Agenda item

At the request of the Chairman the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration will provide an update on the position of the Council over 5 year housing land supply and any implications upon it of the recent deferment of Local Plan Review examination sessions. This report is an update to that provided in May 2016.

At the request of the Chairman the Committee had before it and NOTED a report * from the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing an update on the position of the Council over the 5 year housing land supply and any implications upon it of the recent deferment of Local Plan Review examination sessions.

The officer outlined the contents of the report, explaining that in respect of housing supply, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there had been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities had to increase the buffer to 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

The NPPF also advised that where a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites could not be demonstrated, policies on housing supply should not be considered up to date.

On 11^th April 2016, an appeal had been allowed for outline planning permission for 60 houses on approximately 3.5 hectares of agricultural land outside the defined settlement boundary of Uffculme which was not allocated for development. The main issue in determination of the appeal was whether, having regard to the development plan, the NPPF, the housing land supply of the Council and the scale and location of the development, the appeal scheme would constitute a sustainable form of development.

The officer explained that demonstrating supply was not just about housing numbers. Deliverability was key. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available, be a suitable location for development, be achievable (i.e. with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within five years) and in particular that development was viable. Delivery was also important in the context of the record of delivering houses in years prior to the point of appeal.One of the ways that a local planning authority could seek to maintain a supply of deliverable sites was through granting planning permission.  The number of planning permissionsin the District was currently standing at its highest figure since 2002/03 and 1665 dwellings received planning permission (Monitoring Report Summary to 31^st March 2016). Whilst strategic sites had been slower to come forward than expected, this had been offset by the higher number of planning permissions granted overall. Despite this, average annual housing completions had not met the policy COR3 target of 390 or the FOAN target of 370. This lower rate of housing completion was to a large extent a result of factors outside the control of the Council such as the economy, the local housing market, the availability of development funding and commercial decision by housebuilders over permission implementation and build out rates. The Inspector acknowledged a recent dip in completions was a likely result of economic recession and reflected the position nationally together with efforts to bring forward the urban extensions. Nevertheless, his judgement was still informed by past delivery rates.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment reviewed the whole housing market area within which Mid Devon was located and informed housing policies and strategies by identifying the future quantity of housing needed including breakdown by type, tenure and size. This was considered up to date and was accepted by the Inspector as being the best available evidence at the appeal and the basis upon which to assess housing need. It proposed a higher housing figure from 2013 onwards of 370 dwellings per annum compared with the Core Strategy of 290 dwellings per annum from 2016 onwards. In setting this higher requirement, an equivalent supply was needed. The deliverable supply fell short of this.

The position on these differed between the Council and the applicant at the Uffculme appeal with the latter taking a more pessimistic stance on delivery and using a housing requirement calculation that resulted in more housing being needed within the early years of the current plan period. Differences between a Council and developer over such matters was common and resulted in each party going into the appeal with a different understanding of land supply available.

The Government was currently consulting on a standard method for the calculation of a local authority’s housing need, with the intention that a simpler, quicker and more transparent standard approach to assessing local housing need was applied.

The authority had now issued an update to its housing land availability in early October. At the time of writing the report, 5 year housing land supply calculations (including a 20% buffer) indicated that the Council was still currently not able to meet this requirement. Housing land supply was currently considered to be 4.15 years (as compared with the Inspector’s estimate of between 4 -4.5 years in April 2016).

The officer outlined appendix 1 which detailed major scale housing applications submitted since 2016 particularly in unplanned locations.  She confirmed that there did seem to be ‘hotspots’ of such applications around Willand, Uffculme, Copplestone and Crediton.

Until the Council could demonstrate a 5 year land supply (with 20% buffer) there would be vulnerability to housing applications coming forward on sites that had not been planned for development. Appeal losses could result in unbalanced distribution of piecemeal development, development in areas considered unsuitable by the Council, a lower level of funding for affordable housing, community facilities and service infrastructure and additional costs to be borne by the Council. Decision making was also taken out of local control. Houses could now legitimately be put forward by developers on sites not planned for until supply figures were next tested and a new Local Plan was adopted. However Inspector’s would continue to assess the sustainability of housing sites coming forward and the extent to which any material harm would result. It was therefore not a free for all on any site.

The officer confirmed the timing of the Local Plan, explaining that having taken legal advice and a review of statements of participants who would take part in the hearings a deferment had been requested to allow an independent review of the major modifications stage sustainability appraisal. This had now been commissioned. The officer was of the view that a delay in the order of 6 months could be expected. This would allow for the assessment to be carried out and reported upon, for a further period of consultation and for the Inspector to reconvene hearing dates having given the required notice period to participants. Efforts would be made to reduce the period of delay as far as possible where there was local control. However it was the Plan Inspector who set dates for examination hearings. The Council can expect to continue to receive housing applications on non-allocated sites during this period.

Mitigating measures that could be taken included advancingthe Local Plan Review to adoption, bringingforward further sitesfor housing development, bringing forward suitable contingency sites, continuing efforts todeliver allocated or appropriate windfall sites, especially the urbanextensions at Tivertonand NWCullompton, entering into pre-application discussions on land not planned for housing to date.

The officer provided the following answers to questions asked during public question time.

The officer apologised that the numbering at section 4 of the report was incorrect but confirmed that there was nothing missing.

With regard to the application for 29 houses that were not listed within the appendix the officer confirmed that this site was an allocation and those listed in the report were for major applications for unplanned sites or sites that had been planned for with larger numbers. The site referred to is an allocated site for affordable housing.

With regard to the delay with the plan and assurances that had been made the officer commented that there had been an emerging situation since those decisions were taken, some over a year ago.

When an application was received for an unplanned site it was looked at on its merits and there was no purposeful approach to ‘sacrifice settlements’.  Because there was no up to date housing policy, tests from the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 14) had to be applied which were to grant planning permission unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against framework policies as a whole (assessing negative impacts against positive benefits). There was no free for all and that had been seen with the refusal at appeal of 60 houses at Copplestone, with the Inspector undertaking a similar balance and test.

With regard to the recent appeal and how it had been run the officer informed the Committee that it had been an informal hearing and it was unusual for there to be legal representation at these. The case was handled by a senior officer who was very experienced and knew the site well, accompanied by an officer from Devon County Highways.  It was common practice for an officer’s report to be submitted as the statement of case given the detailed contents The Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration considered this to be a sufficient resource and would not expect to attend all such meetings. She also commented that the role of the Authority was to defend the reasons for refusal.  Ward Members and the Parish Council could raise areas of concern outside of those reasons.

Discussion took place regarding:

·       The number of sites allocated and the number of houses being built;

·       The timeline going forward and concerns for unallocated sites in the meantime;

·       Concerns that developers would be encouraged to put additional housing on inappropriate sites to increase numbers;

·       Hot spots of application activity within the District;

·       Whether or not requesting to remove Junction 27 and associated housing from the plan would speed up the process and the lack of credibility this could create;

·       The Inspector had considered Junction 27 to be a self-contained package that he wanted to look at separately before looking at the plan in its entirety;

·       The Inspector could recommend minor or major modifications, he would also consider whether Junction 27 proposals formed part of the plan to be adopted;

·       The need to encourage developers to build houses and investigate reasons why they might not be doing so.

The Chairman thanked the officer for her report.

Note: - i)       Report * previously circulated and attached to Minutes.

ii)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she was Chair of the Planning Committee.