Chapter 4 Sustainable and Affordable Housing
Aim: To meet the housing needs of the whole community in a sustainable way
Strategic Objectives:
-
provide sufficient housing land within the District to meet the Replacement Structure Plan provision and ensure a five year supply is always available;
-
ensure the provision of a mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to meet the needs of the whole community, including the particular needs of elderly persons and people with disabilities;
-
maximise the provision of affordable housing to meet the identified housing needs of the District; and
-
concentrate new housing primarily in Clacton and Harwich where access to jobs, choice of means of transport, shops and other facilities can be maximised and the largest supply of available brownfield land exists.
4.1 Providing new homes contributes to improving people’s lives. However, this provision needs to be achieved in a sustainable manner and recognise the housing needs of all sections of the community; such as people on low incomes seeking an affordable home, those elderly persons requiring sheltered housing or people with disabilities requiring housing with wheelchair access. This is the intention of the policies in this Chapter which reflect one of the key objectives of the Council’s Housing Strategy, namely “to operate the planning system to encourage the provision of good quality housing for all”. The Council’s Housing Strategy complements the Local Plan, addressing housing needs and the supply and management of the District’s housing stock. To obtain a comprehensive picture of housing policy in Tendring District the two documents should be read together.
4.2 The policies and proposals in this Chapter are intended to achieve the aim and strategic objectives described above. Set out below is a criteria-based policy framework for considering all forms of residential development proposals where necessary to supplement or support Structure Plan policies and core policies in this Plan. These range from policies to enable affordable housing, residential density and design policies, to policies addressing various residential development pressures in the countryside. Importantly this Chapter begins by setting out the District Housing Provision Strategy, identifying the scale of housing to be accommodated and allocating specific sites for housing development or mixed use including housing.
4.3 As with all the policies in this Plan they will not be applied in isolation and should be read in conjunction with other relevant policies in the Plan, especially the core policies, together with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan.
District Housing Provision Strategy
4.4 The Spatial Strategy for development generally in the District, including the defining of town and village development limits, is set out in core Policy QL1. The policies in this Chapter, particularly the District Housing Provision, build on that development framework in relation to residential development. They reflect the principles set out in national guidance contained in PPG3 on “Housing” as well as Replacement Structure Plan policies.
4.4a PPG3 was replaced by PPS3, Housing in November 2006, towards the end of the local plan inquiry. Various subsidiary policy advice has followed. Its publication came too late to shape the policies and proposals in this Plan, but much of its guidance is an evolution of PPG3, and does not conflict with or radically depart from it. Where practically possible, this new PPS3 guidance has been incorporated in this Plan. But full implementation of PPS3 policies locally will be made through the first LDF for Tendring.
The Replacement Structure Plan Requirement
4.5 Policy H1 of Replacement Structure Plan provides for a new dwelling stock increase of 6,250 dwellings in the District between 1st April 1996 and 31st March 2011. As at 31 March 2007, the first eleven years of that period has seen a net dwellings stock increase of 4,458 dwellings. Therefore required provision for the remaining four year period 2007 to 2011 is 1,792.
4.6 In relation to existing housing commitments, the 2007 Residential Land Availability Survey identifies 1,612 dwellings outstanding in the District from extant planning permissions at April 2007. In addition it identifies potential for 449 dwellings on sites without planning permission based on such sources as outstanding previous adopted local plan allocations, residential land surveys and lapsed residential new build consents within settlements. Whilst not all of those sites may come forward and be implemented within the Tendring District Local Plan 2007 Period, equally some suitable unidentified windfall sites will emerge.
4.7 Moreover, there are several recent factors that influence or alter the District’s previous housing land position in relation to the Replacement Structure Plan. These are:
-
The intention of the new owners of Bathside Bay, Harwich to develop all of that site for port and associated commercial development and not to seek renewal of the planning permission for mixed development including 1,250 dwellings, 630 dwellings of which the Structure Plan had expected to come forward before 2011 (that planning consent lapsed in April 2002).
-
The need for local planning authorities to take particular account of the revised national guidance on housing in PPG3 and its updates, especially the sequential approach to development and criteria to assess potential housing allocation sites against.
-
The completion of a PPG3 Urban Capacity Study, identifying significant additional dwelling potential in the District’s main urban areas (The Essex Residential Land Availability Survey does not currently cover urban capacity studies.)
-
Identification of the need to amend allowances for future dwelling completions on unidentified “windfall” sites.
-
The need to ensure that the Plan’s provision on allocated sites for residential and mixed development including housing, includes a “flexibility” allowance to counter the likelihood of some large housing sites not being implemented or completed within the Plan Period.
Tendring Urban Capacity Study
4.8 In accordance with PPG3 the District Council commissioned an Urban Capacity Study in March 2001 to assess how much additional housing might be accommodated in the District’s main urban areas. The Study is generally compliant with the guidance set out in the DTLR’s best practice advice “Tapping the Potential”. It largely follows a design-based “template” approach to assessing potential dwelling capacity of sites, based on various scenarios. The study was finalised in March 2002 and subsequently published as a background document to this Plan.
4.9 The Urban Capacity Study identified potential capacity for 4,119 dwellings as its “best fit” estimate of net dwelling capacity within the District’s five main urban areas of Clacton, Harwich, Frinton/ Walton, Brightlingsea and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley. That estimate specifically excluded sites under-construction at the time of the field surveys (June 2001), in addition to sites outside of the Study area, e.g. unimplemented greenfield urban extensions allocated in the previous Adopted Local Plan as well as any additional dwelling capacity within villages. The Urban Capacity Study was a useful starting point for selecting sites for housing allocation but, as a housing potential study only, it could not comprehensively address all necessary factors in that selection decision process.
