Draft Local Plan Review

5. Question 11/12: Do you agree with Policy 4? If not why not and what alternative would you suggest? Do you agree with the level of affordable housing being sought in Policy 4? If not why not and what alternative would you suggest?
5.1 Policy P4 seeks the provision of 50% affordable housing on sites of 11 dwellings or more/ 1000sq m. Affordable housing is defined as social rented, affordable rented, intermediate tenure and starter homes all of which should be available at costs that are affordable to households whose needs are not met in the open market.
5.2 The level of affordable housing is justified on the basis that the Council has a high level of unmet housing need, as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)Strategic Housing Market Assessment) Objectively Assessed Need for Affordable Housing.
5.3 The supporting text explains that the policy target is set at 50% on the basis that this will include 20% Starter Homes, with the remaining 30% split between rent(22%) and shared ownership (8%). The supporting text at paragraph 193 explains that the Council anticipate that the greater values derived from delivery of starter homes will be able to support this approach, "but further evidence will be pursued to justify this."
5.4 In this respect, the level of affordable housing sought through Policy P4 assumes that Starter Homes should be over and above provision of other tenures of affordable housing. BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are unable to support this position in principle for the following reasons.
5.5 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Strategic Housing Market Assessment) Objectively Assessed Need for Affordable Housing advises at 7.1-7.3 that;
"On completion of the calculation of the need for affordable housing, the PPG says, at Reference ID: 2a-029-20140306:
The total affordable housing need should then be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, given the probable percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by market housing led developments. An increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes. It is clear that a Planning Authority should consider whether or not the housing target in the Local Plan should be increased to assist with meeting the need for affordable housing.
The total annual affordable housing need in Solihull of 210 households per year (as calculated in Chapter 5, Table 5.10) represents 28.7% of the annual projected household growth in the Borough between 2014 and 2033 (732 households per year as identified within the full OAN calculations14). This proportion of new housing as affordable appears achievable to deliver in Solihull.
It is clear that the Council can be confident that the affordable housing requirement can be met by the OAN identified and no adjustment is required to this figure. The figure of 28.7% is similar to the proportion of new affordable housing required within the LTBHM model, 26.9% as indicated in Table 4.3, providing further evidence that the assumptions reflect the realities of the current housing market locally."
5.6 The actual need for affordable housing to meet needs arising in the Borough over the plan period is therefore, around 28.7% and not the 50% included under Policy P4.
5.7 Additionally, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 amends the definition of "affordable housing" with regards to planning obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to include starter homes (as defined in Part 1 of the Act).
"159. Planning obligations and affordable housing.
(1)After section 106ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by section 158 above) insert—
106ZB Enforceability of planning obligations regarding affordable housing
(4) In this section "affordable housing" means new dwellings in England that—
(a) are to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market, or
(b) are starter homes within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (see section 2 of that Act)."
5.8 To date Government guidance has not been updated in the NPPF and the existing definition of affordable housing continues to apply. Notwithstanding, it is clearly the Governments' intention to do so and therefore, the provision of Starter Homes will be included in the national policy definition of affordable housing in due course.
5.9 The Draft Local Plan is seeking to apply the provision of Starter Homes as additional to identified need for affordable housing. In effect this is double counting, given that some of the need identified through the SHMA will be met by the delivery of Starter Homes.
5.10 On this basis, Policy P4 as drafted would not be sound and would not be either "positively prepared" to meet the identified need for affordable housing or justified, based upon evidence from the SHMA. Additionally, the policy would not be consistent with national policy.
5.11 The Policy text should be amended to accord with the national policy definition and that set out in Section 159 of the Ac.t
Viability
5.12 Whilst it is noted that Policy P4 includes provision for an off-site financial contribution where on site delivery is not viable or feasible, this ignores the fact that it may not be viable to secure delivery of affordable housing in particular circumstances or a financial contribution.
5.13 In fact, it remains that there is no evidence to test delivery of affordable housing across a range of site/development scenarios.
5.14 Paragraph 173 of the NPPF is clear that, "Plans should be deliverable. Therefore the sites and scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be delivered viably is threatened"
5.15 The need for effective assessment of the impact of such obligation is set out at paragraph 174, which advises that;
"They should assess the likely cumulative impact on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk"
5.16 In the absence of any such assessment of viability and deliverability, BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are concerned that Policy P4 in unduly onerous and would place an undue burden on new development, that would threaten the ability for developers to be able to bring sites forward.
5.17 As such Policy P4 would also fail the test of soundness on the basis of non-compliance with national policy.
5.18 The impact of such a significant requirement for the delivery of affordable housing, coupled with need for new education and community facilities, open space and physical drainage and utility infrastructure, as well as investment in highways and accessibility will threaten deliverability.
5.19 This is almost certainly likely to be the case in respect of larger greenfield schemes which will need to deliver significant levels of new infrastructure early through the development process.
5.20 The real issue is how to deliver more housing, including affordable across the market. This can only be achieved by significantly increasing the supply of new homes, which in turn will require a very substantial increase in the amount of land coming through the planning system for residential development.
Actions required to achieve soundness
5.21 Policy P4 should be amended to set the requirement for affordable housing to be 29% to meet the identified needs set out in the SHMA. The policy text should be amended to;
"Contributions will be expected to be made in the form of 29% affordable dwelling units on each development site, but will take account: (policy text continues)".
5.22 The policy should also specifically define affordable housing to include Starter Homes or defer to the national definition given the evolving position in this respect. The policy text should be amended to;
"Affordable housing includes social rented, affordable rented, intermediate tenure or starter homes"
5.23 Additionally the policy text should be amended from;
"Where on site provision is not feasible or viable there will be a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing that would not otherwise be provided within the Borough"
to
"The requirement for the provision of affordable housing is subject to viability. Where it is not viable to secure delivery of affordable housing through development, planning applications should be supported by a Viability Assessment to demonstrate as such."

