Archived decisions
|
|
|
STRATEGIC PLANNING JOINT ADVISORY PANEL | ||
Date: 16 March 2006 Item 5
Report by: The Hampshire Director of Environment, Portsmouth Strategic Director for Environment and Transport and Southampton Executive Director of Development and Sustainability
RELEASE OF STRUCTURE PLAN RESERVE PROVISION
Written by: Sue Clark, tel: 01962 845890 email: [email protected]
Purpose and Summary:
To inform the Panel of the conclusions arising from the Hampshire County Structure Plan Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2006 and the outcome of consultation on the document. Also to inform the Panel about progress on the Hampshire Housing Supply Action Plan.
The Paper concludes that the forecast dwelling supply 2005-2011 exceeds the requirement in Regional Planning Guidance (RPG). The total supply exceeds the RPG requirement by over 15,000 dwellings. This overall figure was subject to adjustments in recognition that not all potential will ultimately be developed within the timescales expected. The results show an adjusted figure that is still 10,000 dwellings above the RPG requirement. On the basis of this year's monitoring there is no compelling justification at this time to release any of the Structure Plan reserve housing provision at this time. However, this does not mean that the reserve will not be needed at all in the period to 2011. There is some uncertainty in relation to the likely contribution from Major Development Areas (MDAs), but this is only 5% of supply, and urban capacity.
A total of 20 organisations and individuals commented on the Monitoring Paper. No comments were received from the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) during the consultation period. (GOSE's views, if available, will be reported orally at the meeting). The development industry challenged the relevance of RPG targets and suggested that other factors such as the demand for housing should be given more consideration. Other interested parties such as local planning authorities and local interest groups were more supportive of the Paper and its findings and most of them supported the general conclusions of the report.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the three Strategic Planning Authorities be recommended to:
(i) note the points made by consultees;
(ii) agree that no reserve sites should be released at the present time;
(iii) urge all local planning authorities to continue to take proactive steps to manage housing land supply to meet or exceed their Structure Plan baseline housing requirement and make provision for the reserve provision, where required; and
(iv) write to all consultees to thank them for their comments, enclosing a copy of this report and appendices and informing them of the decisions made by this Panel.
1. Introduction/Background
1.1 Policy H4 in the adopted Structure Plan provides a reserve of land for housebuilding that will be released if, and when, the strategic and local planning authorities decide it is needed. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that sufficient housing land is provided throughout the Structure Plan area to meet identified needs, while avoiding the unnecessary use of greenfield land.
1.2 Structure Plan Policy H4 states that "The strategic planning authorities will only support the release of individual greenfield allocations to meet this reserve provision where monitoring of the Structure Plan and Local Plans indicates there is a compelling justification to do so". The separate Supplementary Planning Guidance called `Implementing Policy H4', adopted by the Strategic Planning Authorities in 2004, sets out the process for annual decision-making on whether there is a need to release any of the Structure Plan's reserve provision. That process includes publication of an annual monitoring report and consultation thereon.
1.3 The Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2006 was published on 3 January 2006 for a five week consultation period. To assist consultees, they were notified in early December 2005 of the publication date.
2. Aims and Visions of Corporate and Community Strategies
2.1 This report supports the aims and visions of the three strategic planning authorities' corporate and community strategies by helping ensure that sufficient new homes are made available whilst securing the regeneration of existing urban areas and avoiding unnecessary development on greenfield land.
3. The 2006 Monitoring Paper
3.1 The 2006 Monitoring Report forecasts that housebuilding between 2001-2006 will exceed the RPG figure. Dwellings supply for the period 2006-2011 is also forecast to exceed the RPG figure.
3.2 The number of dwellings with planning consent at the start of April 2005 was 19% higher than the position a year earlier, despite a very high level of completions during the preceding 12 months. Some 69% of all permissions (15,688) are in full, which means there are no planning obstacles to these homes being built.
3.3 The total supply potentially available from 2005 to 2011 is 15,000 dwellings above the RPG requirement.
3.4 However, not all of this supply will actually be built in this period for a variety of reasons (eg planning, ownership and market). The total supply has accordingly been adjusted to take account of this. Adjustments applied were small for dwellings with planning permission, higher for local plan allocations and urban capacity sites and highest for Major Development Areas (MDAs). The forecast of completions based on these adjustments indicates that housebuilding in 2005/06 should exceed the RPG figure and remain above the RPG for the rest of the plan period.
3.5 The adjusted supply for the period 2005 to 2011 is forecast to exceed the RPG requirement by some 10,000 dwellings - some 28% in excess of what Hampshire is required to build.
4. Consultation
4.1 The 2006 Monitoring Paper was sent to 85 consultees representing a wide variety of interests (eg developers, local authorities, parish councils and conservation groups). In addition, a further three copies of the report were sent out on request.
4.2 Comments were received from 20 respondents:
(i) 5 developer interests;
(ii) 3 environmental/conservation organisations;
(iii) 4 Hampshire District Councils;
(iv) 2 parish councils; and
(v) 6 others, including local interest groups.
