Calderdale Local Plan Stage 1 Hearings - Hearing Statement Matter 4 - Housing Supply
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Calderdale Local Plan Stage
1 Hearings
Hearing Statement
Matter 4 – Housing Supply
In respect of:
Land at Exley Lane, Elland
On behalf of:
Avant Homes Limited
May 2019
Contents Page 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................2 2.0 Matter 4 – Housing supply ................................................................................................1
Calderdale Local Plan Stage 1 Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
1.0 Introduction
1.1. McLoughlin Planning has been instructed by Avant Homes (Avant) to prepare
representations on the Calderdale Local Plan, which has been submitted to the
Secretary of State for Examination. This document seeks to make a series of
representations on the Local Plan and the evidence base that underpins it; specifically,
in response to the Inspectors Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQs). It also seeks to
further promote Avant’s land interests within the Borough.
1.2. Avant’s interest relates to the development of land adjacent to Exley Lane, North of
Elland. The site was previously allocated for residential development in the Draft Local
Plan for circa 690 dwellings and went by the reference number LP1567.
2Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
2.0 Matter 4 – Housing supply
Issue – Does the Plan identify sufficient land to enable the housing
requirement of 12,600 dwellings to be delivered over the Plan period? [Policy
SD7]
Questions
a) Is the Council’s approach to estimating supply from extant planning
permissions, as set out in the housing trajectory, justified and robust? In
particular:
i. Why are extant outline permissions excluded, and how are these dealt
with in terms of supply?
2.1. It is not clear why extant outline permissions are excluded from the supply, although
it is of note that the current NPPF (February 2019) states that sites with outline
permission, permission in principle, allocated in the development plan or identified on
a brownfield register should only be considered deliverable where there is clear
evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years. Avant consider
that extant outline permissions should only be included in the Council’s housing land
supply where all the reserved matters have been approved.
ii. Is the application of a 10% lapse rate to outstanding planning
permissions on small sites justified and supported by evidence?
2.2. Without detailed information of how planning permissions within the Borough have
translated to completions over the years, it is difficult to determine whether the
application of a 10% lapse rate is justified and supported by evidence. DCLG analysis
suggested that 10-20% of permissions do not materialise into a start on site at all.
iii. Is the application of bespoke lapse rates on larger sites justified and
supported by the evidence? What overall proportional reduction has
been applied to this category of sites?
2.3. No comment.
b) Is the estimated windfall supply over the Plan period justified and
supported by local evidence?
2.4. Whilst Avant accept that windfall sites will form part of the housing land supply, Avant
are concerned that the Plan is overly reliant on windfalls, particularly during the latter
stages of the Plan. Furthermore, Avant are concerned that the estimated supply from
this source is not robustly justified.
1Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
2.5. The figure of 162 dwellings per annum reflects the average windfall units completed
on non-exceptional sites between 2008/90 and 2016/17. However, other than historical
analysis, there does not appear to be any other evidence to justify that this historical
rate will continue. There is no evidence of any urban capacity studies to determine the
potential land availability going forward or any consideration of the implications an
adopted Plan with allocations would have on future windfalls.
2.6. The windfall allowance does not appear to take into account losses due to conversions
and demolitions. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2017/18 shows that 1,152
dwellings have been lost since 2001/02, which is an average of approximately 68
dwellings per year. Whilst not a significant amount, over the Plan period, this could
amount to a loss of around 1,020 homes if historical trends continued. Since the
average annual windfall delivery figure is based on a percentage of gross completions,
a more realistic approach would be to base it on a percentage of net completions.
2.7. c) The soundness of individual site allocations will be considered at Stage 2
of the Examination. However, is the Council’s general approach to
estimating supply and phasing rates on housing allocations soundly based?
In particular:
i. Has the Council undertaken a comprehensive assessment of potential
housing capacity within the urban areas, and allocated all sites of 0.25
hectares or more which are suitable, available and achievable?
2.8. No comment.
ii. Are the density multipliers applied to the allocations justified and
indicative capacities robust (as set out in Policy SD7)?