Sustainability Testing of Large Sites
4.10 Sites specifically allocated in this Plan for housing or mixed-use development including housing comprise suitable sites with an indicative net capacity for 12 or more dwellings. This size threshold matches the current Essex Residential Land Availability Survey monitoring system definition of a “large” site.
4.11 In deciding which sites to allocate on the Proposals Map as suitable for housing development over the Plan Period, the District Council carried out sustainability testing of potential sites. This was achieved through a Housing Comparative Site Assessment Study in accordance with the sequential approach of PPG3 Housing paragraph 30; the sustainability testing comprising detailed assessment of sites against the criteria set out in PPG3 (paragraph 31):
-
availability and suitability
-
location and accessibility
-
infrastructure requirements
-
community development
-
physical and environmental constraints
4.12 This extensive assessment followed on after the Urban Capacity Study and has also now been published as a background document. As a result of that assessment some large retained sites in the Urban Capacity Study have not been taken forward as housing allocations. This has been principally where, in the District Council’s view, sites are unlikely to be brought forward for development within the Plan Period or have been considered more suitable for other uses.
4.13 PPG3 required identification of sites for housing and buildings for conversion and re-use sufficient to meet housing requirements after making an allowance for windfalls. However, large housing site commitments at the Local Plan’s base date of April 2007 have not been specifically identified on the Proposals Map as it would quickly date it. Instead those large housing site commitments that either do not conflict with any of this Plan’s proposals for the development or use of land for housing or have already began construction are listed in Appendix 1. These total some 859 dwellings in Table 1. Proposals for the subsequent renewal of planning permission for any of those sites would be considered against the above PPG3 criteria and other provisions of this Plan, such as affordable housing.
Windfalls
4.14 As is explained in the supporting Housing Technical Paper Update 2005, the Urban Capacity Study identified considerably greater potential capacity on “small” sites (with a net dwellings capacity of 11 dwellings or less), within the main urban areas than previous housing land availability estimates by the local authorities. When combined with housing land availability estimates of small sites within villages and recent trends in dwelling production on small sites, it was clear that the 1998 based Replacement Structure Plan estimate of 700 dwelling completions between 2001 and 2011 (70 per annum) on small sites within the district was unrealistically low. The District Council’s revised estimate of small sites completions for the period of this Plan 2007-2011 is 520; (130 per annum 2007-2011). A separate small windfall allowance of 20 dwellings is also estimated in relation to Rural Exception Schemes.
4.15 The Housing Technical Paper Update also explains why, notwithstanding the comprehensiveness of the Urban Capacity Study, a small residual allowance of 290 was considered appropriate for large unidentified sites likely to emerge on previously developed land within the main urban areas or larger villages within the period 2004-2011. This figure has been updated to 126 for the short remaining period 2007-2011. Relatively speaking this is the most uncertain component of the Plan’s housing provision and will need to be closely monitored as part of the “plan, monitor, manage” approach, but is likely to be established as modest. Similarly, should any of the few large housing site commitments extant at April 2007 that are not in accordance with the proposed land use provisions of this Plan be implemented, this would need to be taken into account of in any review.
Notes:
-
General housing is intended to refer to the provision of any additional residential units not specifically covered by the exceptions of policies HG5 or HG18 which relate to rural exception local need and agricultural need respectively.
-
“Unidentified” or “windfall” sites are those mainly small sites for residential or mixed use development including housing which may emerge through the development control process.
-
“Previously developed land” is as defined in Annex B of PPS3.
Table 1 Housing Land Supply No. of Dwellings
| District Total | Clacton | Harwich | Frinton/ Walton | Bright-lingsea | Lawford, Manningtree, Mistley | Rural Areas | ||
| A | Net Dwelling Stock Change 1996-2007 | 4,458 | 1,773 | 915 | 521 | 268 | 349 | 632 |
| B | Rolled Forward Dwelling Commitments on Large Sites at 1.4. 07 that accord with this Local Plan, as set out in Appendix 1 | 812 | 206 | 468 | 17 | 70 | 21 | 30 |
| C | Other Large Sites Under Construction, also set out in Appendix 1 | 47 | - | - | - | - | 29 | 18 |
| D | Allocated Large Sites, as set out in Appendix 2 | 985 | 533 | 129 | 111 | 112 | 100 | - |
| E | Expected Contribution from Small Sites 2007-2011 on Previously Developed Land | 520 | TDC assessment of 130 dwellings p.a 2007 -2011 based on recent past trends, existing commitments and windfall potential from Tendring Urban Capacity Study and ECC and TDC housing land availability data. (See Housing Technical Paper Update 2005 and Update on Housing Delivery at April 2006). Small sites = less than 12 dwellings net site capacity. | |||||
| F | Large Unidentified Sites Urban Intensification Estimate 2007-2011 | 126 | TDC assessment of 21 dwellings 2008-2009 and 105 dwellings 2010-2011 based on extrapolation of available housing land monitoring data between 2001 and 2007 on large sites not identified in the Tendring Urban Capacity Study that have emerged through the development control process in relation to previously developed land and buildings. (See methodology in Housing Technical Paper Update 2005 which provides the basis for calculating this figure). | |||||
| G | Expected Contribution from Rural Exception Sites | 20 | TDC estimate, all 2008-2011 period | |||||
| H | Total Potential Supply 1996-2011 | 6968 | =A+B+C+D+E+F+G. H is slightly larger than I as it includes a flexibility allowance within D of large sites provision (commitments and allocations) to cover the likelihood of some sites not being completed by 2011. | |||||
| I | Replacement Structure Plan Requirement 1996-2011 | 6,250 | ||||||
Notes:
All dwelling estimates are in net terms, i.e. taking account of any existing dwelling losses through redevelopment or conversion.
