Upper Eden Community Plan Community Plans and their relationship to - - PDF document

Upper Eden Community Plan

Community Plans and their relationship to LDFs Tom Woof – 7/5/09

The Overriding Planning Problem

• Traditional allocations do not match needs or

demands for housing

• Planning policy does not support rural

communities (The sustainability trap)

• MT Review identified planning as the problem

not the solution

• Housing Need Surveys highlight the problem
• Narrow ideas of sustainability focus on transport

rather than energy, community, economy

1

The Planning Perspective

76 5 4 3 12 11 2 1 5 81 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Penrith Alston Appleby Kirkby Stephen Local Service Centres Other Rural

%

Planning Allocation Housing Needs Assessment

Allocation through Structure Plan 239 / annum

A policy solution to add to other traditional approaches

• Allow small scale development in every

settlement/parish (MT Review Rec.13,14)

• Use Rural Exception Sites Approach

(PPS3, RSS13, MT Review Rec. 14, 15, 16)

• Allocate quantum of housing, not sites, to

each parish. (MT Review Rec. 13, 14)

• Exception sites need not be ‘exceptional’

but should be part of the delivery mechanism for housing in rural areas.

2

UECP Rural Housing Allocation Policy

The Council will permit housing development in line with the Rural Affordable Housing policy within the parishes listed in the table shown below in a managed way using the Housing Trajectories for each Housing Market Assessment Area, the RSS allocation figure and the Guideline Development Rate as a guide. The relevant parish may decide to waive, suspend or reduce its allocation, which would be

• ffered to the nearest LSC or KSC parish by the

LPA.

Rural Housing Allocation Table

* Qualify as LSCs 11% 290 pa minimum per year 32 Delivery of housing as Percentage of RSS requirement Housing Trajectory 10.40% UECP Households as % 24,882 Households in Eden Over ten years 325 2588 Totals 10 1 every year 1.0 1% 104 Winton* 2 1 every five years 0.2 1% 17 Wharton 24 5 every two years 2.4 1% 240 Warcop* 3 1 every three years 0.3 1% 30 Waitby 13 5 every four years 1.3 1% 132 Stainmore 10 1 every year 0.9 1% 87 Soulby 28 3 every year 2.8 1% 283 Ravenstonedale* 5 1 every two years 0.5 1% 51 Nateby* 7 2 every three years 0.7 1% 70 Musgrave 6 2 every three years 0.6 1% 62 Mallerstang 5 1 every two years 0.5 1% 48 Kaber 1 1 every ten years 0.1 1% 7 Helbeck 7 2 every three years 0.7 1% 73 Hartley 7 2 every three years 0.7 1% 65 Crosby Garrett* 7 2 every three years 0.7 1% 67 Brough Sowerby 50 5 5 Max 1.5% 335 Brough (LSC) 140 14 14 Min 1.5% 917 Kirkby Stephen (KSC) Over ten years Guideline development rate Annualised development rate Percentage development rate per annum Existing households Parish

3

How will this look?

• 13 dwellings per year spread over 15 parishes which are

not KSCs or LSCs

• Mostly single dwelling sites
• Exception site housing
• Too small for RSLs
• Appropriate scale for small settlements
• Reuse of traditional buildings, infill sites, follow existing

settlement pattern

• Suitable for self-build
• KSC and LSC housing considered as normal with

threshold and percentage criteria for AH

‘Alleged’ Objections

• Too inflexible – Parishes can vary allocation
• Too difficult to monitor – data is collected anyway
• Against National Policy – PPS3 is flexible
• Against Regional Policy – RSS13 encourages innovation
• GONW would not approve – GONW see it as a sensible way of

managing the release of housing in rural areas

• Policy already exists – if it does it doesn’t work
• Does not address the problems of those who do not have land – not

a reason to disallow this policy

4

Why allocate quantum not sites?

• Too many sites to consider in LDF process
• Opportunities for sites will change over time
• Housing needs in small communities can be very

specific

• Establishing the principle of housing in each parish

provides confidence to the community which informs many life choices:

– Investment decisions – Education decisions – Caring and support decisions – Lifestyle and partner decisions

• The cumulative impact of policy
• LDF should be explicit
• Supports self-build and CLTs

How do we secure affordability?

• S106 agreements

– Occupation by those in housing need, and with a local parish connection (ie qualifying self-builder) – Available for rent at affordable rent – Available for purchase at sub market price

• Based on income level
• Based on construction cost
• Based on discounted market price

– Offered to RSL – Same as CLT requirements

5

UECP Rural self-build affordable housing policy

Self-build housing in rural areas will be permitted as affordable housing as part of meeting the Rural Housing Allocation policy where it can be shown that the dwelling:

– Meets an identified housing need, and – Is to be built by or on behalf of a person with an established local connection, and – The dwelling is to be built to suitable standards for affordable housing and where a s106 agreement secures the property as affordable housing in perpetuity

Why is this a necessary policy?

• Does not rely on RSLs to deliver affordable housing
• Does not rely on Community Land Trusts to deliver

affordable housing

• Captures energy and assets of those able to address

their own situation

• Overcomes problems of landowners releasing land for

exception site affordable housing

• Quick
• Targeted
• No public subsidy
• Part of a suite of policies aimed at delivering affordable

housing in sufficient quantity to meet the need

6

Ways of delivering affordable housing

• Large allocated sites (thresholds and

percentages) - viability issues

• Smaller allocated sites (sliding scale of

thresholds and percentages) – viability issues

• Community Land Trusts (small numbers)
• RSL development (small numbers)
• Self-build exception (potentially significant)

A way forward

• What is the relationship between UECP

and the LDF?

– RSS13 seeks innovation to meet the needs of sparse areas – Area Action Plan – Blueprint for wider area? – Potential positive impact on overall delivery of AH

7