The Housing Delivery Test - Workshop / round table one-off Phase 1 pilots 16th March 2018 - Local Government Association
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Housing Delivery Test Workshop / round table one-off Phase 1 pilots 16th March 2018 www.local.gov.uk/pas
Today
• Welcome & introductions
• We hear from some of the pilots
• MHCLG / NPPF / NPPG / rule book
• What have we learned from phase 1 ?
• What could we do for phase 2 ?
• What do practitioners want to make their lives
easier ?
Introduction
• We did a series of roadshows / introductory
events on the HDT
• We hoovered up a variety of views from
around the country
• We asked for some volunteers
– We had lots - so we divided them up into phases
– Most of phase 1 is here
• Thank you!
Introduction • This is a small, informal session • Pilots mean – learning, trying, making (discovering) mistakes – not knowing things • Chatham house rules – Be frank • OK ? Anything else ?
The pilots • Carlisle • Newcastle & Gateshead • Milton Keynes • Swindon • Lichfield
Housing Delivery Test Pilot
Housing Delivery Test Pilot
Carlisle City Council
16 March 2018
Fiona Kenmare
Carlisle in Context
Housing Delivery Test Pilot
Carlisle in Context
Housing Delivery Test Pilot
Housing Delivery Test Pilot Monitoring of Housing
• Core Indicators for the Annual Monitoring
Report [introduced 2004]
• Housing Flows Reconciliation
• Carlisle City Council employed a
dedicated monitoring officer
In house bespoke database
Housing Delivery Test PilotCarlisle District Local Plan 2015
– 2030
Housing Delivery Test Pilot
• Adopted November 2016
• Stepped Approach to Housing
– 2013 to 2030 – 478 net new dwellings
– 2020 to 2030 – 626 net new dwellings
• Monitoring FrameworkHousing Delivery Test Pilot
Housing Trajectory
Total/ o/s at u/c at Completed
Potential 01/04/17 01/04/17 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 onwards
Sites with Planning Permission
land North of Kingmoor Ind
Estate 65 65 0 0 0 5 20 20 20 0
Raffles 333 115 30 11 30 30 30 25 0
U 8 land North of Burgh
Road 15/0621 66 66 0 6 30 30 0
Caxton Road, Newtown Ind
Estate 15/0878 63 63 0 0 3 20 20 20 0
U15 Former Dairy Site,
Botcherby 66 66 0 0 20 46 0
50 Victoria Place 50 0 0 50 0
Old Brewery Halls of
Residence 36 36 0 0 0 36 0
Portland Sq/Alfred St/
Brunswick St 21 21 0 10 11 0
Leabourne Road 13 13 10 0 10 3 0
Hammonds Pond 318 221 23 48 40 35 35 35 35 35 6 0
West Wigton Road
(Brackenleigh) 303 93 39 48 40 35 18 0
U 5 Land between Carleton
Rd & Cumwhinton Rd
(Speckled Wood) 189 155 49 34 40 35 35 35 10 0
U 14 & 19 Carleton Clinic 189 189 0 35 35 35 35 35 14 0
U 4 land North of Moorside
Drive/ Valley Drive 150 150 15 35 35 35 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Housing Trajectory
Housing Delivery Test PilotAllocated sites Urban Carlisle: Area (ha) Indicative Yield Indicative yr Delivery Planning Permission Actual Yield Date start delivery
U 1 - Land to the south east of junction 44 8.03 217 2015 - 20 (part site)
190
14/0761 OUT 17/09/15
(7.58 HA)
U 2 - Land north of California Road, east of U 1 6.54 200 2020 - 25
U 3 - Site of PennineWay Primary School 3.57 112 2020 - 25
U 4 - Land north of Moorside Drive/ValleyDrive 4.96 140 2015 - 20 15/0161OUT 13/05/16 150 - OUT
15/0038 RM undetermined 166 - RM
U 5 - Land between Carleton Road and Cumwhinton Road 7.25 204 2015 - 20 189 June 16
(part Site) 13/0983 FULL 29/09/15
(5.79 HA)
U 6 - Land at Garden Village,west of Wigton Road 6.08 169 2020 - 25