The geographical areas comprise the five urban areas plus the remainder of the District (Rural Areas). Clacton includes Holland-on-Sea and Jaywick. Frinton/Walton includes Kirby Cross but excludes Great Holland and Kirby-le-Soken. Harwich includes Dovercourt, Little Oakley and part of Ramsey and Parkeston.
Net dwelling stock change 1996-2007 is from ECC and TDC residential land availability annual monitoring results, including site checks. All years in Table 1 are April to March inclusive. Large sites, whether identified or unidentified, have capacity for 12 or more dwellings, whilst small sites are for 11 dwellings or less.
Rolled forward commitments on large sites, as set out in Appendix 1, include dwellings to be completed on commenced large sites at 1.4.2007.
Flexibility Allowance
4.16 It is considered that the potential dwellings supply of 6,968 dwellings set out in Table 1 is necessary to achieve the Replacement Structure Plan provision of 6,250 dwellings. This is because whilst the District Council considered site developability to discount large sites unlikely to deliver completed dwellings during the Plan Period, the Council added a flexibility allowance of 10% of the large sites provisions to cover the likelihood that some allocated and committed large housing sites would fail to come forward or be completed. That allowance, which originally amounted to some 220 dwellings at 2004, has since been updated to 718 for April 2007, and is accordingly contained within the allocated large sites provision figure in Table 1.
A Sequential and Sustainable Approach
4.17 The distribution of allocated sites in Table 1, as set out in the Appendix 2 schedule, reflects the Spatial Strategy of the Plan, Policy H2 of the Replacement Structure Plan and PPG3 guidance. Policy H2 provides for residential development to be located on sites which can provide good access to employment, shopping, education and other community facilities and which are accessible by a choice of means of transport, especially non-car modes. It provides for a sequential approach to the location of new housing provision, with the largest amount to be located within existing large urban areas in the first instance. If sufficient provision cannot be made within urban areas, then planned peripheral development on the edge of large urban areas should be the next choice. Only if peripheral development of large urban areas cannot be provided, should expansion of other settlements then be considered. It is for local plans to determine whether small-scale housing provision consistent with local community needs is appropriate in small towns and villages where it can take place in accordance with sustainability principles. Sporadic development in the countryside is to be resisted. (The Replacement Structure Plan defines a “large urban area” as having an existing population of over 20,000 people and providing for a concentration of shopping, education and other community facilities as well as a wide choice of transport provision).
4.18 Having applied the search sequence In accordance with Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2, PPG3, sustainability principles and the Plan’s Spatial Strategy, most of the allocated sites are therefore located in the two large urban areas of Clacton and Harwich, with 2001 Census estimated resident populations of 55,900 and 20,800 respectively. However a substantial dwelling supply is also identified on previously developed land in the urban areas of Frinton/Walton, Brightlingsea and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley from a combination of rolled forward existing commitments and proposed allocated sites. When combined with additional windfall urban intensification sites likely to come forward, especially on small sites, this will be consistent with sustainability principles and local community needs in those urban areas.
4.20 The Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2 search sequence, when applied to the circumstances of the District having five main urban areas, including two “large” urban areas, effectively rules out expansion of villages for general housing (see “Urban Extensions” below). In a national context PPG3 states that only a limited amount of housing can be expected in expanded villages. Also, in relation to the sequential approach, that the search for housing land within a local authority’s area should not be extended further than needed to meet the agreed housing requirement. The PPG3 sequential approach is the foundation for Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2.
4.21 However, Policy HG5 of this Plan additionally provides for affordable housing to meet the needs of local people in rural areas in accordance with the exception policy of PPG3 (Annex B). Furthermore, existing housing commitments in villages and future infilling, redevelopment and conversion proposals that come forward through the development control process within village development boundaries should ensure a continuing supply of appropriate small scale residential development consistent with sustainability principles. This is especially taking into account the overall position of much more limited facilities, employment and choice of means of transport available in villages compared to the District’s towns that act as the primary service centres within the District. Most of the housing completed in the District’s villages in recent years has been on appropriate small sites.
4.22 In assessing the suitability of sites in relation to the PPG3 criteria referred to above and the PPG3 sequential approach to development, starting with the reuse of previously developed land in urban areas, the Plan identifies potential for 593 dwellings to be built on suitable large sites allocated in this Plan that comprise previously developed land or buildings for conversion within the five main urban areas. This comprises 177 in Clacton, 93 dwellings in Harwich and a total of 323 dwellings on large brownfield sites in Frinton/Walton, Brightlingsea and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley. This is in addition to the rolled forward large site commitments in Table 1 and listed in Appendix 1.
4.23 Left over undeveloped greenfield sites within urban areas but not in urban greenspace use were also assessed and, as a result, two further allocation sites in Harwich were identified potentially for 36 dwellings.
Urban Extensions
4.24 The Plan’s strategy, reflecting PPG3, is to seek to meet as much of the District housing requirement as possible within settlements on suitable previously developed sites accessible to facilities and at appropriate densities making efficient use of urban land. However, there still remains a need to then release some additional greenfield land. Provision for some 399 dwellings has been identified as urban extension sites as part of the Table 1 allocated large sites, in order to achieve the Replacement Structure Plan housing requirement. This includes some 356 dwellings on greenfield sites.
4.25 In accordance with the search sequence of Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2 this greenfield requirement will be met by planned peripheral development of the “large urban area” of Clacton rather than the expansion of other smaller settlements. Sufficient suitable sites have been identified on the edge of Clacton, such that a search for potential peripheral development sites on the edges of other settlements with less employment, facilities and services has not been necessary. Whilst Harwich is also a “large urban area”, Clacton is a significantly larger settlement with greater general housing market demand and need for affordable housing but lower level of committed supply of housing than Harwich. Accordingly strategically it was not considered appropriate to allocate any of the fairly modest required level of urban extension housing allocations to Harwich, given equally suitable sites in PPG3 terms on the edge of Clacton.