4.3 The number of responses this year was lower than last year (20 this year, 24 last year), with a quarter of the responses from developer interests. In addition, since the consultation, several other Hampshire district councils have responded with support for the report's conclusion. A summary of the main points arising from consultation responses with a response by the Strategic Planning Authorities is attached as Appendix 1. The following section summarises the key themes arising from the responses.
5. Main Points Arising from the Comments
Overall Levels of Supply and Policy Requirements
5.1 Respondents from the development industry challenged the relevance of RPG targets. They considered that the South East Plan, new household projections and the Barker Review would raise the targets substantially. Several comments were received that suggested that factors beyond Policy H4 and RPG requirements should be considered when deciding to release reserve sites. These included the Hampshire Housing Supply Action Plan, market factors, such as demand, affordability, waiting lists, and the need for affordable housing.
5.2 A number of local residents' groups or environmental groups made the opposite point: that supply should not exceed RPG requirements. One respondent stated that it is as important not to exceed RPG requirements as it is to meet them. By and large environmental groups, District Councils, Parish Councils and other respondents agreed with the conclusions of the report. Several emphasise the dependency of the delivery of new housing on transport and other infrastructure. Three interest groups expressed concerns to the effect that the report did not go far enough in its conclusions, and that either the reserve sites or the policies concerning reserve sites should be formally deleted.
5.3 Several developer-respondents remarked upon the estimates of delivery from reserve sites, were they to be released in 2006 or 2007. For a variety of reasons it was thought that these estimates were optimistic, and that reserve sites would be unable to deliver a useful amount of housing unless released immediately. One environmental group made a similar comment, citing this as a reason against the release of reserve sites.
Officer's Response
5.4 RPG9 is provided by the Secretary of State and covers the period up to 2016. It will continue to provide the regional framework which must be taken into account by local planning authorities until it is superseded by the South East Plan. It states that in determining the overall level of housing provision in the South East, and its distribution, account has been taken of the present and likely future pattern of housing need. The current requirement in RPG9 is for 6,030 dwellings per annum in Hampshire. The draft South East Plan requires 6,100 dwellings per annum in Hampshire. Even if the slightly higher figure in the South East Plan were to be required, there would be sufficient supply for the period to 2011 without releasing the reserve.
5.5 The process set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) `Implementing Policy H4' should be followed. It is agreed that there is a need for more affordable housing in Hampshire, however the SPG states that any shortfall in meeting affordable housing needs cannot normally be a reason in itself for releasing any of the reserve housing provision. Any deviation from the procedures and factors to be taken into account, which are set out in the statutory Structure Plan and SPG, could make the resulting decisions open to legal challenge.
5.6 The estimates for the delivery from reserve sites are based on a number of assumptions eg up to two years for applications to be submitted and approved; build rates similar to those in the Hampshire County Council Housing Land Supply document and that developers will complete dwellings as quickly as possible. The assumptions are realistic but make no allowances for delays. Any delay in the process would have a significant impact on the number of dwellings which could be completed by 2011. In any event, this matter in itself does not have any bearing on whether there is a need to release the reserve provision.
Adjustments and Sensitivity Testing
5.7 Two respondents asked for clarifications of the adjustments made to the figures or the sensitivity testing, but generally the processes used were not criticised. However, one developer questioned the use of the sensitivity testing section, stating that the methodology was too simplistic.
5.8 The way in which adjustments had been made for particular sites or particular kinds of sites were questioned in a handful of cases. One respondent from the development industry suggested that greater reductions should be made for supply from sites with outline permission only and for local plan allocations; another suggested that MDAs would not deliver housing at the suggested rate.
5.9 Two developer-respondents questioned the way in which the sensitivity testing results were used. They claimed that the estimated excess of tested supply was worryingly low, given that there are possible reasons for further reductions of the estimates, and given that supply may not be delivered as rapidly as anticipated.
Officer's Response
5.10 The general acceptance of the adjustment process is welcomed. The discounts which were applied were subject to consultation in 2004 and are considered reasonable. The sensitivity testing is not intended to be an estimate of housing supply, it is included to illustrate the fact that even if a more pessimistic view is taken of future land supply, there is still sufficient supply available to meet the RPG requirement.
5.11 The estimates for supply from the MDAs are lower than those of the relevant developers. It is considered that 2,200 dwellings could be built in the MDAs by 2011 if comprehensive planning applications are received shortly and approved quickly. Further delays will mean that fewer dwellings are likely to be completed, however Hampshire is still likely to meet the RPG requirement even if no dwellings are completed in the MDAs.
Other Matters Raised
5.12 A number of other points were raised; these comments and the officers' responses are in Appendix 1 to this report.
6. Hampshire Housing Supply Action Plan
6.1 In March 2004 the Minister for Housing and Planning was concerned about the level of housing completions and housing supply in Hampshire and it was agreed that the Strategic Planning Authorities would prepare a Housing Supply Action Plan. A progress report was sent to the Minister a year ago and he asked that the Strategic Planning Authorities report back to him again in March 2006. In summer 2005 a meeting was held with GOSE officers to discuss the revision and updating of the Action Plan, but this was not completed or agreed as officers were busy undertaking work associated with the SE Plan.
