Wiltshire Council's response to the government's National Planning Policy Framework consultation

Question 47

Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Strongly agree that local authorities should determine appropriate tenure type given their local circumstances including those who require Social Rent. However, this should be in the context of understanding the need for all affordable tenures including Social Rent, Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership, First Homes and Discount Market Units.

Question 48

Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10% of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree, this is too prescriptive but do not object to home ownership being part of the affordable mix where appropriate.

It is always our aim to negotiate a mix of tenures which contribute to a 'mixed and balanced community'. However, each site is different and there are some instances when it would be preferable to have rented homes only e.g. on sites with only a few affordable units in areas of high need for rented accommodation. Removing the requirement for 10% affordable home ownership would enable the local authority to negotiate the mix which best meets need.

Question 49

Do you agree with removing the minimum 25% First Homes requirement?

Answer: not answered

Please explain your answer:

Strongly agree, this is too prescriptive and should not be a blanket requirement at the cost of other much needed tenures.

The First Homes requirement can mean less affordable homes available to purchase by registered providers overall, reducing the level of affordable housing for those most in need. Shared Ownership units, for example, are the most affordable home ownership tenure.

Question 50

Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

Answer: yes

Please provide any further comments:

Agree with the retention of the option to deliver First Homes as they may meet a specific need for Affordable Housing and will allow local authorities and local communities to meet their housing needs using the full range of tenures. They should not be mandatory.

Agree with retention of First Homes Exception Sites (FHESs), although these should be restricted as follows to prevent unintended consequences: Greater restriction on size of sites, 100% First Homes do not contribute to the objective of providing mixed and balanced communities.

Greater restriction on location, which will in turn facilitate delivery of Rural Exception Sites across all rural areas. Currently FHESs are not permitted in National Parks, National Landscapes and designated rural areas, but are permitted in rural areas outside these designated areas. Restricting FHESs to sites adjacent to only larger urban settlements would increase the likelihood of availability of land for Rural Exception Sites across all rural areas and therefore enable rural communities to meet their housing needs and increase social / affordable rented stock in rural areas.

Welcome the removal of starter homes from the NPPF definition of Affordable Housing as its continued inclusion has the potential to cause confusion for applicants and local communities.

Question 51

Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Agree - a mix of tenures (both market and affordable) and housing designed for different customer groups is essential in creating mixed and balanced communities and should generally be encouraged but there needs to be flexibility maintained locally.

We currently negotiate a mix of affordable tenures - rented, shared ownership and First Homes on all sites where appropriate. Ideally all sites (other than small 100% Affordable / Rural Exception Sites) will also include some market units. However, it does need to be recognised that on some sites that are designed for specific groups e.g. independent living for older people, while mix of tenure (market and affordable may be appropriate) it wouldn't be appropriate to have a wider mix of different types of housing.

Also, there are types of housing that developers can be reluctant to include in the mix of units and will object to when policies are developed in local plans, which needs addressing e.g. self-build plots, sites for culturally appropriate accommodation to meet housing needs of travellers with protected characteristics who do not meet the Planning definition.

Question 52

What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Please explain your answer:

Promoting more affordable homes could be achieved through the following:

• within national policy, supporting and encouraging the delivery of affordable housing through the provision of serviced land for councils and/or registered providers to build and manage. This would add to existing means of delivery - on site delivery of houses either by developers (for purchase by registered provided) or directly by councils/registered providers, or commuted sums towards off-site delivery. The difficulty with commuted sums is that councils do not always have the land to deliver homes on
• providing greater flexibility in application of Homes England funding to permit some market units on majority affordable sites, where justified e.g. unexpected high mitigation costs for protected sites (phosphate neutrality) or to achieve a better mix in accordance with demonstrable need

However, we are concerned about predominantly (or exclusively) single tenures on larger sites, as this does not promote mixed and balanced communities - either on site and/or in the wider community. This is particularly the case for smaller places, such as small market towns or villages.

One of the unintended consequences of delivering high percentages of Affordable Housing on a site is the loss of CIL receipts and in particular local communities not receiving a neighbourhood proportion to spend on local infrastructure.

Question 53

What safeguards would be required to ensure that there are not unintended consequences? For example, is there a maximum site size where development of this nature is appropriate?

Please explain your answer:

There should be a restriction on the size of 100% Affordable Housing sites because the size of the site which is acceptable will vary depending on the location. In Wiltshire, we have previously considered 100% Affordable Housing sites up to 50 units to be acceptable in urban areas, provided that a mix of rented / affordable home ownership tenures is provided and that the different tenures are distributed across the site.

To ensure that larger sites delivered by Registered Providers contribute to the creation of mixed and balanced communities, Registered Providers should be encouraged to include some market units on larger land-led schemes. This may necessitate changes to Homes England funding arrangements which currently discourage the inclusion of market units on land-led schemes.