Recycling Target
4.26 Whilst the national target, set in PPG3, was that by 2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings (“brownfield” sites), the proportion achieved in individual local authority areas will clearly vary according to local circumstances. Within the District over 60% was achieved for each of the years ending March 2000 to March 2007. The Plan’s target is to achieve 80% of housing provision between April 2007 and March 2011 on brownfield sites. That target is based upon an assessment of the Table 1 proposed housing land supply, of which the Urban Capacity Study has been a major contributing component. That assessment is set out below as Table 2.
Table 2 Recycling Target on Previously Developed Land
|
Housing Land Components Based on Table 1 Position at April 2007 |
Previously Developed Land (No. of Dwellings) |
Greenfield Sites (No. of Dwellings) |
Total (No. of Dwellings) |
| Rolled Forward Dwelling Commitments on Large Sites |
781 | 31 | 812 |
| Other Large Sites Under Construction | 47 | 0 | 47 |
| Allocated Large Sites: | |||
| Urban | 550 | 36 | 586 |
| Urban Extensions (Clacton) | 43 | 356 | 399 |
| Expected Contribution from Small Sites | 520 | - | 520 |
| Large Unidentified Sites Urban Intensification Estimate | 126 | - | 126 |
| Expected Contribution from Rural Exception Sites | - | 20 | 20 |
Total |
2,067 (82%) |
443 (18%) |
2,510 (100%) |
4.27 From Table 2, allowing for possible slight differential take-up, it is considered that an 80% recycling target on previously developed land is achievable as a minimum over the Plan Period 2007-2011. Appendices 1 and 2 clarify the brownfield status of rolled forward large committed and allocated housing sites respectively to facilitate monitoring as part of the PPG3 “plan, monitor, manage” approach.
Residential Development within Settlement Development Boundaries
4.32 Development boundaries are defined on the relevant Proposals Map Inset around each of the towns and villages listed in Policy QL1 which sets out this Plan’s Development Spatial Strategy. The general concept of settlement development boundaries is fundamental to achieving the Government’s intentions to create more sustainable patterns of development, make more efficient use of urban land, and follow a sequential approach to the location of new housing development.
4.33 However as part of a sustainable approach, clearly all land within settlement development boundaries is not appropriate for residential development as a mix of uses is necessary to meet a community’s needs. Accordingly Policy HG3 not only sets out general criteria for the consideration of residential development proposals within settlement development boundaries, but also makes it clear that residential development of sites protected for non-residential uses will not be permitted expect in the circumstances described in the policy. This applies not just to locations specifically allocated or safeguarded for non-residential uses on the Proposal Map but also where policies in the plan provide blanket policy protection, such as Policy COM3 in relation to existing community facilities and local services.
4.34 As this is primarily a general policy, potential applicants are especially advised to refer to more detailed policies in this Plan dealing with the criteria listed in Policy HG3, such as Policies QL9, QL10 and EN12 on design or the policies which deal with particular forms of residential proposals or locations such as conversions to flats and bedsits, backland residential development, or development in conservation areas.
4.35 The District Council, through various policies in this Plan, supports the Government’s aims at making best use of urban land but that local planning authorities should reject residential proposals of poor design or layout. In the latter respect, residential “infilling”, that is the filling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage, should not appear cramped or otherwise incongruous and out of character in the street scene.
4.35a The Council will plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different type of households that will require housing over the plan period. This includes having regard to the current and future demographic trends and population profiles, as well as the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular families with children, older and disabled people. This is important in this district, as Tendring has a significantly high and increasing proportion of elderly persons. The 2001 Census shows that the district having 29.4% of its population of pensionable age. This is significantly higher than any other district in Essex. This needs to be reflected in housing supply policies as well as associated community support facilities (i.e. health care).
Affordable Housing
4.36 Tendring is an area with a proven high need and demand for decent affordable housing. The term affordable housing describes a range of accommodation of different tenures that is available at below market values, in perpetuity, to meet the needs of those people who cannot otherwise afford to buy or rent their own homes. PPS3 (which replaced PPG3 and Circular 6/98) defines affordable housing as ‘including social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market’. However, the Housing Needs Survey (HNS) has shown that affordable housing locally will almost certainly have to be in the form of social renting because a large number of residents cannot afford low cost market housing. Moreover, the HNS showed that shared ownership might only be able to help a very small fraction of households in need (around 0.9%). For the remainder, social rented housing will be the only option.
4.37 There are a variety of local factors that contribute to this situation including pockets of high deprivation, low average incomes, rising house prices and above average levels of statutory homelessness. The situation is further exacerbated by a poor existing supply of affordable housing with less than 9% of approximately 60,000 dwellings in the district being considered as affordable. The Council as at 1 April 2004 had 3,508 households registered for affordable housing, an increase of 23% over the previous year.
4.38 The seriousness of this situation was further quantified when the Council received the results of the comprehensive HNS, commissioned in 2002. Those results, in conjunction with up-to-date stock condition surveys for both public and private sector housing, have been important drivers in the development of the Council’s housing and planning policies and strategies.
4.39 The Council, in its Corporate Strategy, identifies securing affordable and decent housing for the people of Tendring as one of its key priorities. This is complemented by the Community Strategy developed by the Local Strategic Partnership which includes Sustainable and Affordable Housing as a key theme with a stated aim to ensure that an adequate supply of decent, affordable and sustainable housing is available in the public and private sectors.
