TDLP PART 1 - ANNEX 8

Housing Needs Surveys (Forecasts of Affordable Housing Need to 2011)

Notes:

1. Policy HSC2(4) of the Plan provides that housing development shall reflect affordable housing need, in accord with the District Housing Needs Survey. Government guidance requires that planning authorities should maintain up to date evidence of identified need. The 2004 HNS provides more up to date evidence of identified need than the 1999 /2000 survey. The figure records the findings from both (see also Note 35).

2. Parish based housing needs survey data from the 1999 /2000 survey was related to the settlement hierarchy of Strategic Centres and Villages (Schedules A and B of the Plan). The parish figures that were derived from the HNS were recalculated as reflected in the Consultation Draft of SPG1 Revised, in order to reflect the appeal proceedings and decision reference APP/W1145/A/02/1081088. That scheme secured only a 20% affordable share. The recalculated figures are updated and the SPG conclusions are superseded (see Note 5).

3. On average, each public sector house becomes available for le-let about every 13 years: the re-let rate used is 7.19% based on the recent past rates reported to the Government by the District Council. For forecasting purposes, historic rates do not take account of the additions arising from new affordable housing provision or of the impact of Right-to-Buy or of Right-to-Acquire for RSL tenants. Over the plan period, it is considered likely that the existing stock of public sector housing will continue to become available at a rate consistent with the recent past rates, balancing out the additions of stock under the plan provisions and the losses of stock under the rights to buy and acquire provisions. Accordingly, the mean annual re-lets rate is calculated as an average of the rates reported in the District Council's HIP returns for 1997 /1998 – 2000 /2001. Therefore, the likely re-lets calculation is as follows:

Stock x Mean Annual Re-lets Rate % x 10 years

The stock base date is September 2001. It excludes sheltered housing scheme managers' tied accommodation, council homeless units, and shared ownership properties (where the rate of re-sale /re-let is very low). It includes sheltered and supported accommodation and 18 predictable additions that arise from identified schemes approved for Housing Corporation funding [Burrough Farm, Northam – 8 houses; Underlane, Holsworthy – 10 houses]. The calculation was explained in the draft supplementary guidance SPG1 (Revised) Consultation Draft on Affordable and Local Needs Housing.

4. The net requirement is the total requirement less the likely re-lets, less the affordable housing commitments stated in Figure 7 of the Plan.

5. There is an assumption in the Plan that, provided the need is demonstrated, affordable housing contributions will be sought on all potentially contributing substantive sites. The evidence demonstrates that affordable shares are required at this level in order to deliver the amount of affordable provision that the community needs within the plan period. Actual delivery at the required levels may not be practicable for a number of reasons, including viability and the desire to sustain balanced communities. The updated position at 2004 is presented in Figure 7 of the Plan, which contains the site yield data for substantive sites. Accordingly, the calculation of requirement is updated as follows:

Net Requirement / Estimated Site Yield x 100 %

It is presented as a predictive share in a range that reflects the estimated yield range from uncommitted substantial allocations. The figures in SPG1 (Revised) Consultation Draft will be updated on this basis.

6. In the absence of any viability assessment and on the basis of the 1999 /2000 HNS, the area shares were capped at 30% maximum. On the basis of the 2004 HNS, that now is increased across the district to 40%, subject to viability (see Notes 1 and 35). Area shares derived from the 1999 /2000 HNS were proposed in the consultation draft of SPG1 Revised. They were not agreed targets. The area shares in the draft SPG are superseded and may be updated. The area shares in this annex are updated to 2004 only. The affordable share will be updated periodically in the light of the targets expressed in the Affordable Housing SPD, based on the latest available HNS assessment. The shares and any targets relate to Policy HSC2(4). If using the mortgage multiplier of 2.5 times would render a scheme unviable at 40%, the area share may be acceptable as an interim area target. Such shares may be treated as interim targets pending the SPD, which will incorporate the 2004 HNS findings. The definition of affordable may be varied in the SPD. Any proposed targets will be subject to variation, to reflect actual needs on the basis of viability assessment, and will be subject to updating that accounts for actual delivery on the basis of performance monitoring.

7. The data for the Principal Centre is an amalgamation of the individual HNS assessments for the Bideford and Northam Parishes. The net requirement for Bideford /Northam is reduced in the light of commitments [BID9 Diddywell Road, Northam – 17 houses]. The assessment is based on a lower substantial threshold than the provision in Policy HSC2 (see Figure 7 Note 4). Also, a 40% target now is justifiable (see Note 6).

8. The net requirement for Holsworthy is reduced in the light of commitments [Underlane – 10 houses]. Also, a 40% target now is justifiable at all Strategic Centres (see Note 6).

9. A 40% target now is justifiable at all Strategic Centres (see Note 6). Other than in High Bickington, an area share of 40% also is justifiable if using a mortgage multiplier of 3 times. In High Bickington, 35% is justifiable. Subject to viability, such targets would be justifiable using the 2.5 times multiplier. Where the Local Centre has no capacity and necessary affordable housing development must take place, it should occur only on an exceptional basis in accord with Policy HSC6. Policy HSC6 effectively provides for a minimum target of 100%.

