Response to the Regulation 18 consultation of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update 2021 to 2040 Draft for Regulation 18 Consultation January 2024

HSG2 Affordable Housing

Object

Paragraph 4.16 of the Regulation 18 Local Plan states that the Council is making provision for a “sufficient” number of affordable homes to meet the needs identified through the Council’s Housing Market Assessment.

The Council’s Affordable Housing Needs Update (June 2023) states that the affordable housing need for the Borough is currently 169dpa - just under 20% of the total number of homes identified using the standard method (850dpa). Between 2026 and 2031, when the Council proposes to adopt a lower requirement of 660dpa, this will be approximately 26% of the housing target.

However, the Housing and Homelessness Strategy (2023-2027) which is referenced in the Council’s latest Authority Monitoring Report (December 2023) identifies a much higher target of 300 net affordable homes a year. If this figure were to be maintained through to 2031, this would require just over 45% of all new homes to be affordable. Whilst in absolute terms, the Council delivered against its target, this is below the 40% requirement of Policy HSG2 and the percentage which will be required between 2026 and 2031.

The affordable housing need figure is based on the assumption that approximately 55% of the 5,836 households in the Borough which are currently in unsuitable housing or without their own home, are able to afford both entry-level private rent and entry-level owner-occupation housing, which reduces the current need to 2,610 households. This assumes that 3,226 households are in a position to leave the affordable housing sector and find suitable accommodation in the private sector. This is of course an unsatisfactory position as the private rental sector of course does not have the same levels of tenancy security as affordable housing.

However, this may not be the case in reality. Firstly, there is the question as to whether there is the housing stock available in the private sector to accommodate these households, particularly when the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and is intending to lower the housing target for the first five years after adoption of the Local Plan. Secondly, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between 35% of gross income being spent on housing costs and households no longer being eligible for affordable housing (a household spending less than 35% of gross income on housing may still qualify for affordable housing) and whether, in the case of home ownership, households have the funds to afford an initial deposit.

The report also states that there is a committed supply of 2,609 affordable homes. It is unclear where this figure has come from or to what period of time it relates. The latest Authority Monitoring Report (2023) shows that the Council has a supply of 3,817 homes in the next five years. It is not clear how many of these are expected to be affordable. However, given that in the monitoring year 2022/23 the Council delivered 274 affordable homes against an overall housing target of 850 dwellings (just over 32%), it would follow that approximately 1,221 dwellings might be affordable (although this figure may well be less). This is of course well below the 2,609 figure referenced in the Affordable Housing Needs Update (June 2023). Allocations in the emerging Local Plan cannot be considered to constitute a committed supply and it is recommended that this point is clarified by the Council.

Policy HSG2 requires at least 40% affordable homes are provided on sites of 10 or more dwellings, or on all sites delivering new dwellings in the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. Whilst this appears to exceed the need identified in the Affordable Housing Needs Update, it is not clear whether the proposed site allocations can meet the 40% requirement from a viability perspective. It does not appear that the Council has undertaken a viability assessment which determines whether the strategic sites will be able to deliver 40% affordable housing in accordance with policy. This is required in order to ensure that the policy is effective and justified. It is also the case that sites below 10 homes, wherever they are in the district, would not deliver any affordable housing.

Further, with the spatial strategy relying on delivery late into the Plan period, it is likely that the number of affordable homes being delivered will decrease between now and the time when the strategic sites are being delivered. This does little to assist the nearly 6,000 households currently in unsuitable homes or without a home.

The need for deliver more affordable housing provides a clear basis for increasing the housing requirement in the Plan above that identified as the starting point using the standard method.

The delaying of much-needed affordable housing is not considered to be an effective strategy. Nor is it positively prepared or justified. As such, the proposed affordable housing strategy is not considered to be sound.

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update 2021 to 2040 Draft for Regulation 18 Consultation January 2024

Duty to Cooperate

Object

The Council’s Housing Market Assessment (September 2020) states that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (“BDBC”) considers itself to be its own housing market area, although it notes that there are close links to West Berkshire, Test Valley and Hart. The Integrated Impact Assessment (December 2023) at paragraph 3.2.2 notes that none of the neighbouring local authorities have approached the Council about the potential to accommodate unmet needs from these closely linked boroughs. It goes on to state that at a later stage in the plan-making process, there may be the requirement to consider any unmet need from these local authorities.

The Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) states that local authorities are required to cooperate with each other when preparing strategic policies (PPG ref. 61-009-20190315). The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) is clear at paragraph 27, that authorities should produce, maintain, and update one or more statement(s) of common ground, throughout the plan-making process. The evidence base which supports the Regulation 18 consultation does not include any such statements of common ground (draft or otherwise). This is contrary to national policy and does not meet the relevant legal or soundness tests.