4.40 The need to increase the supply of sustainable affordable housing is also recognised regionally within the East of England Regional Housing Strategy, nationally through the Government’s sustainable communities plan “Building for the Future” and through PPS3.
4.41 PPS3 specifically states that the planning system should deliver a mix of housing, both market and affordable. It also emphasises the need for local authorities to carry out surveys and studies to assess whether there is a local need for additional affordable housing and, where such a need is identified, to include a local plan policy seeking affordable housing in suitable housing developments. This would normally involve providing part of a housing site at no cost or at a discounted value which would enable affordable housing to be built specifically for persons in identified housing need.
4.42 The “2002 Housing Needs Survey June 2003 Final Report” provides a District wide housing needs assessment and general basis for seeking affordable housing in Tendring. It identified a level of need for some 1,232 new affordable dwellings per annum (Table 9.1 of the HNS), far higher than can possibly be met by the likely supply of new affordable housing through the proposals in this Plan. In fact the identified annual need for affordable dwellings is considerably greater than the implied annual building rate of 448 dwellings for the period 2007-2011 from all forms of housing supply in the Plan Period to meet the Replacement Structure Plan housing requirement. Thus there is a strong case for affordable housing through the planning system in Tendring, to apply to all suitable housing developments, including windfall sites. In addition, in rural areas, PPS3 allows an exception to be made to permit, on small sites adjoining existing villages, affordable housing to meet local needs where private housing would normally be refused.
Affordable Housing in New Developments
4.43 Where a need for affordable housing is demonstrated, PPS3 provides specific guidance on thresholds that, effectively defines what the Government regard as suitable sites on which affordable housing will be sought. It provides a national indicative minimum site size threshold of 15 dwellings. However, local planning authorities can set lower minimum thresholds, where viable and practicable, including in rural areas. Accordingly, the Council applies a threshold in urban settlements (population of 3,000 or more) of 15 or more dwellings or 0.5ha or more, irrespective of the number of dwellings, in line with the national figure. In rural areas however, a lower threshold is adopted.
4.44 PPS3 flexibly allows local planning authorities to adopt appropriate lower thresholds where viable and practicable based on assessments of local need and the available supply of land for housing. This combined with the HNS findings of a likely and very limited yield of affordable housing in smaller settlements relative to the identified need warrants a lower threshold to be applied to villages. A threshold of 5 or more units therefore applies in settlements of under 3,000 population, a level that the Council considers will deliver a positive contribution towards affordable housing in rural settlements and at which 40% is deliverable having regard to the issue of financial viability.
4.45 On the issue of the Affordable Housing Target (an indicative target of the proportion of affordable homes as a basis for negotiation on suitable housing sites), the HNS suggested a target of 40%. This reflects the very high need for affordable housing (that is considerably greater than in nearby authorities), especially in relation to both the towns of Clacton and Harwich where the demand for affordable housing is high. Some allocations will fall below the site-size threshold and others will be unable to provide the full 40% for the types of reasons described below. Nevertheless, given that the identified need for affordable housing in Tendring District is greatly in excess of what is likely to be provided either on allocated or windfall sites above the site-size threshold, there is a strong case for maximising delivery of affordable housing through a combination of low threshold levels, a 40% Affordable Housing Target, and density.
4.46 Through negotiation at the planning application stage, the Council will take account of any material considerations that may indicate that the affordable housing site target is not appropriate or capable of being met for the proposed development. Such considerations will include whether there is primary financial evidence of exceptional costs demonstrating that the development could not, in viability terms, bear such an affordable housing contribution. There may also be issues of site suitability or reasons related to creating sustainable mixed communities, e.g. where a site already adjoins an existing estate of social rented housing that would make the rigid application of the 40% target inappropriate. Further guidance will be prepared as a Supplementary Planning Document in the course of preparing the forthcoming LDD. This will provide more detailed guidance on affordable housing provision and will support the implementation of the local plan policies.
4.47 Even with the successful maximisation of Policy HG4, there would only be a yield of some 380 affordable housing units from allocated sites above the 15+ dwelling threshold within the Plan Period, (see Appendix 2) an average of only 95 affordable homes per annum over the period 2007-2011. With, among other factors, the demise of local authority social housing grant and the decision of the Housing Corporation to allocate funding according to regional investment themes rather than housing need, there are few Registered Social Landlord (RSL) developments currently in the pipeline locally. Accordingly it is not practicable to judge whether or not any of the allocated sites may become 100% RSL schemes to increase the supply of affordable units.
4.48 Some further affordable homes are expected from some existing commitments, windfall sites, including within villages as a result of the small settlements site threshold, and via Policy HG5 on rural “exception” sites. Whilst overall it is not practicable to accurately predict total affordable housing supply from these sources, it would appear unlikely that more than 400 additional affordable homes will be achieved in the District between 2007-2011, (an average of 100 dwellings per annum) through the affordable housing policies in this Plan. This represents a small fraction of the HNS identified need.
4.49 Policy HG4 emphasises that affordable housing should be provided on site. However, PPS3 makes it clear that, where exceptional circumstances can be robustly demonstrated, off-site provision or a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision may be acceptable as long as the agreed approach contributes to the creation of mixed communities in the local authority area. However, these arrangements should not be used in respect of application sites which are inherently unsuitable for the provision of an element of affordable housing.
4.50 In assessing affordability, for existing households the HNS (Chapter 5) adopted a combined affordability test to assess whether they could afford either a mortgage or rent for a property of suitable size. Only if a household could not afford either were they considered to be unable to afford. The combined affordability measure used was that a household is unable to afford private sector housing if it has a gross household income less than one third its mortgage requirement and renting privately would take up more than 30% of its net household income. The affordability of potential households was assessed using the judgements of respondents; an approach in line with DTLR guidance.