10. The net requirement for Halwill Junction is reduced in the light of commitments [East of Chapel Farm – 5 units]. The actual requirement is revised in the light of the updated position (see Figure 7 of the Plan).

11. The actual requirement for High Bickington derived from the HNS assessment is revised in the light of the findings of the Parish Appraisal 2001. Its findings are presented in The High Bickington Parish Plan 2003 – 2023 (see Appendix 4 of the Plan). It is apparent that that plan forecasts an additional estimated need for about 11 houses 2003 – 2011, calculated as a proportion of the identified need to 2023. The current need may be deduced as 10 houses. The District Council supports the parish planning process and recognises the High Bickington Parish Plan as a material planning consideration (Development & Trading Services Committee Minute 34 03/04.

12. The proposed share of 23% for Shebbear that was included in the Consultation Draft of SPG1 Revised is superseded. It was based on the availability of potentially contributing development land. The actual requirement and the area share are revised in the light of the updated position (see Figure 7 of the Plan).

13. The proposed interim share of 15% for Winkleigh that was included in the Consultation Draft of SPG1 Revised is superseded. It was based on an assessed requirement of only 29 houses. The actual requirement and the area share are revised in the light of the 2003 re-survey (see Appendix 4 of the Plan) and the updated position (see Figure 7 of the Plan). The re-survey identified a need for 63 affordable houses over the period 2003 – 2013. Over the same period, 40 public sector houses are likely to be re-let. The Council has accepted the conclusions of the re-survey (Council Minute 28 04/05), as recommended by the Housing Committee on 31 March 2004 (Housing Minute 122 03/04) and accepted for planning purposes by the Development & Trading Services Committee on 4 May 2004 (D&TS Minute 7 04/05). As an estimate for the plan period, the results are reduced in direct proportion. The reduction accounts for the adjustment in Appendix 4 of the Plan.

14. Where at a Village, additional housing development must address the housing need in accord with Policy DVT2. Where the Village has no capacity and an affordable housing need is identified, suitable development must occur only on an exceptional basis in accord with Policy HSC6 (see Note 9).

15. At the Villages, Policy DVT2 effectively introduces an aspirational target of 100% and provides for a minimum share of 50%. The Affordable Housing SPD may introduce higher targets. Where an affordable housing need is identified, additional housing must meet local needs wherever possible and as far as possible. Under such circumstances, the actual share will range 50 – 100% dependant upon viability and the need to create a more balanced housing mix or to resolve an infrastructure issue. Schemes essential to resolve an infrastructure issue may be permitted with a lower share only where the housing need is met in full. Such schemes would be expected to deliver a 40% share in any case.

16. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for Beaford was nil, a re-survey was recommended. No additional housing may be justified without one.

17. The 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for Chilsworthy was statistically insignificant (2.2%). Therefore, a re-survey was recommended. No additional housing may be justified without one.

18. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for Dolton was 9.8%, the rate was marginally too low to forecast the needs with an adequate degree of confidence. However, it suggested a net requirement of 18 affordable houses. Therefore, a re-survey was agreed as a matter of urgency. The suggested requirement is not consistent with the need figures derived from the 2004 re-survey (see Appendix 4 of the Plan and Note 36).

19. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for Alwington was relatively low (12.5%), a re-survey at some time was recommended.

20. As the 1999 /2000 survey results for Huntshaw were based on a relatively low rate of returns (17.4%) and the forecast of housing need is at a level that would imply high growth (about 10%), the findings were accepted only subject to a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal.

21. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns for Tetcott were relatively low (22.7%) and did not identify any need, whereas comparable areas did display such need, a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal was recommended.

22. As the 1999 /2000 survey results for Little Torrington and Littleham were based on relatively low rates of return (20.5% and 20.1% respectively), the findings were accepted only subject to a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal.

23. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns for Newton St Petrock were relatively low (17.2%) and did not identify any need, whereas comparable areas did display such need, a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal was recommended.

24. As the 1999 /2000 survey results for Peters Marland were based on a relatively low rate of returns (21.9%) and the forecast of housing need is at a level that would imply high growth (about 10%), the findings were accepted only subject to a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal.

25. The 1999 /2000 survey results for Pyworthy forecasted housing need at a level that would imply excessive growth (about 15%) at an unsustainable rate. Therefore, the findings were not accepted in full. A re-survey is necessary to confirm the level of need. It is considered that substantial growth, comprising developments of more than about 25 additional houses in total, would change the character of the village.

26. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for Roborough was nil, a re-survey was recommended. No additional housing may be justified without one.

27. The 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for St Giles in the Wood was only 8.1%. Therefore, a re-survey was recommended. No additional housing may be justified without one.

28. As the 1999 /2000 survey results for St Giles on the Heath forecasted housing need at a level that would imply a high rate of growth (about 7%) compared with past experience (insignificant), the findings were accepted only subject to a re-survey. The 2003 HNS re-survey for St Giles on the Heath (see Appendix 4 of the Plan) produced additional evidence of affordable housing need (see Note 37). The 1999 /2000 results are not consistent with the latest need figures for the parish.