6.2 In summary, the progress report (which is attached as Appendix 2) shows that good progress has again been made in many areas, but in others progress has been slower than expected and some targets missed. Of the 18 Outcome Actions (OA) listed in the Plan:
(i) 7 have been completed in full;
(ii) 6 are more than 50% complete;
(iii) 2 are less than 50% complete; and
(iv) 3 have not been triggered in the last year.
6.3 Overall Hampshire has seen a significant net increase (19%) in full and outline planning consents in the period April 2004-April 2005. This has enabled Hampshire to be close to or exceed the trend based targets in OA1 and OA2. The further increase in consents shows progress towards the targets set for March 2006 and that Hampshire is well placed to continue building on this level of completions over the next few years.
6.4 There has been some slippage on the production of local plans and local development documents (OA4). The majority of local plans are still on schedule or have only slipped slightly. Three local plans have been adopted since last year and the remaining ones are still all on schedule for adoption by July 2006. There has been some slippage in Local Development Documents but these will not in any event provide site allocations within the next few years.
6.5 It is disappointing that there has not been more progress on the large developments at West of Waterlooville, Aldershot and Andover (OA5 and OA6). At Andover the lack of progress is because the local plan inspector supported the principle of a single location for the MDA rather than the two sites proposed in the deposit local plan. At west of Waterlooville the ODPM's ATLAS team has become involved to aid progress with the development. At Aldershot it is expected that planning applications will be submitted shortly.
6.6 Finally, the majority of planning authorities have improved their performance to meet Government targets for processing major applications (OA10).
7. Impact Assessments
7.1 Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in this response but no adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.
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 |
Consultee responses on Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2006 |
File D3/1.39ii Spatial Strategy Group, Environment Department, Hampshire County Council |
882/SC
APPENDIX 1
POLICY H4 MONITORING PAPER 2006
Summary of main points arising from consultation
List of respondents
1. English Nature
2. Bishop's Waltham Society
3. Hart District Council
4. Hythe and Dibden Parish Council
5. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
6. Gosport Borough Council
7. RPS planning, on behalf of CALA Homes
8. RPS Planning, on behalf of Abbotswood Consortium
9. East Hampshire District Council
10. The Fareham Society
11. The Luken Beck Partnership Limited
12. Eastleigh Borough Council
13. Old Basing Parish Council
14. Hampshire Greenfield Alliance
15. RPS Planning on behalf of Wates Homes
16. Environment Agency
17. Winchester City Residents' Association
18. Mr and Mrs. Moore
19. Barton Willmore on behalf of Luckmore Limited and Barratt Homes (Southern Counties) Limited
20. Save Barton Farm Group
Policy Requirements
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
8 |
RPG 9 is not the relevant target for housing delivery: housing demand is far in excess of this. |
RPG9 is provided by the Secretary of State. It states that in determining the overall level of housing provision in the South East, and its distribution, account has been taken of the present and likely future pattern of housing need. Planning permissions are being granted at a faster rate than houses are being built, which suggests that demand is being satisfied. |
8 |
The South East Plan will substantially increase requirements for housebuilding. |
The current requirement in RPG9 is for 6,030 dwellings per annum in Hampshire. The draft South East Plan requires 6,100 dwellings per annum in Hampshire. |
Housing Supply 2005-2011
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
8 |
Urban capacity study supply estimates are substantially overestimated. |
Disagree, most districts estimates have been tested by local plan inspectors and the total supply has been discounted by 15% to allow for any over optimism about how quickly these sites will be completed. |
8 |
Delivery is concentrated in a limited part of the sub-region. |
Delivery will be concentrated in and around existing urban areas in accordance with Government guidance and the Hampshire County Structure Plan. |
8 |
The capacity of sites should be a known quantity. The decrease in supply from this source is a concern, given the need to raise supply, and given that supply was only increasing for a brief period. |
The capacity of sites with planning permission and allocated in local plans is known. However, some of this capacity is not expected to result in completions until after 2011, this quantity of dwellings is estimated and not included in the figures. A slight decrease in the supply of dwellings on identified sites compared to last year has come about because of the very high level of completions in 2004/05. If the level of completions had been similar to the RPG9 requirement, the identified supply would have increased significantly. |
8 |
Some of the figures given in Chapter 2 appear to be contradictory. |
The figures are not contradictory. The first set of figures refers to dwellings with planning permission or allocated in local plans, the second set refers just to those with planning permission. |
8,15 |
There is no guarantee that the rate of planning permissions will continue at its higher level, and thus no guarantee that the overall target will be met. Seems that the high rate may simply have been due to a backlog. |
There can be no guarantees as the system relies on house builders continuing to submit planning applications and then building the houses. Local planning authorities are determining the applications as speedily as possible and the evidence suggests that planning permissions are likely to be granted on sufficient sites to allow completions to continue at or above the RPG rate until 2011. |
14 |
The housing supply assumptions have been pessimistic in at least five different respects, and yet the predicted supply is still 8,000 above that required to meet RPG. |