4.51 In order to ensure that affordable housing remains available in perpetuity it will normally be provided by an RSL, such as a housing association. Although PPS3 does not preclude the possibility of providing affordable housing other than through RSLs, experience has shown that this is unlikely to lead to genuinely affordable housing to meet local needs. In negotiating to secure affordable housing through appropriate S.106 planning obligations, the Council’s baseline position is for fully serviced dwellings let through a registered social landlord with no additional public subsidy requirement. The District Council will consider the withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions in order to retain the long-term supply of small low-cost units.
4.52 For information, the list of settlements with Defined Development Boundaries is set out in Policy QL1. Those settlements which have a population of over 3,000 comprise the towns listed in that Policy.
4.53 Clause (i) c) makes it clear that individual planning applications which relate to a potentially larger site are not exempt from the requirement to provide affordable housing merely because the application falls below the policy thresholds. An example would be an application relating to part of an allocated site for housing, where that allocation in total is above the site-size threshold. In addition, where the adjoining land, considered by the Council to form part of a negotiable potentially larger development, is in the control or ownership of the applicant or a related individual or company, planning obligations will be sought to bind that land to the percentage of affordable housing. This is intended to ensure that the proper quota of affordable housing is achieved in the event that residential development proceeds on the land in question.
4.54 Given the extent of identified need, any schemes on suitable sites exceeding the target 40% provision will generally be welcomed, such as a scheme wholly for affordable housing managed by an RSL, unless this would create an excessive concentration and local imbalance of affordable housing with adjacent existing social rented stock. Furthermore, PPS3 does not preclude developers from providing affordable housing on sites which are below the size threshold. Also for clarification, as PPS3 favours mixed and inclusive communities with different types of housing and tenure, it is intended that the policy should apply to open market housing schemes which are wholly to meet special housing needs such as sheltered housing for older people, people with disabilities or other vulnerable people who require supported housing (see also paras 4.64 - 4.66 on key worker housing).
Affordable Village Housing on “Exception” Sites
4.55 Policy HG5 provides a policy framework for considering “affordable” rural housing schemes under what is known as the rural “exceptions” scheme in accordance with Annex B of PPG3 Housing. Such schemes, on suitable small sites abutting the development boundaries of villages, are intended to meet the housing needs, both now and in the long-term, of local people unable to afford accommodation in the villages where they live or where they have close local family or employment ties. The exceptional release of such sites, where housing would not normally be permitted, is only to meet the special local housing need described in the policy.
4.56 Policy HG5 identifies the broad categories of people in housing need that the District Planning Authority considers should form the client groups for whom special housing provision may exceptionally be permitted. It also defines the area within which housing needs will be considered “local”. The “2002 Housing Needs Survey June 2003 Final Report” provides a District wide housing needs assessment and general basis for seeking affordable housing in Tendring. That is on the basis that the level of need shown, for some 1,232 new affordable dwellings per annum (Table 9.1 of the HNS) is far higher than can possibly be met by the likely supply of new affordable housing. Thus, although rural “exceptions” policy is not designed to provide mainstream housing, the underlying justification for affordable housing on exceptions sites is the overall housing needs position. This provides the overall justification for such schemes, while local parish surveys indicate whether there is a perceived local need for such housing. The justification for a valid rural exceptions scheme depends on three things: the overall housing need, the locally perceived need, and the Council’s assessment, in co-ordination with other key stakeholders, of the sustainability of new affordable housing in the particular location.
4.57 In order to meet the local housing needs of a parish, as assessed following a household questionnaire survey, Policy HG5 allows for schemes to come forward within and adjoining those existing small rural communities defined in the Government’s Statutory Instrument 1997 No.623 and listed in Appendix 2A to this Plan. However, the District Planning Authority also accepts that in a small number of cases, especially involving a parish of modest population size, the identified local need of a single parish may be too small to render a scheme viable. Accordingly, in such circumstances the policy framework flexibly provides the opportunity for small groups of contiguous parishes to co-operate to achieve a sustainable joint scheme. In all cases however, it will be important to ensure that the chosen village location is appropriate in relation to the scheme proposed. For rural settlements with defined development boundaries the site should abut the settlement development boundary. In those few cases where smaller rural settlements without development boundaries are listed in Appendix 2A, if a sufficient need is identified an appropriate site should abut the main housing settlement to maximise opportunities for integration with the local community.
4.58 For larger settlements which would not qualify for “rural exception housing” and for those villages not covered by S.I. 1997 No.623 (being in unparished areas), Policy HG4 provides an appropriate alternative for delivering affordable housing.
4.59 Policy HG5 below provides details of the policy criteria and arrangements, all of which have to be met, if a planning application for affordable village housing is to be shown to be sufficiently special to warrant an exception being made to normal planning policy. It is most important that applicants appreciate that the specified policy criteria and arrangements form a total package required by the District Planning Authority in all cases. Any relaxation of the policy on one or more criteria would significantly reduce its credibility and undermine its strength on appeal. Only applicants intending to provide genuinely affordable housing to meet proven local needs over the long term should therefore contemplate putting forward a proposal.
4.60 In considering planning applications for affordable local needs housing, it will be essential for the District Planning Authority to be provided with sufficient evidence additional to the District housing needs survey, to show that a proposed scheme will meet a demonstrated local need. Such evidence should clearly define the local client group which would genuinely require dwellings in the scheme together with their specific housing requirements, what they can afford in housing costs, and how they meet the local need criteria.
4.61 In addition information detailing the number, size and tenure of dwellings proposed (e.g. rental units or shared ownership) will be required. Otherwise the exceptional need for a proposal, in particular the key issue of whether a scheme will specifically meet or contribute to the identified local need, cannot be established. Accordingly in such circumstances a detailed planning application will normally be needed.