2. Question 1: Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?
2.1 The following responses are made in respect of Section 3: Challenges;
Challenge B- Meeting housing needs across the Borough, including the Borough's own needs and where possible assisting with accommodation the Housing Market Area (HMA) wide shortfall
2.2 Challenge B identifies the need for the Council to meet the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (FOAN) and accommodating some of the needs of the HMA shortfall.
2.3 The Council sets its objective of ensuring that provision for an "appropriate proportion" of the HMA shortfall is made within the Borough, whilst maintaining the other objectives of the plan with regard to achieving sustainable development.
2.4 Fulfilling the Duty to Cooperate will require the Borough Council to reach agreement with the other authorities throughout the HMA on how it can assist, in accommodating an appropriate portion of the unmet housing needs from across the HMA (as identified in the SHNS).
2.5 It is understood that the Spatial Plan for Growth (SPG) will comprise the vehicle to deliver this agreement, but it is unclear how this will be achieved in practice, bearing in mind that the SPG is in the hands of the GBSLEP and that it will be the responsibility of the relevant authorities to reach formal agreement on distribution of the unmet needs.
2.6 Whilst the Council has proposed to accommodate a further 2000 dwellings of the HMA shortfall beyond its own FOAN, there is no agreement between the other HMA authorities to demonstrate cooperation or any agreement to a distribution of the shortfall. The lack of such agreement if highlighted by the emerging response of North Warwickshire Borough Council included at Appendix II and which expresses concern that the Borough should accommodate a greater proportion of wider HMA growth.
2.7 In the absence of such effective collaboration, the Draft Local Plan is unsound and would potentially fail to ensure that the wider HMA housing requirement is met. The Plan would not satisfy the Duty to Co-operate under paragraph 178 of the NPPF and would therefore not be "positively prepared" in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 182 .
Objectives
2.8 We are also concerned about the lack of clarity over the mechanism to agree how the unmet HMA housing needs are going to be distributed and delivered. Any such agreement should be open to public scrutiny and should be based upon a clear evidential basis.
2.9 Within the GBSLEP Strategic Housing Needs Study Stage 3 (SHNS) report it is concluded (para 2.45) that "Of these 'missing dwellings', most should be within easy reach of Birmingham and to a lesser extent Solihull. This is where the largest imbalances between need and supply are found".
2.10 As such, the SHNS provides a clear steer towards Solihull accommodating a significant portion of the HMA Shortfall, bearing in mind that Birmingham itself is unable to meets its own needs (as tested through Examination).
2.11 There are a number of compelling reasons why Solihull is well placed to accommodate a significant part of the HMA shortfall:
* Economic Growth - the SHNS identifies the Borough as having the greatest rate of projected job growth of all the authorities within the HMA (25%) (Table 7.1 from Stage 3 Report). Furthermore, HS2 would provide a spur to economic growth which is recognised in the SHNS as "supergrowth" in respect of the UK Central initiative (see paras. 7.16 - 7.19 of Stage 3 Report).
* Public Transport Links - Solihull has strong public transport linkages with Birmingham which accounts for the greatest part of the HMA deficit and is where the SHNS suggests most of the missing dwellings should be within easy reach. The SHNS indicates that 8,345ha of land is available within the Borough within 3.75km of railway stations which is not affected by "absolute" constraints, which indicates that significant sustainable land is available if the Green Belt is reviewed.
* Lack of "Absolute Constraints" - Although the Borough is heavily constrained by Green Belt, this is a policy constraint which can be reviewed.