29. As the 1999 /2000 survey results for Alverdiscott were based on a relatively low rate of return (18.1%) and the forecast of housing need is at a level that would imply high growth (about 10%), the findings were accepted only subject to a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal.

30. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate for Thornbury was recorded as nil, a re-survey was recommended. No additional housing may be justified without one.

31. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey results for Weare Giffard were based on a relatively low rate of returns (23.4%), a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal was recommended.

32. The survey results for the parishes of East Putford and of West Putford were assessed together, as the survey returns identified no housing need. As the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns for comparable areas did identify such need, a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal was suggested.

33. The 1999 /2000 survey results for Yarnscombe forecasted housing need at a level that would imply excessive growth (about 15%) at an unsustainable rate. Therefore, the findings were not accepted in full. A re-survey is necessary to confirm the level of need. It is considered that substantial growth, comprising developments of more than about 12 additional houses in total, would change the character of the village.

34. The HNS surveyed all Parishes individually (see Note 2). Where the parish does not contain a Village, affordable provision may be made on an exceptions basis only at a rural settlement, in accord with Policy HSC6. It may be more appropriate to seek to satisfy the extant needs of Buckland Filleigh in Shebbear and those of Cookbury in Holsworthy or even at Holemoor. Where the 1999 /2000 HNS survey returns rate was nil, a re-survey was recommended. Where a need was identified, the findings were accepted provisionally, subject to a re-survey in association with any additional housing proposal.

35. The 2004 HNS concludes that it is vital to attempt to deliver as many affordable units as possible. It concludes also that a target of 40% of new units from the total of all sites in the district should form the basis for negotiation of affordable housing provision within developments that provide for additional housing. The survey was robust and the assessment was rigorous, in accord with Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice (DTLR). On this basis, the substantive threshold may be reduced to the minimum allowed by the Government (0.5 ha) in all areas across the district. The assessment has produced clear evidence of identified need, which is a material consideration in determining planning applications. It will be used in giving advice on development proposals. Affordable shares will be negotiated on the basis of the 2004 HNS until such time as more up to date evidence may become available. The conclusions assume that the mortgage multiplier is 3 times. As the Plan provides for a multiplier of 2.5 times, the proposed affordable shares derived from the 1999 /2000 HNS will be a material consideration where a higher target cannot be achieved because a viability assessment demonstrates that this is an issue. Supplementary guidance on viability assessment is contained in SPD1 (Infrastructure Provision in New Development).

36. The HNS findings for Dolton, based on the 2004 parish survey, do not relate to the same time frame as the District HNS. At April 2004, there were 20 public sector houses in Dolton. The re-survey identified an imminent housing demand for 18 houses 2004 – 2007 and an additional demand for 20 houses 2007 – 2014. Only 82% of the imminent demand was for housing at the village. Based upon the survey findings, the Rural Housing Enabler recommended that 5 – 7 affordable houses be built over the period 2004 – 2007. The District Council has accepted only that the findings may be a material consideration (Development & Trading Services Committee Minute 78 04/05). The findings are included in an Appendix to the report to the D&TS committee on 7 Dec 2004. Here, the recommendation is taken as the forecast of net requirements and a figure for identified need is deduced accordingly. The forecast for 2007 – 2014 assumes a similar stock base at April 2007 (see Note 3). As an estimate of need, the additional identified demand is reduced proportionately. Therefore, there may be a need for up to one affordable house only 2007 – 2011, assuming a direct proportion of the 2007 – 2014 forecast. If annualised (at 2 per annum) and projected on a comparable basis, the findings for 2004 – 2007 would overestimate the need at 14 affordable houses for 2004 – 2011. That method is inappropriate as it builds in the backlog of need evident in the demand data.

37. The parish based HNS findings for St Giles on the Heath and Northcott Hamlet, based on the 2004 parishes re-survey, do not relate to the same time frame as the District HNS. At April 2004, there were 8 public sector houses in St Giles on the Heath & Northcott. The re-survey identified an imminent housing demand for 11 houses 2004 – 2007. Only 83% of the imminent demand was for housing at the villages. Based upon the survey findings, the Rural Housing Enabler recommended that 3 – 4 affordable houses be built over the period 2004 – 2007. The District Council has accepted only that the findings may be a material consideration (Development & Trading Services Committee Minute 79 04/05). The findings are included in an Appendix to the report to the D&TS committee on 7 Dec 2004. Here, the recommendation is taken as the forecast of net requirements and a figure for identified need is deduced accordingly. The forecast for 2007 – 2011 assumes a similar stock base at April 2007 (see Note 3). If annualised (at about 1 per annum) and projected on a comparable basis, the findings for 2004 – 2007 would imply a need for an additional 4 affordable houses 2007 – 2011, whereas the 1999 /2000 HNS forecast implied a need for 8 affordable houses over the same period. As the imminent need should not be projected (see Note 44) and the earlier forecast evidently is less reliable, it is concluded that no need is demonstrated beyond 2007.

^ Top | < Previous | Next >