2.9. It is not clear from the Plan as to how the density multipliers have been justified.
iii. Which of the allocated sites have not been confirmed as being available?
2.10. Appendix 3 of the Council’s Housing Technical Paper (Positioning of Local Plan New
Housing Sites and Mixed Use Sites with residential element), it is not clear as to which
allocated sites are confirmed as available. However, based on the commentary, there
are serious concerns regarding the availability of a number of allocated sites, which
should be deleted until such a time as their availability can be confirmed. The following
examples highlight this point:
• Allocation LP0065 (Elland) is not fully available until the current equestrian use
ceases. Until this is known, part of the site cannot be considered to be available.
2Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
• Allocation LP0146 (Elland) is currently not available as it is currently owned and
occupied by a Traveller family. The Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Technical Paper
indicates that work to identify a suitable Gypsy and Traveller site within the
Borough has been suspended and will re-commence after the adoption of the Plan.
Consequently, until this work has been completed, it is not known whether site
LP0146 is required to be retained as a Gypsy or Traveller site rather than a housing
allocation. It should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0253 (Mytholmroyd) states that the availability of the site is unknown.
It should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0264 (Halifax) states that the availability of the site is unknown. It
should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0565 (Brighouse) is reliant on third party land for its deliverability.
Without confirmation that this additional land is available, the allocation cannot be
considered to be available and should be deleted from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0659 (Todmordon) states that the availability of the site is unknown.
It should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0749 (Halifax) states that the availability of the site is unknown. It
should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0846 (Brighouse) states that the availability of the site is unknown. It
should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP0914 (Todmordon) states that the majority of the site is confirmed as
available. However, the capacity should be reduced to reflect the fact that the
entire site is not confirmed as being available.
• Allocation LP1000 (Brighouse) is currently subject to a restrictive covenant to be
used as open space. Until such a time as the covenant is removed, the site should
not be considered to be available and should be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP1194 (Halifax) states the site has three owners although one part of
the site remains unknown. The capacity should be reduced to reflect the fact that
the entire site is not confirmed as being available.
• Allocation LP1197 (Halifax) states that the availability of the site is unknown. It
should therefore be removed from the Plan.
• Allocation LP1283 (Elland) is a centre for audio and visually impaired people. Whilst
it is stated that this site is likely to be available during the Plan period, it is
dependent on the existing service relocating to a more fit for purpose facility. Until
3Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
such an alternative facility be identified, the site should not be considered to be
available and should be deleted from the Plan.
2.11. Of the examples listed above, if the allocations where the availability is not known are
deleted from the Plan, this would represent a loss of 244 dwellings from the Council’s
anticipated supply. This further reduces if reduction is made to account for sites where
part of the allocation is not confirmed as being available. This would lead to a shortfall
in housing delivery and highlights the inherent inflexibility of Plan.
iv. Do the standard build-out rate and lead-in time assumptions, as set out
on pages 19 and 20 in the Council’s Housing Technical Paper, provide a
robust starting point for estimating allocation site delivery rates? What
other factors have been taken into account? Are the additional times
listed in the bullets in paragraph 10.6 cumulatively applied?
2.12. Avant raises concerns regarding some of the proposed build-out rate assumptions,
particularly in respect of the larger allocations and specifically, the proposed Garden
Suburbs at Brighouse. As discussed in detail below, there are concerns that the
anticipated combined delivery of the Garden Suburbs (359 per annum) is unrealistic
and not supported by evidence.
2.13. A further area of concern is that, notwithstanding Avant’s objection to the use of the
Standardised Methodology, the delivery of 840 units per annum represents a significant
step-up in housing delivery and one that has never been seen before in the Borough.
This needs to be taken into account when determining build-out rates and lead-in times,
which may also be affected by overall market absorption rates.