* An attractive and aspirational housing market - the Borough is one of the most attractive and aspirational places to live in the HMA. This is reflected in average house prices (third highest authority in HMA), affordability ratios (third worst in HMA) and low vacancy rates (1%- lowest in HMA).
2.12 As set out throughout our responses, there are strong grounds to suggest that Solihull Borough is well placed to deliver a significant portion of the unmet needs and this should be provided for through the Local Plan Review. It is critically important to the social and economic interest of the GBSLEP area that the HMA authorities provide a clear strategy and programme for joint working to effectively agree ("resulting in a final position", para. 181 of the NPPF) the distribution of unmet housing needs across the HMA.
2.13 Unless this is achieved it is highly likely that the Draft Local Plan will be found unsound and the Duty to Cooperate will not be met. Procrastination on this issue will delay the preparation of other Local Plans resulting in housing needs being unmet which will have significant adverse impacts across the HMA and risks stifling economic growth.
Action required to ensure "soundness"
2.14 The Council should amend the text under Challenge B second bullet to give greater certainty of approach with regard to the need to satisfy the "duty to co-operate" test with the other HMA authorities to;
"To satisfy the Duty to Cooperate test set out in the NPPF which will be achieved through accommodating an appropriate proportion of the HMA wide housing shortfall, in a manner which satisfies the principles of sustainable development."
2.15 The second bullet point under Objectives should be amended to;
"To ensure that provision is made for an appropriate provision of HMA shortfall in new housing land. This will be delivered based upon achieving formal agreement with the HMA authorities and based upon unique position of the Borough to assist in delivering new homes and economic growth as recommended in the GBSLEP SHNS."
Challenge D- Securing sustainable economic growth
2.16 Challenge D identifies under Key Economic Assets (fourth bullet) the potential impact of congestion arising from additional growth/housing upon Solihull's important regional and sub-regional role.
2.17 We are concerned that the Council's stated objectives do not reflect the important role that Solihull can deliver in terms of managing the threat of congestion on the road/ rail networks that would be caused through its failure to accommodate an appropriate level of housing growth upon the wider HMA as a result of unnecessary inward commuting to the Borough.
2.18 As a result, the text under challenge D would fail to result in a Draft Local Plan that is "positively prepared" or consistent with achieving sustainable development.
Action required to ensure "soundness"
2.19 The objectives under Challenge D should be amended with a new bullet to state;
"Maximise the opportunity for reducing congestion on motorways, the strategic rail network and rail through delivery of an appropriate level of new housing to meet the shortfall across the HMA within the Borough, where this can be achieved to deliver sustainable development."
Challenge E- Protecting key gaps between urban areas and settlement
2.20 Challenge E seeks to ensure that in meeting housing needs for Solihull and the wider HMA, that the integrity of the Green Belt and rural setting of the Borough is maintained.
2.21 The objectives underpinning the challenge fail to reflect the nature of technical assessments undertaken to provide justification for site release to ensure that environmental protection is achieved.
2.22 As a result, Challenge E of the Draft Local Plan does not set out to ensure that it is "justified" in accordance with the NPPF and that it is therefore, based upon the most appropriate strategy and a proportionate evidence base.
Action required to ensure "soundness"
2.23 The objective should be amended to state;
"Justification for the release of land from the Green Belt to meet the need to new development should be focused on those sites which perform least well against the functions of Green Belt and outcomes from the Borough's Green Belt Assessment."

