making the decision about where to release the reserve (see 10.4); and
(iv) to add a timetable for the sequence of publication of the report (which analyses the factors and concludes on where the release should be made), public consultation, consideration by JAP and decision-making by the three strategic planning authorities' Executive Members.
10.3 In relation to 10.2 (iv) above, the following timetable is proposed (in any year when monitoring indicates there is a need to release some reserve provision):
(i) presentation to JAP in March of a report which analyses the factors and thus where a release should be made;
(ii) consultation on that report during April/May;
(iii) consideration of the consultation response by JAP in early summer; and
(iv) as soon as possible after the JAP meeting the portfolio holders/Executive Member in each of the strategic planning authorities will decide where to make the release in the light of JAP's conclusions.
10.4 In relation to 10.2 (iii) above, at the second JAP meeting each local authority representative will be invited to set out their authority's formal response to the supplementary report's recommendation and any alternative distribution that their authority may wish to propose. The conclusion on which the sub-division(s) to release the reserve will be made by the strategic planning authorities. The conclusion on the Districts/MDAs in which the reserve should be released will be made by the strategic planning authorities jointly with the representatives of the local planning authorities in the sub-division in which the release is to be made.
10.5 The resulting revised document incorporating these changes and omitting the supporting explanatory material which was included in the consultation draft Addendum is in Appendix 3.
10.6 It is also suggested that the document be submitted for plain English accreditation once approved by the three Executive Members. This accreditation process should only result in changes of tense, syntax, punctuation, etc. If any substantive amendments result, they will be discussed informally with the three Executive Members.
10.7 An officers' response to the comments is set out in appendices 1 and 2.
Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers | |
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. | |
NB the list excludes: | |
1. |
Published works. |
2. |
Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act. |
TITLE |
LOCATION |
Draft Addendum to Supplementary Planning Guidance `Implementing Policy H4'. |
Environment Department Library, The Castle, Winchester during normal office hours Monday-Friday and at: www.hants.gov.uk/structureplan/implementation |
8589/SC
APPENDIX 1
SUMMARY OF OVERALL COMMENTS AND OFFICERS' RESPONSE
Summary of comments received |
Officers' response |
Q1 Is the process set out in sections 3 and 4 clear and reasonable? | |
21 respondents made comments relating to this question. Clarification of the process was welcomed by many respondents, particularly district councils. A few respondents including a district council, a parish council and some individuals, considered that the process was neither clear nor reasonable. One respondent suggested that the Plain English system should have been used. About a third of respondents considered that the process was unreasonable; some gave reasons including that it did not enable speedy decisions to be made, and that the factors outlined for the release of sites could be contradictory and so result in reserve sites being released in a different place to where the need/shortfall arose. |
It is acknowledged that this is a technical document which the layperson may find difficult to understand, however it is considered that the overall approach is correct.. It is proposed that after the addendum is approved by the Executive Member/ portfolio holders, it is submitted for Plain English accreditation. In order to make the process more reasonable it is proposed to indicate the relative importance of the factors (see below). It would be difficult to speed up this part of the process unless the process was drastically simplified (eg by only taking into account the size of the release and the housing completions and supply). |
Q2 Are the factors set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 4.2 the right ones to inform decisions on where to make any necessary release of reserve housing provision? | |
Almost all the respondents made comments on this matter. The factors identified in 3.1 and in the draft Addendum were are generally considered appropriate by several of the district councils. The majority of the comments were only made by one respondent (see appendix). Each of the following comments was made by a small number of respondents about the factors in paragraphs 3.1: · How would `under performance' in 3.1(i) , be defined and measured? · House price inflation and vacancy rates as in criterion 3.1(ii) are considered to be poor measures of housing demand. This factor needs careful interpretation or removal. · New Earnings Survey data relates to place of work not residence, the house price/income ratio (in factor 3(iii)) could be distorted where there was a high number of commuters/ due to small sample size. · Analysis/forecasting of labour supply and demand (3.1(iv)) is important but various difficulties/ limitations are mentioned. · Factors 3.1(ii)-(iv) should not be used. The County Council's Environment Policy Review Committee felt that housing affordability was more important than buoyancy of the housing market. About half the respondents made comments about Winchester City North MDA being mentioned in factor 4.2(ii) (about the size of the release). Some respondents including Winchester City Council welcomed the clarification, a few suggested that the issue of the full release of the MDA should not be included in factor 4.2(ii) and a few suggested that a phased release should be permitted if the whole site is not required by 2011. A small number of respondents including two district councils thought that factor 3.1(i), about performance in relation to the baseline housing requirement, should be a prerequisite of any release in a particular subdivision. Only if this criterion is met should the other criteria come into play. |