U 7 - Land at Newhouse Farm, south-east of Orton Road 30.19 509 2020 - 25
U 8 - Land north of Burgh Road 2.83 66 2015 - 20 15/0621 OUT 15/06/16 66
U 9 - Site of former Morton Park Primary School, Burnrigg 1.67 54 2020 - 25 Part Site 17/9003 FULL 07/02/17 60
U 10 - Land off Windsor Way 10.60 300 2015 - 20 Part Site 277
14/0778 FULL awaiting S106
Rest Site
17/0093 FULL undetermined 19
U 11 - Land east of Lansdowne Close/Lansdowne Court 2.50 75 2020 - 25
U 12 - Site to the rear of Border Terrier,Ashness Drive/EllesmereWay 0.40 18 2015 - 20 14/0975 FULL 16/01/15 18 (affordable) Complete 2016/17
U 13 – Land east of BeverleyRise 1.20 30 2020 - 25
U 14 – Land north of Carleton Clinic, east of Cumwhinton Drive 9.3 189 2015 - 20 15/0918 FULL 04/05/16 189 U/C Expected Spring 2017
U 15 – Former Dairy site, Holywell Crescent, Botcherby 1.51 66 2015 - 20 13/0655 OUT 26/03/14
66
17/0254 RM undetermined
U 16 – Land at DeerPark, Belah 3.83 100 2020 - 25
U 17 – Land to the south west of Cummersdale GrangeFarm 2.43 60 2020 - 25 15/0924 OUT awaiting S106 60
U 18 – Land Opposite RosehillIndustrial Estate 10.50 150 2015 - 20
U 20 – Durranhill Road 3.32 70 2020 - 25
U 21 – Laing’s site, Dalston Road 1.20 50 2020 - 25Housing Delivery Test
Assessment
Housing Delivery Test Pilot
• Local Plan Annualised Target 2013 – 2020
= 478 per annum
• Delivery 2014 – 2017 = 419 + 502 + 541 =
1,462 - Annualised delivery average 487
per annum
• The housing delivery test confirms delivery
at 101.88% of local plan annual target
therefore no action plan needs to be
published or any change to the ‘buffer’ of
5% currently implemented.Housing Delivery Test Pilot Challenges
• Challenging Housing Target
• Limited no of developers
• Limited Housing offer due to above
• c. 2,000 permissions do not have a
developer attached to themHousing Delivery Test Pilot Actions
• Corporate Priority:
– Economic Liaison Panel
• Utilise existing forums:
– Cumbria Housing Supply Group
– Registered Provider Partnership
• Proactive contact with HBF
• Release of Council owned land
• Positive Development Management
• Promoting Carlisle
– Prospectus
– Garden Village
– Bidding for fundingHousing Delivery Test Pilot Outcomes
• Improvements in housing delivery
• Attracted New Developers
• Interest being generated around St
Cuthbert’s Garden VillageEconomic Benefits Housing Delivery Test Pilot
Thank You Housing Delivery Test Pilot
v Providing a range and choice of
housing - 30,000 homes
v Allocating Neighbourhood and
Village Growth Areas
v Maintaining and improving existing
communities
v Bringing empty properties back into
use
v Creating Lifetime neighbourhoods
v 15% affordable housing Core Strategy targets in stepped phases. 20% buffer for past, persistent under delivery. Brownfield sites with low values and constraints. Multiple developers and landowners on larger sites. Unmotivated landowners. Strategic infrastructure funding and delivery.
Newcastle CC set up a ‘Fairer
Housing Unit’ to facilitate delivery.
Use of Council assets, procurement
of delivery partners, HRA, annuity
lease back, grant funding.
Gateshead focus on small and
medium scale sites.
Stakeholder engagement.
Permission in Principle Improve the type of data we hold.
Really get to the bottom of things – “root causes”.
Reality check.
BUT..
Concern that developers could use data as a “stick
to beat Council with”.
“Cherry picking” of easier greenfield sites.
