REGIONAL FOCUS
A novel planning policy allowing a council to vary the amount of affordable housing that providers must build as part of new developments has won praise from on high, as Adam Hewitt reports.
S
hropshire Council has adopted an in- novative new planning rule allowing
it to vary the amount of affordable hous- ing provided as part of new developments year-to-year and as local economic condi- tions fluctuate.
The unitary council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the Type and Affordability of Housing will allow a ‘bal- ance’ to be struck each year between the economic viability of new developments and the principle of ensuring the largest possible supply of new affordable housing.
It has named this new policy ‘dynamic vi- ability’, and said it is the first council to include such a provision in its planning policies.
The document provides additional plan- ning guidance on top of the council’s new Core Strategy, governing development principles in the county until 2026.
Councillor Mal Price, Shropshire Council’s Cabinet member for housing and planning, said: “We have listened carefully to what local people told us during the consulta- tion and their comments are reflected in the final version of the document. The SPD recognises the problems many local people face in securing good quality, affordable homes for themselves or their family mem- bers.
“The council’s groundbreaking planning policies take a positive approach, making it easier to build affordable housing, and try- ing to ensure that all new housing develop- ment in Shropshire contributes to meeting local needs.”
The new rule became operational on March 31, following a vote of the council’s Cabinet that the Core Strategy and SPD should be adopted on March 16.
The new policy has not met universal ac- claim. Ludlow Town Council, for example, said the document “seems to weaken the council’s resolve to ensure that develop- ments meet the needs of the local popula- tion in terms of elements that might not be attractive to the developer”.
It added: “Members acknowledge that eco- 32 | public sector executive Mar/Apr 11
nomic considerations are important to en- able the developers to undertake a project, but [dynamic viability] seems to allow many of the social and economic consid- erations that are paramount to the com- munity within which the development will be built to be swept aside in favour of the considerations of the developer.”
Condover Parish Council also had concerns, noting in its response to the draft version of the document: “The Type and Affordability of Housing SPD is supported in principle by the council who are in full support of the references given to parish plans and village design statements.
“However its prime concern is that local affordable housing requirements must be linked to scale and be proportionate to lo- cal need within the parish taking in to ac- count the size and character of the parish/ settlement. This link must be transparent. The draft policy does not in their opinion suitably reinforce this.
“Financial accountability with regard to the ‘affordable fund pool’ is also a significant concern to the council particularly with re- gard to the cuts in local government spend- ing. Insufficient detail was provided as to its allocation.”
A recent report on the council’s Core Strategy from the national Planning Inspectorate, however, fully supported the new approach as “soundly-based, trans- parent and consistent”.
The report, by planning inspector Stephen Pratt, explains in more detail how ‘dynamic viability’ will work, and gives it substantial praise, suggesting other councils may wish to adopt similar ideas.
The report says: “Policy CS11 also confirms that the target for the proportion of afford- able homes to be delivered through open market developments will be established annually by Shropshire Council using the
Shropshire Dynamic Viability Index (DVI). This ensures the target remains viable with a view directly to the likely economic viabil- ity of development in the area, as required by Planning Policy Statement 3.
“In considering the soundness of this ap- proach, it is notable that the 2010/2011 DVI envisages a target of 25% of affordable housing for open market sites based on na- tional house prices in 2009.
“The viability of this target will be reviewed annually, with the involvement of a de- veloper panel, and adjusted if necessary, reflecting changes in established national data sources for land values, construction costs and house prices (i.e. development viability considerations).
“Shropshire Council may be one of the first authorities to establish this in what is its own plan for the county. However, its evidential basis in terms of relating to the changing viability of development over time seems to offer a sounder approach than that of a fixed and immutable target in a Core Strategy policy for a period of the plan.
“The DVI approach is fully supported not only by Shropshire Council and legal opin- ion, but also by all the house-builders who appeared at the hearing sessions, and was not seriously challenged in any of the other representations.
“All the evidence and debate at the hear- ing sessions confirms that this approach is deliverable and justified, particularly through its close reflection of the dynamics of development viability, and is consistent with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 3.
“If the effectiveness of the policy in deliv- ering sufficient affordable homes proves wanting, Shropshire Council could con- sider a partial review of the Core Strategy. However, over time, the DVI can be ex- pected to deliver increasing proportions of affordable housing as they become more viable. It is therefore a soundly-based, transparent and consistent approach.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit
www.shropshire.gov.uk/planning.nsf/
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68