A number of respondents pointed out shortcomings with the data to be used to indicate some of the factors. It is agreed that the information available does have limitations and should be used with caution; it is important to recognise that these are just indicators and that the strategic planning authorities will need to reach a considered judgement on the weight to be given to each factor. One change to the indicators is proposed; it is now considered that vacancy rates are not likely to indicate relative housing demand in Hampshire and should be removed from factor 3.1(ii). It should be noted that it is not enough for each sub area/district to meet its baseline figure. The Regional Planning Guidance figure is higher than the Structure Plan baseline figure. If criterion 3.1(i) was a prerequisite, it would in theory be possible for it to be necessary to release reserve sites, because there was likely to be a shortfall compared with regional planning guidance, but not possible to make a release in any sub region because they all met the baseline housing requirement. Each district needs to meet its baseline requirement and some need to exceed it. Over performance against the baseline is welcomed where it is the result of increased densities on allocated sites and additional completions on brownfield sites. It is agreed that the primary consideration should be to release the reserve where the shortfall occurs; but that this should be examined on a sub-regional basis first, before deciding in which district(s)/ reserve MDAs to make the release. One reason for this is that the reserve housing provision is identified in the Structure Plan on a sub area basis. One of the broad principles of the Structure Plan is that it should seek to provide locally for the needs arising in the three broad geographic areas. In particular MDAs are intended to meet the needs of a wider area than just the district in which they are situated. |
A small number of planning consultants making representations on behalf of housebuilders considered that reserve sites should be released where the shortfall occurs and that this should be examined on a district basis and not on the basis of sub divisions. |
|
Q3 Should a weighting (high, medium, low for example) be given to those factors? | |
Relatively few comments were received about this matter. Most of those who commented considered that some factors should have a higher weighting than others. Some suggested that the principle factor should be the shortfall in housing in particular districts while others suggested that if 3.1(i) was a prerequisite no weighting would be needed. The County Council's Environment Policy Review Committee felt that affordability should be given greater weight than the buoyancy of the housing market. |
It is accepted that some weight should be given to each factor and paragraphs 3.2 and 4.3 of the addendum should be amended to indicate that performance on completions and supply should be the most important factor; the size of the release and the ability to deliver completions in the year(s) in which the dwellings are required are also important factors; the remaining factors should also be considered but they are of lesser importance. This would reflect the views of the majority of respondents, albeit different from the view of the County Council's Environment Policy Review Committee. |
Q4 Should and could the decision-making sequence proposed in paragraph 5.2 be speeded up? | |
Respondents were divided between those who were content with the speed of the process set out in the draft Addendum and those who considered that the process was too long and too slow. The housebuilders and planning consultants argued that the process should be speeded up, many were concerned about the time lag between deciding that releases are required and the release being made by the district council. Others considered that it was necessary to allow time for consultation. Several respondents suggested that timescales should be set out for 5.2 (iv) and (v) (publication of the second report for comment and consideration by Executive Members/ portfolio holders). |
A balance needs to be struck between rapid decision-making and allowing a reasonable amount of time for public consultation. It is accepted that a timescale should be added. It is recommended that the second report is published immediately after it has been considered by the JAP meeting in March and that the ensuring timetable is as set out in paragraph 10.3 of the main report. The only way the process could be further speeded up would be by removing the consultation. |
Other Comments | |
Several respondents from the development industry suggested that the addendum should make it clear that housing land supply should be considered within the context of Structure Plan policy H1, and not just the baseline requirement. Many respondents form the development industry were concerned about the length of time it would take from deciding that a release would be required to having houses completed on site. There was concern from several respondents that it was not clear how the strategic and local planning authorities would decide in which district(s) the release should be made. Also whether it would be all strategic and local planning authorities, or just those within the relevant subdivision who would make the decision and in the event of conflict between the authorities, how this will be resolved. Several respondents commented on the section about the non- identification of the reserve provision. They were divided between those that supported this section and those who thought it should be redrafted as it appeared to support planning by appeal. A small number of respondents considered that the was unacceptable in totality and should not be progressed any further. |
It is only intended that the addendum clarifies how the decisions (about where to make the release) will be made. It does deal with whether or not a release should be made or the overall size of the release required. The lead in times for site development is recognised and it will be necessary to trigger the release several or more years ahead of the identified shortfall. Amendments have been made to the addendum to clarify how the decisions will be made and to allow each local authority to present their views to JAP. See paragraphs 10.2-10.4 of main report. The Strategic Planning Authorities have urged districts to identify all the reserve provision in local plans. It would not be equitable if districts which failed to identified the reserve benefited by this action. If the remaining districts identify the reserve provision there will be no need for developers to promote sites through the development control process. Not progressing the finalisation of the Addendum would leave uncertainty about the process to be followed in the event that it proves necessary to trigger the release of some of the reserve provision. |