4.62 It is essential, in demonstrating the exceptional nature of a scheme to justify the land release, that the proposed housing realistically meets or contributes to the identified local need and will be exclusively reserved and managed in perpetuity as affordable housing for the long-term benefit of the local community. Therefore, secure arrangements which will achieve these long-term safeguards need to be in place before planning permission is granted and when the rental values or selling prices are accurately predicted. These would normally take the form of voluntary planning obligations and covenants offered by the agency involved in managing the scheme and agreed by the landowner, the developer and the District Planning Authority. Management of the scheme by a housing association, charitable trust or similar organisation will generally offer the assurances that are needed on long-term management and control of occupation. Restricting the occupation of property to people falling within the identified categories of local need should help to ensure that units remain affordable.
4.63 Rural exception schemes, either at the instigation or supported by a parish council, have a far greater chance of being successful and being integrated into a village. This is important given that schemes are specifically intended to benefit the local rural community over the long term by meeting particular local housing needs both currently and into the future. It is hoped that arrangements would normally include the developer consulting the Parish Council on the selection of tenants including in relation to any subsequent vacancy of dwellings in the scheme. Key enabling contacts, such as the Rural Housing Trust, can helpfully aid Parish Councils with local housing needs surveys and subsequently progressing schemes. The District Council also has a pro-active commitment to enabling additional rural exception housing schemes including supporting appropriate bids to the Housing Corporation for Social Housing Grant.
Key Worker Housing
4.64 PPG3 requires that assessments should be made of, among other groups, key workers (para 13). The 2002 HNS carried out such an evaluation. It established (para 14.8) that, depending on the precise definition, between 3,000 and 6,000 households in Tendring could be considered to contain key workers. Key workers can be considered to comprise those employed in the public sector; employees in a frontline role delivering an essential public service; or those in a sector where there are serious recruitment and retention problems. The HNS also established that such key worker households did not appear to suffer undue housing problems in Tendring. Indeed the evidence suggests that Tendring, being cheaper than many surrounding areas, provides homes for key workers who work in other districts. There is therefore at present no general justification for a key worker policy.
4.65 However there is a strong temptation, illustrated nationally in many planning appeals, for landowners/ developers to promote key worker housing as an alternative to affordable housing. The reason for this is that land values/profits can be much higher in a key worker housing scheme as compared with an affordable housing one. It is therefore important that key worker housing be kept separate from affordable housing in the sense of Policy HG4. There is no difficulty in distinguishing the two groups: those in ODPM defined housing need are in unsuitable housing and in general can afford only social rented housing. The 2002 HNS demonstrates (Table 12.4) that hardly any of those in housing need can afford even shared ownership housing: 99% of them can only afford social rented housing. On the other hand the main solution for those who require “intermediate” housing, as those in key worker need are sometimes described, is shared ownership housing (where the applicant buys part and rents part of the equity of the dwelling, normally from a Registered Social Landlord).
4.66 It is therefore clear that any proposal seeking provision of key worker housing should not be viewed as an alternative to affordable housing sought under Policy HG4.
Dwelling Size and Type
4.67 The Council in responding to the demand for affordable housing is also aware of the need to balance its housing market across all tenures so as to ensure the right mix of new homes in the right place and at the right time. To assist in achieving a balanced housing market, an additional body of work was commissioned as part of the Housing Needs Survey to enable the balance of affordable housing to be monitored on a regular basis over the Plan Period. The 2003 Housing Needs Survey showed (Table 10.3) that nearly all the locally generated demand for new market housing is for small units: 1 or 2 beds (mainly the former). This reflects PPS3 that notes the projected increase in the number of new households over the longer term, especially one-person households.
4.68 Government advice in PPS3 is that housing sites should include a mix of house types and sizes to meet the needs of the local community. Such an approach is also aimed at achieving more balanced communities, avoiding social polarisation and contributing to the creation of more attractive residential environments by enabling a greater diversity of building forms and scales.
4.69 For securing an appropriate mix of dwelling size and type, a threshold of 10 dwellings or 0.3 hectare site area has been specified in this Plan in Policy HG6. Below this level it may not be practical in all circumstances to provide such a mix particularly as the surrounding character, and the need to conform to it, may determine the appropriate dwelling size and type. Where it is considered this is not an issue, a mix of dwelling size and type will be sought on these smaller sites. The Policy is intended to apply to both new development and conversions, reflecting Government guidance. Sheltered or supported housing may by necessity contain a preponderance of one dwelling type.
Residential Densities
4.72 Encouraging housing development at densities that make more efficient use of land, typically between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net, or greater at locations with good public transport accessibility, is now an important facet in the Government’s pursuit of more sustainable patterns of development nationally (PPG3 Housing). Firstly, this should reduce development pressures on the countryside through the creation of greater housing capacity on brownfield sites in urban areas, aiming for the national target of at least 60% of new capacity on brownfield land. Secondly, by seeking greater intensity of development at locations with good accessibility to public transport, shops, services and employment, such development is more likely to help to create an urban population sufficient to sustain local services and public transport whilst reducing the need for car- borne travel.
4.73 The Council would generally support this range of density for new housing development or conversion to residential use for those reasons. However, appropriate density for a site will depend on a number of factors, as set out in Policy HG7 below, and the Council recognises that there needs to be some degree of flexibility:
-
on large sites there could be a greater range of densities across a site to suit community needs, but where the overall average net site density would be at least 30 dwellings per hectare.