6. Please refer to full representation

7. Do you agree with the policies for the quality of place? If not why not and what alternatives would you suggest?
7.1 Policy 15 seeks to ensure that new development achieves delivery of high quality places which achieve inclusive and sustainable principles of design.
7.2 The policy seeks to ensure that new development responds to climate change and meets the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations.
7.3 The government has created a new approach for the setting of technical standards for new housing. This rationalises the many differing existing standards into a simpler, streamlined system which will reduce burdens and help bring forward much needed new homes. The government set out its policy on the application of these standards in decision taking and plan making in a written ministerial statement, which also withdraws the Code for Sustainable Homes.
7.4 Given that all new residential development will need to meet the requirements of Building Regulations, BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are concerned that the reference to such through Policy 15 is unnecessary and simply repeats national planning policy.
7.5 Additionally, Policy 15 requires adherence of new residential development to the principles of Secured by Design.
7.6 Whilst BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are supportive of measures to improve the design quality of new development, mandatory Building Regulations covering the physical security of new dwellings came into force on 1 October 2015 and planning authorities should no longer seek to impose any additional requirements for security of individual dwellings through plan policies.
7.7 As drafted, Policy 15 would be unsound as it would not comply with national policy.
Actions required to achieve soundness
7.8 Policy 15 should be amended by omitting reference to the need to achieve compliance with Building Regulations as this is a requirement of other legislation.
7.9 Reference to Secured by Design should be omitted as this is now addressed through Building Regulations.

8. Do you agree with Policy P21. If not why not and what alternative would you suggest?
8.1 Policy P21 sets out the Council's intention to seek either on site delivery of financial contributions through planning obligation delivery of physical, social, green and digital infrastructure. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2012 provides a baseline of the infrastructure needs of the Borough,
8.2 Whilst BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd are supportive of the need for new development to deliver appropriate infrastructure and facilities to meet the needs of new residents, the implementation of Policy P21 must also take into account development viability.
8.3 In this respect, paragraph 173 of the NPPF is clear that;
"Plans should be deliverable. Therefore the sites and scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be delivered viably is threatened"
8.4 The needs for effective assessment of the impact of such obligation is set out at paragraph 174, which advises that;
"They should assess the likely cumulative impact on development in their area of all existing and proposed local standards, supplementary planning documents and policies that support the development plan, when added to nationally required standards. In order to be appropriate, the cumulative impact of these standards and policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk"
8.5 The would appear to be no specific evidence base document to test the impact of infrastructure provision or the requirements of the IDP upon the viability of residential development in the Borough.
8.6 Whilst the Council's CIL Charging Schedule has been through EiP and has been subject to viability modelling, it is not clear that this is the case with regard to potential obligations in relation to site specific proposals.
8.7 In the absence of viability modelling, policy 21 is unsound as it is not justified or based upon an appropriate evidence base and is not in compliance with national policy.
Actions required to achieve soundness
8.8 Policy 21 should be amended to state;
"Where it is viable to do so, new development will be expected to provide or contribute towards provision of;"

see attached document to supplement online submissions

see attached document to supplement online submissions

see attached document to supplement online submissions

see attached document to supplement online submissions

see attached document to supplement online submissions