2.14. Given that the Garden Suburbs are anticipated to contribute to almost half the annual
housing requirement from the mid stage of the Plan period, there is limited evidence
to demonstrate that the Council can deliver this with the sites that have been allocated,
especially where there are concerns over the availability and deliverability of some
allocations. The allocation of further available and deliverable sites is therefore required
in order to provide a degree of flexibility and to ensure that the Council meets its
minimum housing requirement over the Plan period.
v. Does the baseline estimate of year 4 (2021/22) allow sufficient time for
the submission of an application and delivery in the post-adoption
period?
2.15. No – Plan already a year behind schedule. Assumes an immediate start on site.
vi. Does the housing trajectory allow for a step-up in delivery rates on large
sites as development progresses?
4Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
2.16. The housing trajectory does appear to allow for a step-up in delivery rates in large sites
as development progresses. This is evident at the two Garden Suburbs where the
anticipated trajectory is shown as being constant at 140 and 222 units per annum
respectively. As set out further in this statement, the housing trajectory for the Garden
Suburbs is unjustified and unrealistic. Furthermore, if the trajectory was adjusted to
allow for a step-up in delivery rates on large sites as development progresses, it would
realistically result in a reduction in the housing delivery in the earlier stages of the
development. Given that there would be an upper limit on what could be delivered in
the latter stages (i.e. potentially fewer than 200 per annum), the upshot would be that
the Plan would not deliver the minimum housing requirement over the Plan period,
assuming that the Standard Methodology is used.
vii. Are the estimated delivery rates in the housing trajectory realistic and
consistent with national guidance relating to the
deliverability/developability of sites?
2.17. The Council’s Housing Technical Paper assumes that on sites of 150 units and above,
55 units would be delivered per annum. However, the Council’s housing trajectory
currently suggests that after year 7 allocation LP1451 would deliver 140 units per year
and allocation LP1463 would deliver 222 units per year. No justification has been
provided for this build-out rate, which would amount to a combined 362 units per year
over the two allocations. Moreover, this does not reflect the research in the NLP
publication ‘Start to Finish – How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?’
(November 2016). Research here suggests that it will not always be possible to increase
the number of outlets in direct proportion to the size of the site. The analysis identifies
that, on average, a site of 2,000 or more dwellings does not deliver four times more
than a site delivering between 100 and 499 homes, despite being at least four times
the size. In fact, it only delivers on average 2.5 times more houses. Moreover, the
analysis suggests that even with the biggest schemes within capacity for 2,000 units,
on average, these will deliver fewer than 200 dwellings per annum.
2.18. Based on this evidence, Avant is of the view that the rate of delivery of the Garden
Suburbs anticipated in the Council’s housing trajectory is unrealistic within the Plan
period and leaves no room for slippage. In this context, given the base year of the Plan
(2018/19) and an anticipated adoption date (early 2020), the housing trajectory should
be updated and adjusted accordingly. Given the late adoption of the Plan, it would be
prudent to move the delivery start date of the Garden Suburbs to year 8 instead of
year 7. This would result in 359 dwellings being lost from the Council’s anticipated
housing supply.
5Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
2.19. As touched upon earlier, Avant is also concerned about potential market absorption
rates. The delivery of 840 units per annum represents a significant step-up in housing
delivery and one that has never been seen before in the Borough. Almost half the
annual housing requirement is proposed to be delivered at the Garden Suburbs, which
are concentrated at Brighouse. This is potentially further compounded by the significant
residential development of 1,460 dwellings planned at Bradley Golf Course to the south
of Brighouse allocated through the neighbouring Kirklees Local Plan.
viii.Are the lead-in times and phasing rates for the two Garden Suburb sites
justified and soundly based? [please note, this question relates to broad
delivery estimates only. The suitability and overall soundness of these
sites will be covered in detail at the Stage 2 hearing sessions]
2.20. Whilst Garden Suburb sites offer the potential to deliver much needed infrastructure
that infrastructure will take time to deliver. Moreover, a significant amount of
infrastructure will be required before any meaningful delivery of housing can be
achieved, e.g. highways infrastructure. The Housing Technical Paper sets out that likely
lead-in times and build-out rates have been based on research contained in the NLP
publication ‘Start to Finish – How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?’