The predicted supply is actually 10,000 dwellings above the RPG requirement, despite making adjustments which err on the side of caution. |
19 |
Projections of future supply for Hart are inaccurate. The Thames Basin Heaths SPA will impact severely on small windfall sites in Hart District. |
The housing supply in Hart was agreed with Hart District Council officers in late summer 2005. It includes an allowance for QEII Barracks as this is an allocated site in the adopted local plan. It does not include any allowance for Hitches Lane, Fleet or Dilly Lane, Hartley Wintney. The impact of the SPA is not yet known. |
12 |
There are some differences between the figures in the report and that calculated by Eastleigh Borough Council. |
The work on the amount of housing that could be delivered if the reserve was released was undertaken in September 2005. The differences between the figures are partly because Eastleigh Borough Council decided only to allocate some of the reserve sites recommended by the local plan inspector. In addition, a site in Eastleigh was counted twice, as an identified site and as an urban capacity site (this was not discovered until after the report was published).The remaining difference cannot be explained as the figures for urban capacity and windfall were provided by Eastleigh Borough Council. |
Adjustments to Supply
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
5 |
Please clarify footnote on page 15 - does "Basingstoke MDA" refer to the North Basingstoke MDA (Popley). |
This refers to the sites in North Basingstoke which have been allocated in the local plan. |
8 |
The discount applied to the supply available up to 2011 does not err on the side of caution as stated in the report. |
Disagree. The fact that recent estimates for completions have been exceeded suggests that the discounted estimates do err on the side of caution. |
8 |
All MDAs should be discounted at 60%. |
Disagree. The discounts have been subject to consultation and most respondents felt them to be reasonable. |
8 |
The discount for sites with planning permission should be higher to account for the likely delays on sites with outline permission only. |
Disagree. The discount for sites with outline planning permission is already higher than that for sites with full planning permission. Sites where permission is still subject to Section 106 agreement are not included in this category. The likely phasing of the site is taken into account and only that likely to be built before 2011 is included. |
8 |
The report is too optimistic about supply from Local Plan allocations - unlikely to be forthcoming before 2009. The `other commitments' source of supply is too unreliable. |
The phasing of these sites is estimated with the help of local planning officers and taking into account developers expectations. In some cases planning applications have been submitted or approved subject to a section 106 agreement. |
8 |
Many urban capacity studies have been subjected to methodological criticisms by Local Plan Inspectors, including Eastleigh, Winchester, Havant, East Hampshire, Portsmouth and Test Valley. |
Although there has been some criticism of the methodology, in most cases local plan inspectors have not suggested that urban capacity has been over estimated. The local plan inspector's findings have been taken into account in estimating the supply from this source. |
8 |
The supply figures in the report should be adjusted to take account of the above concerns, thus indicating a surplus that is only 5% in excess of RPG. |
Disagree with the high discounts suggested, but note that even with these there is still a surplus of 5% in excess of RPG. |
15 |
The MDAs will not deliver housing as quickly as assumed in the report. |
See paragraph 5.10 of main report. |
Sensitivity Testing
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
7 |
The Hampshire allocation is over-reliant on MDAs. |
Disagree, MDAs are now only expected to make a small contribution to housing supply to 2011. |
8,15 |
The sensitivity testing which shows supply to be 6% above RPG is too simplistic and should look at individual assumptions. |
See paragraph 5.9 of main report. |
8 |
The additional discounting for housing not being delivered is not adequate, and should include Large Urban Capacity Sites not delivering housing within the plan period. |
This type of site is included in the sensitivity testing. |
Comparison of Adjusted Supply with RPG Requirements
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
8, 11, 14 |
The estimates of completions on reserve sites if released in 2006 or 2007 are optimistic, and fewer dwellings are likely to be completed. |
See paragraph 5.6 of main report. |
8 |
Over provision is not a problem, and is to be encouraged in the light of housing demand and affordability. |
The Strategic Planning Authorities aim is to meet the RPG requirement, making the best use of opportunities within the built up area. |
8 |
The reported reduced potential for delivery by 2011 should reserve sites be released in 2007 is a matter of concern. The impact of releasing sites in 2008 should also be shown. |
The purpose of showing the figures for release in 2007 is to show the number of dwellings which could be delivered (using optimum delivery rates) if release was delayed for another year. |
14, 17, 20 |
The RPG targets should be met, but not exceeded. |
The Strategic Planning Authorities aim is to meet the RPG requirement. |
15 |
The reserves allocated in Local Plans, especially that of Eastleigh, are much smaller than those required in the structure plan, and hence very little will be deliverable before 2011. Furthermore, the lack of masterplans, development briefs and so on for reserve sites mean that the assumptions about delivery of housing on reserve sites are unrealistic. |
See paragraph 5.6 of main report. |
15 |
SE Plan figures will not make an allowance for under-supply of RPG9 figures for 2001-06. |
There will be no undersupply in Hampshire, in fact the opposite will be the case. |
Conclusions
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13 |
Support overall conclusions i.e. that release of reserve sites will not be necessary. |
Support welcomed. |
1, 9, 13, 17 |
Support the conclusion that all new housebuilding in Hampshire depends on the provision of new transport and other infrastructure. |
Support welcomed. |
16 |
No comments or particular concerns. |