Future pressure to look for further sites in Green
Belt.Swindon Borough Council
Housing Delivery Test Pilot Project
Emerging Findings
Planning PolicyIntroduction Root Cause Analysis focussed on following themes: 1. Swindon’s Development Strategy 2. Swindon’s housing trajectory 3. Swindon’s Housing Land market 4. House Builders active in Swindon 5. Housing demand in Swindon
Swindon’s Development Strategy
Local Plan Development Strategy
Tadpole Farm:
1,695 + 5ha Kingsdow
emp n: 1,650
NEV:
8,000 +
40ha emp
Wichelstowe:
4,500 +12.5ha emp
Commonhead:
890 + 15ha empA robust housing trajectory
“Planned housing trajectories should be realistic, accounting and responding to lapse rates, lead-in times and sensible build rates. This is likely to mean allocating more sites rather than less, with a good mix of types and sizes, and then being realistic about how fast they will deliver so that supply is maintained throughout the plan period. Because no one site is the same – and with significant variations from the average in terms of lead-in time and build rates – a sensible approach to evidence and justification is required.” http://lichfields.uk/media/1728/start-to-finish.pdf
Swindon’s Development Strategy and Trajectory Action Plan Recommendations • Explore ways to compress the period between allocation and delivery (including new delivery models) • Be more rigorous in preparing the housing trajectory – which needs to be more robust / resilient / “future proofed” • Don’t place too many eggs in one basket by allocating ‘overly large’ urban extensions (1,000-2,000 are “just right” to ensure deliverability without triggering big ticket infrastructure) • More work to understand if a house builder is on board at the allocation stage to provide certainty of delivery
Swindon’s Housing Land market
Local Plan Development Strategy
Tadpole Farm:
1,695 + 5ha Kingsdow
emp n: 1,650
NEV:
8,000 +
40ha emp
Wichelstowe:
4,500 +12.5ha emp
Commonhead:
890 + 15ha empSwindon’s Housing Land market Action Plan Recommendation • Use the LP review to allocate a full mix of sites in a range of locations • Develop the Swindon housing sites portal to bring greater transparency to Swindon’s housing land market • Consider opportunities to bring forward SHELAA sites early • Push forward with releasing the Council’s own land holdings for housing development
House Builders active in Swindon
Survey of SME house builders – “what
is your most serious business
challenge”:
The planning process (40%)
The availability and cost of land (37%)
The availability of finance (20%)
Source: National House Building Foundation Report
Planning PolicyHouse Builders active in Swindon Action Plan Recommendations • Use the LP review to bring forward sites suitable for SMEs • Improve planning application processes so that they are more responsive to the needs of SMEs (show the love to SMEs) • Identify and tackle barriers to entry for new housing developers in Swindon
Housing demand in Swindon
Creating Demand
A more “liveable place”
Housing Demand in Swindon Action Plan Recommendations • Take account of where people want to live as a consideration as to where sites are allocated • Ensure that we plan for the full spectrum of housing types / housing models • Be more proactive in bringing forward sites in areas where we the planners want people to live (place making) • Use LP Review to create a more supportive policy framework for delivering schemes in Central Swindon • Review CIL approach
Summary Root Cause Analysis work identified following challenges: • An ambitious Development Strategy • An optimistic housing trajectory • Weaknesses in Swindon’s Housing Land market • Limited range of House Builders active in Swindon • Weak housing demand in parts of Swindon Action Plan would identify measures to meet these challenges
Root Cause Analysis / Housing Delivery Test The expectations in terms of your contributions are pretty much as we discussed last week. So, if you are able to do 5 or 6 slides and talk (say 15 mins) about your experiences so far with the HDT and particularly any thoughts around gathering the data; using the templates; and next steps in terms of actions and implementation, that would be great. On the ‘Action Plan’ there is a view that seems to be emerging that a simple ‘headline’ table is probably a good way to capture the key components and remove the need to have large amounts of sensitive data and analysis in the ‘public’ form. This would be fed by the more detailed spreadsheet that you have already had a go at. Attached is a very simple template/table that is emerging. It feels like it could work alongside the headings and bullets that you sent me from your draft work. It should, in our view, include both measures to unlock stalled sites and measures to bring forward additional land for residential development, particularly where delivery falls substantially below requirements.