(November 2016). Based on this research, an anticipated start date in year 7 is
considered to be reasonable. However, given the anticipated adoption date of the Plan,
a minimum of 359 dwellings should be removed from the Council’s anticipated housing
supply. Moreover, a reduction in the annual delivery rates in line with the NLP research
would further increase the level of shortfall by the end of the Plan period.
ix. Should an overall lapse rate be applied to allocations, within the supply
calculations?
2.21. Avant considers that an overall lapse rate should be applied to allocations. It is clear
from the Council’s commentary within the Housing Technical Paper at Appendix 3 that
many allocations do not have a housebuilder on board and a significant number have
not been confirmed as being available. Again, DCLG analysis suggested that 10-20%
of permissions do not materialise into a start on site at all. As a minimum, Avant
considered that a 10% lapse rate be applied to allocations within the supply calculations.
d) Does the Plan allow sufficient flexibility to respond to changing
circumstances? Should an additional buffer be applied to ensure that the
overall housing requirement is met and exceeded?
2.22. The Plan does not allow sufficient flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. It
is imperative that additional flexibility is built into the Plan.
6Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
e) Is the Council’s approach to calculating five year land supply, as set out
in Table 6.4 in the Plan, robust and in line with national policy and guidance?
In particular:
i. Why is a stepped requirement not incorporated, in line with the housing
trajectory (Picture 6.1 and Table 6.3)?
2.23. It is noted that the Council consider that a 5-year supply of housing can be identified
on adoption of the Plan, which is based on an average requirement of 840 dwellings
per annum. It is suggested that whilst some of the large allocations will take some time
to come on stream, the Council can identify a sufficient supply of homes in the
intervening period by bringing forward sites from later in the Plan period.
2.24. Avant do not consider that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing on
adoption of the Plan based on the Council’s housing trajectory. Consequently, given
that the Plan is heavily reliant on the delivery of the Garden Suburbs, consideration
should be given to a stepped requirement with a lower requirement in the early stages
of the Plan period to ensure that a 5-year supply of housing can be delivered. However,
this would require a higher requirement later on in the Plan period where there is
already question marks surrounding the suggested build-out rates of the Garden
Suburbs. This further demonstrates the need to allocate additional deliverable sites to
ensure that the Plan’s housing requirement can be achieved within the Plan period.
ii. Is the application of a 20% buffer supported by the evidence?
2.25. The application of a 20% buffer is supported by the evidence. The Council’s Housing
Technical Paper shows that the Council has consistently under delivered since 2010/11,
When measured against the housing requirement of the earlier Core Strategy Preferred
Options (800 dwelling per annum) and the Local Plan Initial Draft (1,038 dwelling per
annum), this shortfall is substantial.
iii. Why are the extant permissions and site allocation totals different from
those in the housing trajectory? Is a dual approach effective?
2.26. No comment.
f) What is the Council’s latest position regarding five year housing land
supply? Will there be a five-year supply on adoption of the Plan?
2.27. It is not clear as to whether a stepped housing trajectory or an average annual housing
requirement is being proposed. This was a question posed by the Inspector in his pre-
hearing note to the Council (13th February 2019). However, the Council’s response did
not necessarily answer the question and raised further confusion by setting out that
the Local Plan Trajectory (Figure 6.1) and the 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position
7Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
(Table 6.4) represent two separate assessments and are not comparable. However,
given that the Council states that the row entitled “Annual Five Year Supply
Requirement” in Table 6.3 and the line in Figure 6.1 will be deleted, it is assumed that
an average housing requirement of 840 dwellings per annum will be adopted. In any
event, the Council asserts that it can demonstrate a 5-year supply based on this
average requirement.