|
6 |
The significant continuing contribution of Gosport Borough in meeting the Regional housing requirement should be noted |
Noted. |
7, 8, 15 |
Failing to meet the objectives of the Hampshire Housing Supply Action Plan would automatically trigger release of reserve housing sites. One or more of the objectives has not been met. |
Disagree, the process set out in supplementary planning guidance should be followed. At present neither GOSE nor the Minister have commented on the Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2006 or suggested that the housing supply in Hampshire is insufficient to meet RPG requirements. |
7 |
Only MDAs can deliver sufficient infrastructure for new housing. |
MDAs are part of the solution, redevelopment in older urban areas can help support existing infrastructure. |
7, 8, 11 |
Housing demand and / or the need for affordable housing in Hampshire will not be met. |
Agree that it will be difficult to meet the need for affordable housing unless more finance is provided. |
8 |
Reserve sites should be released, with the most readily deliverable reserve sites in locations of low housing provision as a priority ie Abbotswood in Romsey. |
There is no need to release reserve sites to meet the RPG requirement. |
8 |
The report is inadequate. Has not demonstrated convincingly that land is available, suitable and viable, and will come forward by 2011. It focuses too narrowly on RPG9 and the Hampshire structure plan, and ignores factors which are likely to require an increase in the supply of land for housing. |
The report assess the factors required by supplementary planning guidance. |
11 |
The rise in completions is to be expected, given the tendency for developers in Southampton to build increasingly smaller flats. Only the release of reserve greenfield sites will meet the demand for family housing. |
It is important that the mix of new dwellings takes into account local needs, however there is a significant amount of family housing within the existing stock. It is to be expected that a large proportion off new dwellings would be flats in a city like Southampton. |
14 |
The only factors that would lead to a fall in completions would be national-level macro-economic ones; were reserve sites to be released then they would be equally less likely to be completed, and would be subject to a lengthy process to obtain planning consent. |
Other factors could also affect completions eg no progress on MDAs. |
14 |
The County Council should openly declare that the reserve sites will not be needed and should consider removing the policies requiring local plans to identify reserve sites. |
This is not considered appropriate nor is it statutorily possible. |
17 |
Reserve sites should be deleted from Local Plans. |
This is not considered appropriate nor is it statutorily possible. |
19 |
The site at Dilly Lane should be released. |
There is no need to release reserve sites to meet the RPG requirement. |
20 |
The large surplus of supply makes the requirement to specify reserve sites "absurd". The need for reserve MDA sites should be reviewed - it is adequate for reserve provision to remain in the Structure Plan only. |
Structure Plan policy H4 requires reserve sites to be identified in local plans. The Structure Plan is not being reviewed but will be superseded by the South East Plan. |
20 |
The Eastleigh, Basingstoke and Test Valley Local Plans need to be taken into account, with regards to MDAs. Local Plan Inspectors have stated that dwellings not needed before 2011 should be excluded from Local Plans. |
MDAs need to be planned as a whole even if some of the development is likely to take place after 2011. Local planning Authorities will continue to allocate MDAs, in appropriate circumstances, in accordance with the Structure Plan. |
20 |
The Winchester MDA sites should be reviewed in light of the fact that the sites cannot be completed before 2011. The Winchester Local Plan Inspector's Report recommended a reserve of 400 dwellings - the MDA will therefore result in the district exceeding their allocation. |
Both type of reserve site are appropriate and will only be released if they are needed. It will be necessary for some districts to exceed their baseline requirement for Hampshire as a whole to meet the RPG requirement. At present it appears that there is sufficient urban capacity to make the release of reserve greenfield sites unnecessary. |
Appendices
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
5 |
Concern that site north of Park Prewett has been counted as a site not required before 2011, when the Local Authority considers that it may be required. |
Confirm that this site was not included in the housing supply 2005-2011 because at the time of compiling the report it was not considered necessary to meet the districts baseline requirement to 2011. |
8 |
Delivery is being concentrated on urban areas, and is therefore not meeting needs across Hampshire. |
The recycling of urban land and a focus of development in urban areas is a key element of the Structure Plan's strategy. |
8 |
Appendix 3 includes some sites that have not yet been identified - this approach is not useful. |
It is inevitable that some of the windfall sites will not be known, particularly those on small sites. It is accepted practice that small sites will continue to become available at their historical rate. |
8 |
Appendix 6 should give more detail about the estimated rates of delivery from reserve housing sites, given that some Districts have not identified specific MDA sites. |
Further detail was not considered appropriate for the monitoring paper. |
14 |
Appendix 1 should break the windfall completions down by local authority. |
This is not considered necessary for the purposes of this report. |
14, 20 |
The four sites allocated in local plans but not necessary to meet baseline targets mentioned in Appendix 2 should be considered before the release of any reserve sites. |
If it was considered necessary to release reserve sites, with the exception of reserve MDAs, it would be up to individual districts to decide which sites to release in their district. |
19 |
The Appendix 2 tables appear to include the QEII barracks / Wakefords Copse site at Fleet / Church Crookham, even though planning permission has been refused. Would be unable to deliver any housing until 2009/10 at the earliest. |