Pilot Authorities Milton Keynes: Current Position • Early review of delivery based on information in the HWP. Reported to Cabinet 02/01/18 (delivery at 74%) – to raise awareness & secure commitment for action. • MKC good understanding of the local housing market. Data for analysis drawn from quarterly and annual housing monitoring and reviewing the progress of a cross section of key site typologies through the planning process and beyond to final completion. Also used data from the OUT and REM applications on key sites to plot the ‘development pipeline’, illustrating the journey through various stages of the planning process. • Reviewed the number of housebuilders active across the Borough. Also raised some issues stemming from anecdotal evidence. • Report was discussed by key service heads and the Councils internal Growth Delivery Board (comprises a number of Council departments including, Housing, MK Development Partnership and Your:MK (regeneration). Co-operation and joint work should improve further given Cabinet support for the recommendations. • Not yet ready to prepare Action Plan, current priority to develop internal and cross-party agreement to delivery. Initial focus on high level, cross cutting issues and actions. Need to add to this with more site by site analysis of causes and actions
Pilot Authorities Milton Keynes: Key Issues: Action Planning • Political: delivery of new homes is not always prioritised in member-led decision making – e.g. greater priority given to road layout, car parking standards etc. Inconsistency of decision making. • Parking Standards: SPD adopted in 2016 with emphasis on avoidance of tandem parking, and increased standards for smaller dwelling sizes. Resulting in reduced number of homes on otherwise constraint free sites and can be a ‘deal breaker’ on certain sites. • Milton Keynes Housing Market: dominated by a few key landowners and handful of volume housebuilders on small amount of large sites. • New town legacy: ‘traditional’ housing growth focussed on serviced, greenfield sites, with few constraints. Perpetuated by role of ‘master builders’ eg Gallagher Estates continuing to provide serviced sites. Little interest from major housebuilders in urban, brownfield sites. • Strong local economy: limited uptake of office to residential conversion. • Long delivery pipeline for major sites: impacted by Council processes for imposing planning conditions and negotiating S106 agreements.
Pilot Authorities Milton Keynes: Potential Actions 1: Action Planning • Decision: Cabinet 02/01/18 agreed to development of comprehensive Action Plan to increase and accelerate delivery. Report identifies a number of cross-cutting actions to be included based on the analysis. • Political: develop cross-party agreement on the importance of delivering new homes. Work to start post May elections (independently facilitated). • Corporate: align relevant Council Service areas to prioritise delivery of homes and what they need to support this. This happens before the political engagement. New Housing Strategy due imminently and potentially creation of Housing Challenge Board to work more closely with providers. • Partnering with neighbouring LPAs – currently seeking a Housing Deal along the lines of Oxfordshire. • Process- seeking to make greater use of PPAs; internal Growth Delivery Board to act corporately on delivery issues; revised scheme of officer delegation in June 2017 should be starting deliver benefits of speed and efficiency in determining applications.
Pilot Authorities Milton Keynes: Potential Actions 2 Action Planning • S106: prioritise delivery of homes and affordable housing when negotiating planning obligations. • Planning policy and guidance: review the impact of current local parking standards on delivery of homes (as an e.g.). • Land Assembly: develop a model to use CPO on suitable sites (eg using brownfield register) and work with development partners to deliver. • New models of delivery: explore models e.g. Community Land Trusts, co-living, self-build and off-site construction to deliver more small sites and diversify the Milton Keynes housing supply. • Landowner engagement – develop closer working with key landowners to understand delivery programmes, blockages and to hold developers to account. • Marketing Strategies – proactively market MK to potential development partners (like at Homes 2017); particular focus on opportunities in Central Milton Keynes (‘prospectus’ being developed currently).
The pilots - Lichfield •Cabinet report underway on delivery issues / projections to estimate New Homes Bonus •Traditionally monitor on an annual basis but Leadership have requested more frequent •Computerised database assists with accessing information on s106 triggers •Historical monitoring issues mean root cause analysis has been daunting task to collect data from multiple sources
The pilots - Lichfield • Reviewing officer resource to see if it can be improved to meet the challenge • Major problems with large sites not delivering and not even being implemented - struggling to understand reasons why • May have to review approach to site allocations in Local Plan review • Are looking at a CPO on one site to unblock delivery – but only 12 homes
The pilots - reflections •Recognition that the HDT will encourage Councils to get a better understanding of issues affecting delivery •Will lead to considering delivery issues earlier in the process – at policy stage •Can help raise housing delivery to Corporate level – needs a corporate effort to solve •Some innovative practice already out there – in relation to both policy and implementation
The pilots - reflections
•Collecting and co-ordinating data is time
consuming and resource intensive
• especially if starting from scratch
• turning them into action plans is hard too
•Helpful to align data requirements with 5YHLS
• Does the NPPF/G assist?