2.28. Notwithstanding the above, whilst a five year supply calculation is set out in the
Publication Draft of the Local Plan (Table 6.4), it is difficult to establish how the Council
has calculated the ‘deliverable land allocations’ in years 1-5 (3,228 dwellings), since
this does not chime with the housing trajectory set out in Table 6.3 or Appendix 3 of
the Housing Technical Paper (For reference, these indicate a supply of 2,331 and 2,311
respectively between 2018/19 and 2020/21). It is noted that the Council asserts that
the Local Plan Trajectory (Figure 6.1) and the 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position
(Table 6.4) represent two separate assessments and are not comparable, however, it
is not clear which sites have been brought forward from later on in the Plan period in
order to boost the deliverable land allocations figure, if indeed this is the case.
Moreover, if this is the case, what is the justification for doing so given that the ‘Local
Plan Trajectory takes into account a number of factors such as the lead in times and
delivery rate assumptions as well as the significant step change in delivery rates
required to meet the housing requirement figure in the Local Plan’ (Council’s response
to Pre-Hearing Note 1).
2.29. In light of the above, if the Local Plan Trajectory was used to determine land allocations
deliverable in years 1-5 (i.e. 2,331 dwellings), it is clear that the Council cannot
demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing with a 20% buffer. This is further compounded
by the fact that the 5-year supply position set out in Table 6.4 is based on a 2018 base
year. Given that the Plan is unlikely to be adopted until late 2019 at the very earliest,
Local Plan Allocations will not be able to deliver as early as anticipated in the housing
trajectory. Based on this, it would be reasonable to discount 797 dwellings from the
deliverable supply (the figure currently identified for year 2023/24 in Table 6.3). Again,
if the Local Plan Trajectory was used to determine land allocations deliverable between
2019/20 and 2023/24 (minus the 797 dwellings noted above), the Council would still
not be able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing on adoption of the Plan. In fact,
even if 797 dwellings were not discounted, the Council could still not demonstrate a 5-
year supply.
2.30. A further area of concern is the Council’s approach to commitments in its sources of
supply and the figure of 1,888 dwellings up to 2022/23 is questionable. This figure is
derived from the table set out in Appendix 4 of the Council’s Housing Technical Paper,
8Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
which indicates sites with planning permission not yet implemented. However, this
represents the Council’s position as of 30th September 2017 and is clearly now dated.
2.31. Appendix 4 identified a considerable number of permissions that had yet to be
implemented as of the 30th September 2017. The deadline for implementation of many
of those permissions has now passed and it is not clear whether or not development
commenced. Whilst the Council’s application of a 10% lapse rate is acknowledged,
without up-to-date data, the anticipated supply of 1,888 cannot be confirmed.
2.32. Further to the matter of out-of-date evidence, it is clear that the Council’s annual
monitoring has been sporadic over the last few years with no Annual Monitoring Report
(AMR) published for the years 2014/15 and 2015/16. The latest available AMR is the
for the 2017/18 period, which was published in January 2019. The 2017/18 AMR shows
289 net completions after housing loses were accounted for, which has followed a
steady downward trend since 2007/08.
2.33. The Council have not published their AMR for 2018/19, which is normally scheduled to
be published at the end of the year in December. It is noted that the Council do not
intend to deviate from this timetable and will be released when it is available. The data
will therefore not be available for the Stage 1 Hearing. Consequently, the net
completions are not known, and it is not possible to determine whether the anticipated
532 commitments in 2018/19 (Table 6.3 Calderdale Housing Trajectory 2018/19-
2032/33), have been realised. However, if net completions for 2018/19 are similar to
2016/17 and 2017/18, this shortfall will need to be met in the following 5 years, thus
further increasing the pressure to identify deliverable sites.
2.34. In addition, to the above, this is all predicated to a large degree on the Inspector’s
acceptance of the Standard Methodology to determine the housing requirement.
Should this be rejected, as advocated by Avant and significant others, the annual
housing requirement will be inevitably higher thus requiring more allocations to ensure
a minimum supply of housing.
9Calderdale Local Plan Stage I Hearings – Matter 4
Land at Exley Road, Elland
0475
10You can also read