Question 54

What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

Please explain your answer:

The main obstacles to the delivery of rural housing are:

• lack of understanding of housing need in rural parishes. Local Authorities and Neighbourhood Plan groups should be encouraged to undertake rural housing needs surveys to identify the extent and specific type of need at a parish level
• lack of land availability. The NPPF should continue to promote Rural Exception Sites and should restrict Entry Level Exception Sites to large settlements to facilitate likelihood of availability of land for Rural Exception Sites across all rural areas
• lack of support from local community. There is a perception amongst some rural communities that if they seek to deliver affordable housing to meet their housing needs, that priority for those homes may be given to households in a high priority banding on the Housing Register, who do not have a local connection to that parish. The NPPF should make it clear that homes delivered in rural areas on Rural Exception Sites, Community Land Trust schemes and sites designated for 100% Affordable Housing in neighbourhood plans should be prioritised for households with a local connection to the parish / adjacent parish. This would reassure rural communities and encourage them to deliver housing to meet their community's housing needs. (Please note that this may also necessitate a change to Homes England's Capital Funding Guide for Shared Ownership)

The increased cost of mitigating environmental constraints to ensure Habitat Regulations compliance, including the need to achieve nutrient neutrality mitigation in catchments of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation is affecting the viability of Registered Provider / community-led 100% Affordable Housing schemes, including delivery on Rural Exception Sites. As these schemes are usually delivered using public funding and don't make a profit, there is little scope to absorb the increased costs. The requirements on 100% Affordable Housing sites (including on Rural Exception Sites) being delivered by Registered Providers / Community Land Trusts should be reconsidered, or additional funding should be provided by Homes England to make schemes viable.

Question 55

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, explicit reference to the needs of looked after children which may form part of the housing needs for areas is welcomed.

Question 56

Do you agree with these changes?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Yes, strengthening support for community led development as an option for housing delivery is agreed.

Question 57

Do you have views on whether the definition of 'affordable housing for rent' in the Framework glossary should be amended? If so, what changes would you recommend?

Answer: yes

If yes, what changes would you recommend?:

The definition of 'affordable housing for rent' should not be amended to allow almshouses / community groups to take transfer of / develop new affordable homes without the need to register as a provider, as registration provides accountability and scrutiny. Community Led Housing groups currently successfully work alongside Registered Providers that specialise in rural delivery. If groups, other than Registered Providers, are allowed to deliver Affordable Rented accommodation, there should be some type of registration / on-going checks to ensure that adequate procedures and practices are in place to protect the tenant. It would be preferable to find a less onerous way for community-led groups / almshouses to register with the Regulator of Social Housing to ensure scrutiny.

Any addition to the groups that are able to deliver Affordable Rented accommodation would have to be clearly defined and should be required to comply with a Council's adopted Allocations Policy (unless otherwise agreed with the Council) to ensure that developers / landowners are not able to 'select' tenants in a way which is contrary to adopted policies and procedures.

Question 58

Do you have views on why insufficient small sites are being allocated, and on ways in which the small site policy in the NPPF should be strengthened?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

The 10% small site requirement should not be a mandatory requirement if local authorities are to be supported to make their plans as quickly as possible. Local authorities should be able to focus on delivery of their housing targets taking into account local circumstances and the available land. Smaller sites tend to come forward as windfall sites in urban areas, where there is a general acceptance in policy for housing development and allocation is not needed, or through sites identified in neighbourhood plans. The requirement to bring forward 10% of all homes on small sites complicates and slows down plan making, as each site would need to be assessed as part of the plan making process to demonstrate delivery.

However, greater diversity in the market is supported and more should be done in policy or through other government measures for land promoters and developers to be required to break up larger sites to support faster deliverability and the availability of land to others. This would increase the number of outlets for more housebuilders, thus promoting greater competition and support the faster build out of sites.

Question 59

Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to 'beauty' and 'beautiful' and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?

Answer: partially agree

Please explain your answer:

The phrase was subjective and the focus on well-designed buildings and places more fully encompasses what good design is about. However, there are local communities that value the term beauty and its inclusion within policy.

Question 60

Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

Answer: no

Please explain your answer:

Amending the reference to mansard roofs is agreed, as this was an excessive level of detail in national policy and may not be appropriate in all areas because of local vernacular and design considerations. However, upwards extension may not be appropriate for most settlements and could adversely affect the character and appearance of an area, and residential amenity.

Question 61

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this section?

Answer: yes

Please explain your answer:

Paragraph 135 (revised paragraph 132) misses the opportunity to address the current lack of consideration of climate change mitigation and adaptation as a design issue - a matter that is referred to under revised paragraph 11. Therefore, additional bullet (g) could be inserted to address this.