A contribution from this site has been included as it is an identified site in the adopted local plan. |
19 |
Appendix 4 does not take account of Hart District Councils' seeking to downgrade Dilly Lane to a reserve housing site. |
The report assumes that Dilly Lane is a reserve site. |
19 |
Appendix 6 does not mention that Hart DC have failed to allocate sufficient reserve sites. The report does not take account of the recent decision on Hitches Lane, and the implication that Hart no longer has any reserve sites. Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix 6 are therefore factually incorrect. |
The Hitches Lane decision was only made on 26 January 2006. The decision to allow this appeal will further increase the housing supply. The tables mentioned were correct at the time they were compiled (September 2005) but subsequent events mean that the number of dwellings which could be delivered before 2011, if the reserve is released, is now slightly lower than shown in Appendix 6 of the monitoring paper. |
20 |
Heading for Appendix 5 needs clarification. |
Appendix 5 relates to the Housing Supply Action Plan which stated that district estimates of total supply for the first three years should not be higher than the number of dwellings approved by the local planning authority (including those subject to Section 106 agreements). |
Other Matters Raised
Respondent reference |
Nature of comment |
Response by Strategic Planning Authorities |
5 |
Please clarify the timing of the report with regards to Local Plan Inspections. Have comments on areas such as MDAs been taken into account? |
The unadjusted housing supply was agreed with district officers in September and October 2005. |
7, 8, 19 |
Monitoring report should deal with current issues from PPG3 such as housing markets, waiting lists, demand and affordability/ impacts of the Barker Review/labour market supplies. |
The Structure Plan Policy H4 Monitoring paper is not a general monitoring paper but has a specific purpose - to assess whether there is a need to release any of the Structure Plan's reserve housing provision. |
8 |
RPG underestimated the household projections for the South East, and hence the housing allocations have been set too low. Recommend that Hampshire authorities consider the household projection figures due to be released by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), which are expected to show a higher rate. |
The Strategic Planning Authorities must plan to provide for the amount of housing required by RPG. |
8 |
The plan, monitor, manage procedure is poorly defined, and the monitoring process needs to be more rigorous. |
It is considered that the technical work is of a high standard, both thorough and objective, and that the relevant matters are monitored. |
8 |
The monitoring report does not consider the effects of the concentration of housing provision. |
The recycling of urban land is a key element in the strategy set out in the Structure Plan. It is not considered necessary to consider the effects of concentrating the housing provision in the larger urban areas in the Structure Plan Policy H4 Monitoring paper as it is not a general monitoring paper but has a specific purpose - to assess whether there is a need to release any of the Structure Plan's reserve housing provision. |
8 |
The report does not give any detail about the infrastructure upon which development will be conditional. This needs to be addressed in detail. |
The Structure Plan Policy H4 Monitoring paper has a specific purpose - to assess whether there is a need to release any of the Structure Plan's reserve housing provision. It would not be appropriate to include details about infrastructure. |
11 |
The report should consider the nature, scale, type and size of dwellings, into account, rather than simply looking at numbers of completions. |
The Structure Plan Policy H4 Monitoring paper is not a general monitoring paper but has a specific purpose - to compare the supply of land for future house building with the requirements of RPG and assess whether there is a need to release any of the Structure Plan's reserve housing provision. |
18 |
The water shortage in the South East must be borne in mind in all planning proposals. Water flows into the Itchen need to be protected. |
Agree that water issues are important. |
14, 17, 18, 20 |
The format and/or content of the report is useful and informative. |
Comment welcomed. |
APPENDIX 2
Hampshire Housing Supply Action Plan Progress Report March 2006
Outcome Actions
Progress:
_ - Action completed
__ - Action is half or more complete / majority is complete
T - No action to measure or action no longer appropriate
_ - Action is less than half complete / majority is not complete
_ - No progress made on this action
Action |
By |
Target |
Progress | ||
OA1 |
Increase county-wide supply of outline and full planning permissions. |
LPAs |
County-wide supply of outline and full planning permissions raised to 3.5 years (adjusted RPG requirement) by 30 September 2004 as an interim step to achieving a 5 year supply by March 2006. |
At 1 April 05 supply = 3.9 years of adjusted RPG. This is not far off a trend based target of 4.0 years supply. |
_ |
OA2 |
Increase county-wide supply full planning permissions (including reserve matter approvals). |
LPAs |
County-wide supply of full planning permissions raised to 2.5 years (adjusted RPG requirement) by 30 September 2004 as an interim step to achieving a 3 year supply by March 2006. |
At 1 April 05 supply = 2.7 years of adjusted RPG. This exceeds a trend based target of 2.6 years supply. |
_ |
OA3 |
Ensure that district estimates of total supply April 2004 - March 2007 are not higher than the number of dwellings approved by LPA. |
Strategic and LPAs |
Estimated supply must equal or be less than number of dwellings approved (including those subject to Section 106 Agreements and Government referrals). At least two thirds of approved dwellings should be full details. |
Estimated supply 2005 to 2008 in monitoring paper 2006 (22,586) is less than the number of dwellings approved (25,999 in total). 69% of approved dwellings have full permission. |
_ |
OA4 |
Keep to local plan/development document timetable (see also OA15). |
LPAs/GOSE/PINS |
No slippage in local plan/ development document timetable (see Annexes 1 and 2). |