•Large sites often slow to deliver
• due to range of factors such as appetite;
infrastructure funding; market etc.The pilots - reflections •Concern at how much Council’s can significantly influence delivery rates •May discourage ambitious growth targets •... Anything else ?
Housing Delivery Test PAS Workshop – 16 March 2018 Teodora Boarta 61
Overview
The Housing Delivery Test (HDT) is an annual measurement of housing delivery in a
plan-making authority area.
Through the HDT, the government wants to place local authorities in the driver’s seat of
housing delivery by making them accountable for delivery in their areas, beyond granting
planning permissions.
• The policy and consequences for under-delivery were first introduced in the Housing
White Paper in February 2017. At Budget 2017 we announced that the presumption in
favour of sustainable development will apply at 75% of housing delivery after 2020,
which we are now consulting on through the draft revised National Planning Policy
Framework (question 12).
• The HDT result will be published for individual local authorities, annually in November
on the Gov.uk website, based on the calculation rules set out in the HDT Measurement
Rule Book.
• An explanation of how consequences apply to local authorities and details on what an
action plan should include are set in Draft Planning Practice Guidance.
62HDT Measurement: Formula
HDT/ Non- Development corporations Development corporations Metropolitan London National
authority metropolitan with plan making and without full plan making and boroughs boroughs Park
area districts decision taking powers decision making powers Authorities
Applies ü ü ü ü
Does not ü ü
apply
HDT Measurement Formula
63HDT Measurement: Net homes delivered
The number of net homes delivered is the net additional dwellings, with an adjustment
for student and other communal accommodation.
The net homes delivered figure over a rolling three year is calculated as the total of:
1. Net additional dwellings:
National Statistic for annual net additional dwellings in England
2. Student communal accommodation:
Apply a nationally set ratio* to the total number of student communal accommodation.
3. Other communal accommodation:
Apply a nationally set ratio* to the total number of other communal accommodation.
Areas with a high number of demolitions are able to reflect this in their housing requirement set out in
their strategic plan by using stepped requirements as appropriate.
*The nationally set ratios for student and other communal accommodation will be based on the average number of
students in a student household, or the average number of adults in a household, from England Census data against the
number of bedrooms provided in student or other communal accommodation, respectively. These nationally set ratios 64
will be published by MHCLG.HDT Measurement: Homes Required part 1
The number of homes required, used for HDT calculations, is …
… the lesser between: Local Plan Joint Local Plan Development Local Plan in an
Corporations (with full area covered by a
Local housing need figure
(or projected household growth
plan & decision making power) Spatial
• Stepped housing
for 2014-15 to 2017-18) requirement Apportioned Development
• Annual average housing Strategy e.g. London
… if the latest adopted housing housing requirement requirement, or boroughs
requirement: • Lower end of the joint housing
• Is less than 5 years old, or range, if LHN + requirement, if the Housing requirement
Housing
neighbour’s need, or former not available in the Development
• Has been reviewed and does requirement in a
middle point of the Corporation’s
not need revising (with review Local Plan
range otherwise Local Plan
published online).
