Improving Access to Housing
This proposal covers both housing numbers and housing type and therefore 2 important attributes of any new Local Plan. The housing number or target largely dictates everything else so it needs to be appropriate and not excessive. As we saw with the last (withdrawn) iteration of the Local Plan, an unjustifiably high housing target led directly to significant Green Belt loss, housing in the wrong places, and severe impacts on existing communities.
We suggest that the appropriate answer to the first question about whether allocating more land for housing will help improve access to housing is NO. This a somewhat leading question and the situation is far more complex than just allocating land. Our argument remains that the starting point should be an appropriate number of houses for local need, based on clear evidence of that need and where it is most required, as well as the sort of houses required. Once that is well defined then land to meet that need, and no more, should be sought in the right places. The next Local Plan needs to move away from an unjustifiable high number and finding any land or any way to simply deliver the number. That was the main failing of the last withdrawn Local Plan. The same mistake should not be made again.
The second question asks for a number of things to consider and put in order of importance when determining how many houses are needed. Again we feel this is far too simple an approach and there is nothing to quantify that need to allow a more informed choice to be made. That said, we suggest the following order;
The next question asks if there are other things that we should consider when determining housing numbers. We suggest that comment is made about the requirement for good evidence to show the true local housing need in terms of numbers, where those houses are most needed, and the type and tenure of that housing, and that local constraints such as the Green Belt are used to inform the number. There needs to be a more scientific approach taken rather than accepting an unjustifiably high housing projection based on an out of date Government algorithm with spurious and largely discredited uplifts to address affordability. The council, as councilors have intimated, should use good data based on the 2021 Census to determine an appropriate housing target, do away with the Government's arbitrary 'affordability' uplift that does nothing to address affordability and in need use the Green Belt as a constraint. All of this is perfectly valid and allowed in the planning system. If done boldly and creatively it will still deliver enough houses to meet the true need and cater for some inward migration, say, to take up any new jobs created locally through the Local Plan.
The next question requires types of housing to be put into order of importance. We suggest;
We further suggest that social rented (council housing) is put in the 'Other' box. If there is a housing crisis in this country then its a severe shortage of council houses. Scant few are being built anywhere. We must see the council being clear it its aims to delivery council accommodation in the mew Local Plan. It cannot rely on housing being delivered by private enterprise to meet that need, including so called 'affordable housing'. See comments on this below.
In terms of explaining the reasons for making the above response there are many things that can be said but we feel it is important to state that simply building more houses does not make housing cheaper, or more affordable, and it would be wrong to think that a Local Plan could have such an effect on house pricing. It is disappointing that the council's narrative in his section gives that impression.
However, the Local Plan should ensure that a good proportion of all housing is delivered as 'affordable homes' defined in the planning system as reduced rent, shared ownership or discounted purchase. We further believe that the bulk of these properties should be for shared ownership or discounted purchase to allow young local people and families onto the housing ladder and way form long term renting. But some rental property is no doubt also required.
With regard to the following questions about the needs of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople we suggest the following order simply to adhere to our overall position that no development should take place in the Green Belt and that any currently used or developed land, which is technically brownfield or pre-developed greenfield, should be used first. That said, there is no easy or right answer to this somewhat emotive question.
We suggest that the appropriate answer to the first question about whether allocating more land for housing will help improve access to housing is NO. This a somewhat leading question and the situation is far more complex than just allocating land. Our argument remains that the starting point should be an appropriate number of houses for local need, based on clear evidence of that need and where it is most required, as well as the sort of houses required. Once that is well defined then land to meet that need, and no more, should be sought in the right places. The next Local Plan needs to move away from an unjustifiable high number and finding any land or any way to simply deliver the number. That was the main failing of the last withdrawn Local Plan. The same mistake should not be made again.
The second question asks for a number of things to consider and put in order of importance when determining how many houses are needed. Again we feel this is far too simple an approach and there is nothing to quantify that need to allow a more informed choice to be made. That said, we suggest the following order;
- Home ownership and affordability
- Rental costs and affordability
- Changes in population characteristics
- The need to support economic growth
- Adequacy of past housing delivery
- Population growth
The next question asks if there are other things that we should consider when determining housing numbers. We suggest that comment is made about the requirement for good evidence to show the true local housing need in terms of numbers, where those houses are most needed, and the type and tenure of that housing, and that local constraints such as the Green Belt are used to inform the number. There needs to be a more scientific approach taken rather than accepting an unjustifiably high housing projection based on an out of date Government algorithm with spurious and largely discredited uplifts to address affordability. The council, as councilors have intimated, should use good data based on the 2021 Census to determine an appropriate housing target, do away with the Government's arbitrary 'affordability' uplift that does nothing to address affordability and in need use the Green Belt as a constraint. All of this is perfectly valid and allowed in the planning system. If done boldly and creatively it will still deliver enough houses to meet the true need and cater for some inward migration, say, to take up any new jobs created locally through the Local Plan.
The next question requires types of housing to be put into order of importance. We suggest;
- Affordable housing
- Family housing
- Housing for older people and people with disabilities
- Rented accommodation.
- Student accommodation
- Self builds
- Other
We further suggest that social rented (council housing) is put in the 'Other' box. If there is a housing crisis in this country then its a severe shortage of council houses. Scant few are being built anywhere. We must see the council being clear it its aims to delivery council accommodation in the mew Local Plan. It cannot rely on housing being delivered by private enterprise to meet that need, including so called 'affordable housing'. See comments on this below.
In terms of explaining the reasons for making the above response there are many things that can be said but we feel it is important to state that simply building more houses does not make housing cheaper, or more affordable, and it would be wrong to think that a Local Plan could have such an effect on house pricing. It is disappointing that the council's narrative in his section gives that impression.
However, the Local Plan should ensure that a good proportion of all housing is delivered as 'affordable homes' defined in the planning system as reduced rent, shared ownership or discounted purchase. We further believe that the bulk of these properties should be for shared ownership or discounted purchase to allow young local people and families onto the housing ladder and way form long term renting. But some rental property is no doubt also required.
With regard to the following questions about the needs of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople we suggest the following order simply to adhere to our overall position that no development should take place in the Green Belt and that any currently used or developed land, which is technically brownfield or pre-developed greenfield, should be used first. That said, there is no easy or right answer to this somewhat emotive question.
- Expand existing sites.
- Grant planning permissions to existing unauthorised sites.
- Allocate new sites (using non-Green Belt locations)
- Delivered as part of future housing and employment allocations i.e. develop mixed use sites
- Allocate new sites (using Green Belt locations)
- Other