During the last year, two local plans have been adopted and all local plans are on schedule to be adopted by summer 2006. There has been no slippage on 6 plans, slight slippage on 3 plans and significant slippage on 1 plan. Local development document timetables have slipped, particularly the production of core strategies |
X |
OA5 |
Resolution to grant outline consent for the whole of the allocated MDAs at West of Waterlooville and Andover subject to appropriate agreements, receipt of a favourable report from Local Plan Inquiry Inspector and in accordance with an agreed masterplani |
Winchester City Council, Havant Borough Council and Test Valley Borough Council |
Action implemented by 31 December 2004. |
Outline applications have been received for Andover MDA. Local plan Inspectors supported MDA in a single location (East of Icknield Way/ Picket Piece) rather than two locations in deposit local plan. The applications are expected to be determined in summer 2006. Outline application received for one part of West of Waterlooville site only. Local plan inspectors supported the MDA. ODPM ATLAS team helping to progress scheme. Further applications expected. |
_ |
OA6 |
Outline planning permission granted for the whole of the major development at North Basingstoke (Popley and Popley Fields) and Aldershot Urban Extension. |
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Rushmoor Borough Council |
Action implemented by 31 December 2004. |
Outline applications approved at North Basingstoke in 2004. Defence Estates intend to submit a planning application for Aldershot Urban Extension in spring 2006. |
_ |
OA7 |
Resolution to grant outline consent for housing sites in the 2nd deposit local plan that have been supported by an Inquiry Inspector and are needed to meet housing supply requirements, subject to appropriate agreementsii |
LPAs |
Resolution made by 31 December 2004. |
Resolution made by most authorities in 2004. Three authorities (Basingstoke and Deane, Southampton and Test Valley) had not passed a resolution at the time of the last update, none have done so since. |
_ |
OA8 |
Notification to owners/ developers of sites affected by resolution in OA7. |
LPAs who have received Inspectors Report |
Notification sent to affected landowners and developers within 3 months of publication of Inspectors Report advising them of resolution and inviting planning applications that comply with policy in PPG3 on location, density, mix and provision of affordable housing. |
All authorities have now received their inspector's report. Most authorities have ensured that landowners/ developers are aware of allocation / have encouraged suitable applications but have not specifically notified them. Two have sent out notifications. Only one authority has not actioned. |
_ |
OA9 |
Implement actions in district specific Action Plans already agreed or updated between districts and GOSE for 2004 |
Basingstoke, East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Hart and Winchester Councils and GOSE |
Actions implemented by 31 December 2004. |
Three authorities have updated their plans for 2005; two have not been asked to. The authorities have reported that all actions are being worked on and many achieved or superseded. |
_ |
OA10 |
Improve performance on all major planning applications to meet ODPM PSA target |
LPAs |
(i) DC performance for most recent quarter meets target of 60% within 13 weeks or (ii) DC performance meets district specific target set by ODPM. (iii) Where (i)and (ii) not yet met, performance for last 3 quarters shows improvement. |
Significant progress has been made compared to last year . Nine authorities met the PSA target in the latest recorded quarter (typically the fourth quarter 2005). Of the four that failed to meet the target, none met their district specific target, and none showed definite improvement quarter-on-quarter. |
_ |
OA11 |
Preparation of, and consultation on, development briefs for sites allocated in 2nd deposit local plans where appropriate. |
LPAs |
Development briefs prepared within 6 months of end of local plan inquiry. |
Hart and East Hampshire have prepared development briefs for all their sites, whilst Havant has chosen to produce site guidelines instead. Southampton and Basingstoke and Deane have yet to prepare any briefs. The remaining authorities have prepared briefs for some sites but not all. |
_ |
OA12 |
Work co-operatively with Government agencies such as the Highways Agency, English Nature and Environment Agency to overcome issues arising from consultations on planning applications. GOSE to provide assistance on resolving these issues where appropriate. |
Referral of initial tranche of affected sites by LPAs explaining nature of issue to GOSE by end July 2004 for action |
GOSE to report back on progress on individual sites by end September 2004. |
Strategic Planning Authorities are not aware of any sites being referred to GOSE since last year. |
O |
OA13 |
Work with Government departments, local authorities and agencies to release land allocated for housing in local plans. |
Referral of initial tranche of affected sites by LPAs explaining issue to GOSE by end July 2004 for action. HCC/ other local authorities to expedite development on own land. |
GOSE to report back on progress on individual sites by end September 2004 HCC to report on progress with sites in its ownership by end September 2004. |
Strategic Planning Authorities are not aware of any additional sites being referred to GOSE since last year. |
O |
OA14 |
Encourage Housing Corporation and Regional Housing Board to maintain funding levels for RSLs. Housing Authorities to report on delays, difficulties and loss of affordable housing attributable to shortage of funding. |
Referral of initial tranche of affected sites by local housing authorities explaining issue to GOSE by end July 2004 for action |
GOSE to report back on progress on individual sites by end September 2004. |
No sites referred by the local authorities. |
O |
OA15 OA16 OA17 |
Actions implemented and reported on last year. |
_ _ _ | |||
OA18 |
JAP and GOSE to receive an update on progress towards all above outcomes at each JAP meeting. |
Strategic planning authorities |
Report submitted. |
Second progress report to be submitted to JAP in March 2006. |
_ |
i Note: this action excludes the West of Waterlooville reserve allocation, the release of which will be made in accordance with Structure Plan policy.