… if the latest adopted Apportioned housing Apportioned housing
Local housing
housing requirement: requirement, in a requirement in a LHN-
need figure for borough/district plan or a
• Is more than 5 years old; Local housing need individual local compliant SDS that is <
LHN-compliant SDS that 5yrs old (or with no
• Has not been reviewed; figure (or projected authorities (or are < 5yrs old (or with no revision needed) OR
or household growth for projected revision needed) OR local housing need
• Has been reviewed and 2014-15 to 2017-18) household growth local housing need figure figure if > 5 yrs old, has
needs revising. for 2014-15 to if > 5 yrs old, has not been not been reviewed or
2017-18) reviewed or needs revising needs revising
Changes to housing requirement within the HDT three year period
1. When
within the HDT three-year period then the new housing 2. figure becomes out of date during the
a new housing requirement figure is adopted Where a housing requirement
3. Ifortherequires
figure has not been reviewed,
revision, the HDT measurement
requirement will be used for the HDT calculation from the HDT period, the figure will be used for the will be based on local housing need (or
start date of the strategic plan period. The HDT can be HDT measurement up to the fifth projected household growth for 2014-15 to
updated any time during the year to reflect these changes anniversary of the plan’, unless a review 2017-18) from that point onwards. 65
with immediate effect. confirms that this does not need revising.HDT Consequences
If delivery of housing falls below the housing requirement, then certain consequences will
apply, with immediate effect from the publication of Housing Delivery Test results, depending
on the level of delivery:
Starting from Nov 2017 onwards Nov 2018 Nov 2019 Nov 2020 onwards
Under-delivery
against planned
development
95% 85% 25% 45% 75%
LA’s to publish an
Action Plan
Plan for 20% buffer
on the 5-year land
supply
Presumption in
favour of sustainable
development
The consequences will apply until subsequent Housing Delivery Test results demonstrate that 66
delivery exceeds the required rate of delivery in the following year.How will Housing Delivery Test
consequences apply to…
… Areas with a joint plan? … Areas covered by a spatial development
strategy?
HDT consequences will apply to all local planning HDT consequences will apply to local planning
authorities with a joint plan collectively if the housing authorities covered by a spatial development strategy
figure used to measure against the delivery test is the individually, as triggered by the level of under-delivery
joint housing requirement, and will apply individually if of each.
the housing figure used is the apportioned one.
… PPTS Gypsy and Travellers housing requirement?
Where applicable, the housing requirement for gypsies & travellers under the PPTS will be added to the
NPPF requirement. Plan-making authorities should inform MHCLG of their housing requirement for gypsies and
travellers under the PPTS through the annual HDT data collection.
67How will Housing Delivery Test
consequences apply to…
… Areas with Neighbourhood Plans?
We have set out in policy that for some neighbourhood plans in defined circumstances, the adverse
impact of allowing development in conflict with the plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits. These circumstances are where the neighbourhood plan:
• has been passed at referendum two years or less before the date the decision is made.
• contains policies and site allocations to meet the neighbourhood area’s identified housing
requirement;
• the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites, when
assessed against its five year supply; and
• the local planning authority has delivered at least 45% of its housing requirement over the past three
years (as assessed against the HDT).
There are also two transitional arrangements for the policies relating to this protection, which are
contained in paragraph 212 of the NPPF.
• The first allows the protection to apply to neighbourhood plans that were approved at referendum
more than two years before the application is decided, if they meet the other criteria set out above, up
to and including 11 December 2018.
• The second relates to the 45% housing delivery threshold. In line with the transitional arrangements
for the HDT (set out in paragraph 211 of the Framework), the protection for neighbourhood plans will
apply where housing delivery is at least 25%, as measured by HDT in November 2018. The 45%
threshold will apply from the November 2019 HDT measurement onwards.
68HDT Consequences: Action Plan
The action plan is a document produced by the local planning authority to reflect challenges and identify actions to address
under-delivery against the housing requirement in the area.
It is a locally-owned document created with the purpose to detail the reasons for under-delivery and the steps the authority
intends to take to mitigate and drive up delivery in the area.
Who produces an action plan?
Local planning authorities, in Local planning authorities where Although the Housing Delivery Test does not apply
collaboration with key stakeholders, delivery meets, or exceeds, 95% to National Park Authorities and development
where delivery is below 95% of their of their housing requirement may corporations without all plan making and decision
housing requirement, as set out in wish to produce an action plan as taking functions, if the identified housing need is
an up to date plan, are expected to a matter of good practice or to not met for these areas we would encourage the
produce an action plan. This will identify processes to exceed use of an action plan to help identify causes of
apply for each year of under-delivery. housing targets in order to under-delivery and actions to address these.
demonstrate best practice.
Who can be involved in the creation of the action plan?
The action plan needs to be produced by the local planning authority, involving relevant
stakeholders in the process. Representatives of those with an impact on the rate of What is the time-frame for an
delivery in the area should be included, such as, but not limited to: action plan?
• Small and large developers;
• Land promoters; To ensure the document is of
• Private and public land owners; optimal impact, local planning
• Infrastructure providers (such as utility providers, highways, etc); authorities should publish an
• Upper tier authorities (County Councils) in non-unitary areas; action plan within six months of
• Neighbouring authorities with adjourning or cross-boundary sites. the publication of the Housing
Delivery Test result.