-
where, exceptionally, it is more appropriate for the site to be developed at a lower density. This may be, for example, due to the need to conserve landscape features, a Listed Building in its setting, or other on-site features of interest, or an otherwise appropriate backland site, or to avoid development of an infill site appearing out of character with its surroundings, particularly in rural areas, conservation areas, or residential areas of arcadian character.
4.74 However, in general, developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net will not be permitted and for many urban sites in the District a minimum density in the range of 30 to 40 dwellings per hectare net will be appropriate. Densities above 40 dwellings per hectare will generally be sought at sites within district and local centres and close to main public transport nodes providing good public transport accessibility, whilst densities of 50 dwellings per hectare or more will generally be appropriate within town centres or immediately adjoining railway stations within the main urban areas. High density solutions may also be appropriate for housing to meet special local needs such as small unit sheltered accommodation for elderly or disabled people, although accessibility remains an issue with such developments.
4.75 High density developments are, however, clearly not appropriate in some locations. In particular, apart from issues of compatibility with local surroundings, high density residential development in locations that do not enjoy good accessibility to shops, services and jobs by non-car modes would be likely to intensify private car usage whilst contributing to social exclusion for those without access to private vehicle transport.
4.76 In the light of Policy HG7 below, and PPG3 guidance, there will be no automatic presumption in favour of the renewal of previous residential planning permissions at the same density.
*Net site density is as described in PPS3 Housing Annex B.
Design and Layout of New Housing Development
4.77 The layout and design of new housing development is an essential element of creating successful communities. It serves to ensure that residents have good pedestrian access to local services, such as shops, education establishments, places to work and alternatives to the motor car as a means of local transport. Carefully considered design and layout can also help to minimise the opportunities for crime by creating defensible space. PPS1 emphasises the importance of design as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
4.83 To help promote good, high quality design in new housing the 2005 Essex Design Guide has been adopted as Council policy and provides the starting point for any developer considering a new housing scheme.
4.84 Policy EN12 of this Plan requires a design statement to be submitted for residential proposals involving sites greater than 0.3ha or where 10 or more dwellings are planned. The Design Statement will provide a rationale demonstrating how the various design and layout problems have been dealt with in the proposed scheme. More detail of what is required from a design statement is included in the paragraphs supporting Policy EN12. For some sites, the Council has prepared development briefs and these will be further material considerations when determining planning applications on those sites.
Housing Suitable for People with Disabilities
4.88 Ease of physical access into and around buildings, streets and other built features in town and country is a major element in the lives of people who have temporary or permanent mobility impairment. It is a core policy (QL10) of this Plan that all development should take into account the needs of elderly persons and people with disabilities. The importance of access to public buildings has been a statutory requirement on Local Planning Authorities since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons’ Act (1970). The Town and Country Planning Act (1990) now requires local planning authorities to draw to applicants’ attention that provision should be made for disabled persons using certain categories of development i.e. buildings used regularly by members of the public.
4.89 In 1999 further statutory controls were introduced in the Building Regulations (Part M), extending accessibility requirements to dwellings, so that street entrances into houses and their internal layouts are now covered by the Building Regulations.
Private Amenity Space
4.90 Different dwelling sizes and types provide accommodation for individuals and families with a wide range of expectations and need for private amenity space. “Private amenity space” comprises a private outdoor sitting area not overlooked by adjacent or opposite living rooms or outdoor sitting areas. It will therefore not necessarily always amount to the entire rear garden. Apart from its private recreation function, private amenity space is also important in achieving well laid out development.
4.91 Government guidance in PPG3 seeks to make the most efficient use of land, especially in locations with good access to public transport, employment, and other services through higher density housing schemes. This review of the Local Plan has provided an opportunity to re-examine the implications of these new standards for private amenity open space standards.
4.92 The standards set out in Policy HG9 can be applied to layouts that deliver a good quality built environment and efficient use of land. However, as with all development plan policies, circumstances may arise that warrant setting aside specific standards and these will be considered on a case by case basis. In assessing applications for new dwellings, the Council will consider whether permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings should be withdrawn in order to control future development in the interest of retaining adequate private amenity space and preventing adverse impact on neighbours. For example, where a dwelling with a standard sized private amenity space is subsequently extended, by, for example, a conservatory, a shortfall would then occur. In these circumstances, the policy below is not prescriptive about what will be an absolute minimum garden size. However, other factors such as restricting the impact on neighbours, and size and scale of the extension relative to the original dwelling, will impose their own limitations on extension size on a case by case basis.
4.93 A particularly problematic area that occasionally occurs is where an existing dwelling with an already very small rear garden is proposed to be extended and further reduce the private outdoor amenity space. The Council is keen not to interfere in decisions of personal choice as to how a rear amenity space is used - whether for additional accommodation or as outdoor amenity. However, equally, it has a duty to ensure a wide variety of good quality housing is available. In some isolated cases, extended dwellings may result in very small gardens. Although future occupiers may consider such an arrangement an unsatisfactory living environment, these cases are very limited in number and thus substantial numbers of alternatives will remain. Some people may specifically choose a dwelling because it has a small garden. Also, these situations often arise where occupiers exert permitted development rights. Therefore, the Council does not propose to include an absolute minimum garden size where extensions are proposed to dwellings erected prior to, or not in accordance with, these standards. As already indicated, other factors such as impact on neighbours, or size and scale, will provide effective limitations to prevent harm being otherwise caused.
4.94 It is important that private amenity space is a useable space appropriate to the size of the dwelling, its surroundings and adequately screened to ensure privacy. Side gardens can contribute to the private amenity space calculation if extending at least 3 metres from the dwelling and screened by an eye-level fence or other barrier. The Essex Design Guide for Residential and Mixed Use Areas (1997) provides additional guidance on private sitting out areas and garden sizes and has been adopted by the Council as SPG.