ii Note: this action excludes reserve allocations - their release will be made in accordance with Structure Plan policy.
Process Actions
Action |
By |
Completion Date |
Progress | ||
PA1 |
Develop methodology to establish confidence levels for different sources of supply. Undertake limited consultation (district councils, HBF and CPRE) and approve prior to preparation of 2005 Monitoring Paper. Feed in conclusions of local plan inspectors as they are published. |
Strategic planning authorities |
August 2004. |
Completed, results informed monitoring paper, no further action required. |
_ |
PA2 |
Analyse completions 2003 - 2004 against forecast. Input conclusions into 2005 forecast. |
Strategic planning authorities |
July 2004 |
Completed and completions 2004-05 analysed and conclusions input into 2006 forecast. |
_ |
PA3 |
Analyse housebuilders forecast of completions 2003 - 2004 against actual. Contact those housebuilders where completions are at variance with forecast to find out why. Input conclusions into HCC 2005 forecast. |
Strategic planning authorities |
June 2004 |
Completed and house builders 2005 forecast of completions taken into account in estimating housing supply 2005-2011. |
_ |
PA4 |
Approach HBF to request housebuilders to provide forecasts of future completions as an input into HCC 2005 forecast. |
Strategic planning authorities |
July 2004 |
Completed and repeated in June 2005. |
_ |
PA5 |
Test urban capacity studies/ urban housing potential that Local Plan Inspectors have yet to report on for consistency with SEERA `Good Practice Guide'. If any found to be over optimistic, the adjustment applied to the supply from that particular district will be increased in the Policy H4 Monitoring Paper "adjusted supply" figures. |
Strategic planning authorities |
September 2004 |
Completed, results informed the monitoring paper 2005. Local Plan Inspector's reports have now been received by all districts. The views of the Inspectors have been taken into account in the figures used in the 2006 H4 Monitoring Paper. |
_ |
PA6 |
Test the evidence that planning permissions for dwellings on urban capacity sites continue to be granted at, or above, the rates required in the Monitoring Paper - at district and county level. |
Strategic planning authorities |
July - August 2004. |
Countywide evidence was tested as part of Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2006. Planning permissions granted on new large brownfield windfall and urban capacity rose last year by 33% to 4,100 dwellings. This continues to be well in excess of the anticipated adjusted supply figure for 2005-2011 from these sources (1,435 dwellings per annum). A detailed assessment at district level has not been completed. |
_ |
PA7 |
Test the delivery rates that can be expected from very large sites (@ 500 dwellings+). |
Strategic planning authorities |
September 2004. |
Completed in both 2004 and September 2005. |
_ |
PA8 |
Review and re-assess delivery rates of reserve sites if released in 2005 and 2006 |
Strategic planning authorities and LPAs |
mid October 2004. |
Completed in 2004 and September 2005. |
_ |
PA9 |
Bring forward publication date of Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2005 to 19 November 2004. Include housing trajectories covering remaining plan period for each local planning authority. |
Strategic planning authorities and LPAs |
19 November 2004. |
Published on 10 December 2004 and 3 January 2006 (latest edition delayed because of work on housing distribution for SE Plan). |
_ |
PA10 |
Undertake assessment as per Policy H4 SPG addendum to identify where release could be made if Policy H4 Monitoring Paper 2005 adjusted supply is below or within 5% of RPG requirement, or if there has been a significant failure to deliver key actions OA 1 to 10. |
Strategic planning authorities |
Publish Paper for consultation 17 December 2004 - 28 January 2005. Outcome to be reported to JAP at its spring 2005 meeting. |
Adjusted supply in Monitoring Paper 2006 exceeds RPG requirement by 28% and there has been good progress on most actions OA1-OA10. Therefore identification of where to release the reserve is not considered necessary. |
T |
PA11 |
Work together on implementing the Action Plan |
Strategic planning authorities, GOSE and LPAs |
Regular meeting / exchange of information. Reports to HIPOG and Development Plans/Development Control sub-groups as appropriate. |
Continued exchange of information and some reports to meetings during the year but because of progress on housing supply there have been other priorities, particularly a focus on the SE Plan. |
_ |
Annex 1 Local Plan Timetable
Annex 2 Local Development Documents Timetable
Dates (other than slippage) are those stated in the last progress report
Note: All relevant Councils remain confident that their local plan will be adopted by July 2006