69
The Draft Planning Practice Guidance sets out what local planning authorities
can take into consideration when creating the action plan (pages 22 & 23).Thank you for listening!
Any questions?
70Lunch
Preparing an Action Plan
Process & Tools
72Preparing a Root Cause Analysis
Creating an evidence base
Existing data will be useful:
• 5 year housing land supply data; Annual Monitoring Report; SHLAA
• Any capacity assessments you may have undertaken
• Data/information relating to Section 106’s for large sites (there may
be relevant triggers on numbers of homes etc.)
Questions to reflect on:
• Do you currently categorise this information into typologies etc.?
• Do you have strategic sites that are critical to delivery rates?
• Do you have regular contact/forums/discussions with developers
either collectively or individually?
• Are there very clear and obvious issues affecting delivery in your area
-how do you know this to be the case?
73Preparing an Action Plan
Issues to consider
The NPPG provides clear advice – but some additional practicalities
• A robust root cause analysis will lead to more appropriate actions
being identified
• A meaningful Action Plan (as opposed to tick box exercise) requires
effort - start early as some actions could be controversial and may
need wider buy in
• Test your appetite for proactive measures such as purchasing land,
partnering with RSL’s to deliver, bidding for external funding etc.
• Actions could be site specific (strategic sites) and/or more generic
(encouraging more housebuilders into the area)
• Consider policy responses – allocating more land, smaller sites, better
PPA processes, etc but will take time to be effective
74Preparing an Action Plan
Issues to consider
• Preparing an effective Action Plan is a joint effort – other
Departments; other authorities, external agencies (e.g. Homes
England) and will require preparation and planning
• Encourage Corporate buy-in and sign off
• What is the appropriate route to define, agree, report and
monitor an action plan: Planning Committee; Executive etc.?
• How best to reveal real site specific issues & challenges
• Potential need to keep the published Action Plan relatively high
level with more detailed actions & evidence base in the
background
• Needs to fit well with local context
75Preparing an Action Plan
Process & Tools
76Preparing a Root Cause Analysis Creating an evidence base – data capture template Excel spreadsheet with series of fields to capture key info and related actions 1. Site Analysis 2. Planning Overview and RAG rating 3. Delivery Numbers – Projections and Completions 4. Income – S106, CIL etc 5. Comments 6. Actions – who, what, when, where, how 77
Preparing an Action Plan
Issues to consider – reporting – high level table
Simple table drawn from
more detailed analysis
• Site Description;
Delivery Summary;
Observations; and
Actions
• Strategic Sites
• Other small and
medium sites
• Potential split between
brownfield and
greenfield
• Section for general
actions and
observations to pick up
potential corporate
and political aspects78Preparing an Action Plan
Challenges & Opportunities
Challenges
• Data availability & integrity – understanding the issues
• Resources – how much effort is needed
• Securing appropriate stakeholder engagement
• Corporate support – buy-in to the likely necessary actions
Opportunities
• Positive & responsive service delivery
?
• New thinking – solution focussed
• Engender a collaborative approach
• Corporate profile raising What else
• Securing wider benefits & objectives
79A package of support ?
Part Activity Notes Outputs
1 Kick-off Local 1 day Governance / process /
Begin data + submit for ‘data timetable
capture clean’ Clean dataset
(‘evidence’)
2 Diagnostic Group therapy 1 Ideas to test
Issues / options day
3 Action plan Local 1 day Write up ideas and
make Action Plan
• In three chunks ?
• Is there a better way of doing this ?43 field spreadsheet
Templates / standards / toolkits ?
Part Thing What Why
1 Spreadsheet Standard format Makes it easier to
– site by site and sample data forecast, aggregate
2 Summary – Standard format Publish in standard
pipeline and sample data format
3 Action plan Standard Publish in standard
headings format
• Process chart ?
• Good examples / commentary ?Closing thoughts How do we all feel about the HDT ? Who wants to be a phase 2 pilot ?
We are at local.gov.uk/pas
Questions? Email pas@local.gov.uk Web www.local.gov.uk/pas Phone 020 7664 3000 Twitter @Pas_Team
You can also read
