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 Allocation through Structure Plan 239 / annum 90 81 76 80 70 60 50 Planning Allocation % Housing Needs Assessment 40 30 20 12 11 10 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 Other Rural Penrith Alston Appleby Stephen Local Service Kirkby Centres 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 offered to the nearest LSC or KSC parish by the LPA. Rural Housing Allocation Table Parish Existing households Percentage Annualised Guideline Over ten years development development development rate per annum rate rate Kirkby Stephen (KSC) 917 Min 1.5% 14 14 140 Brough (LSC) 335 Max 1.5% 5 5 50 Brough Sowerby 67 1% 0.7 2 every three years 7 Crosby Garrett* 65 1% 0.7 2 every three years 7 Hartley 73 1% 0.7 2 every three years 7 Helbeck 7 1% 0.1 1 every ten years 1 Kaber 48 1% 0.5 1 every two years 5 Mallerstang 62 1% 0.6 2 every three years 6 Musgrave 70 1% 0.7 2 every three years 7 Nateby* 51 1% 0.5 1 every two years 5 Ravenstonedale* 283 1% 2.8 3 every year 28 Soulby 87 1% 0.9 1 every year 10 Stainmore 132 1% 1.3 5 every four years 13 Waitby 30 1% 0.3 1 every three years 3 Warcop* 240 1% 2.4 5 every two years 24 Wharton 17 1% 0.2 1 every five years 2 Winton* 104 1% 1.0 1 every year 10 Totals 2588 325 Over ten years Households in Eden 24,882 Delivery of housing as Percentage of RSS UECP Households as % 10.40% Housing Trajectory requirement 32 per year 290 pa minimum 11% * Qualify as LSCs 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