In addition, whilst it may be correct to note that, currently, no authorities have approached BDBC regarding unmet needs, this does not mean that the Council should not have actively engaged in these processes themselves. Under the Duty to Cooperate, Local Plans are required to set out strategic policies that address strategic priorities. This can include cross-boundary matters, such as being able to meet housing need in full (PPG ref. 61-075-20190723).

The NPPF at paragraph 26 states that:

“effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy.”

This process is iterative and must be active engagement rather than simply a passive process. It is not sufficient to say that other local authorities have not approached the Council. The Council must actively engage with these linked authorities and provide evidence to show that this engagement has been effective and is on-going.

Without this, the Local Plan is not legally compliant or sound.

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update 2021 to 2040 Draft for Regulation 18 Consultation January 2024

Policy SPS1: Scale and Distribution of Development

Object

Policy SPS1 sets out the Council’s approach to the scale and distribution of development within the Borough from 2021 through to 2040. The Council states that it will make provision for at least 16,180 new homes across this period, and that this will be through a stepped trajectory. The stepped trajectory is proposed as follows:

• 2021/22 – 880dpa;
• 2022-26 – at least 850dpa;
• 2026-3031 – at least 660dpa; and
• 2031-2040 – at least 955dpa.

The decision to meet the minimum level of housing need in full over the Plan period is welcomed although, as stated elsewhere in our representations, given the level of need for affordable housing in the borough, and that local housing need calculated using the standard method is a starting point, we consider that this should be increased (and the Plan period extended by at least and additional year). More specifically, however, the proposed stepped trajectory is unsound.

Paragraph 4.11 of the Regulation 18 consultation version of the Local Plan provides reasoning for the stepped trajectory, stating that it is “in response to infrastructure constraints and characteristics of the proposed strategy”. An additional justification is identified, stating that it takes into account the Council’s own “ambitious housing programme” (paragraph 4.14 of the Regulation 18 Local Plan).

The Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) notes that stepped trajectories may be appropriate where there is a significant change in the level of housing requirement between adopted and emerging policies and/or where strategic sites will have a phased delivery or delivery later in the plan period. Importantly, the PPG notes that local authorities must not seek to unnecessarily delay meeting identified development needs (Paragraph ID: 68-021-20190722).

It is clear that the first justification for a stepped trajectory is not relevant to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (“BDBD”), given that the current adopted housing target is 850dpa i.e. the same as proposed in the emerging Plan. With regards to the second justification, the Council is seeking two-thirds of the planned new homes to come forward on large strategic sites. Such a large proportion of homes provided on large strategic sites will inevitably delay the delivery of new homes.

However, this focus on large sites is not essential, it is a strategy that delays housing delivery and that has been chosen by the Council. We do not consider that the Council’s Integrated Impact Assessment (December 2023) has adequately assessed the impacts of this stepped trajectory, with this stepped approach not taking into consideration the need for homes within the first five years of the plan period, and the negative impacts of reducing the housing target by approximately 20% over this time period. The Council’s decision to allocate a large number of strategic sites should not prohibit small and medium sites which can come forward more quickly.

Secondly, the delivery of homes in the first five years after anticipated adoption of the Local Plan should not be reduced so that the Council can develop its own housing programme later on in the plan period. The decision of the Council to build more homes itself is of course supported in principle. However, this programme is in its infancy and at present it is unclear when the Council will start delivering homes, how and when it will acquire land and what funding is available to do so. Furthermore, it does little to assist those currently on the Housing Register and others in need of homes now. In adopting this approach, the Council is unnecessarily excluding other appropriate sites which can come forward earlier in the plan period to meet needs now, by prioritising its own sites which may or may not come forward much later in the Plan period.

The last reason given by the Council for the proposed adoption of a stepped trajectory is due to the time required to deliver major infrastructure to catch up with past growth and provide more certainty over future investment. However, the Council’s Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (January 2024) does not highlight any “critical” infrastructure which does not already have funding and which is required irrespective of new development coming forwards. The majority of infrastructure identified in the Plan is required as a consequence of the delivery of the strategic sites identified by the Council, and will be developer funded. The Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan notes that the expansion of primary and secondary schools may be needed to meet needs arising from new development, but this is not considered to be fatal to the delivery of housing in the short term. The same is considered to apply to health infrastructure. This is echoed in the definitions in Table 1 which state that “critical” infrastructure is considered to be “blockers” to development, whereas “essential”, “policy high priority” and “desirable” infrastructure is not.

As such, it is not considered that the requirement for infrastructure to be delivered necessitates a stepped trajectory and the failure to allocate more housing in the early years of the plan period. As a consequence, the Plan is neither positively prepared or consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) (2023).

Finally, the motive behind the decision to reduce the housing target for the first five years after adoption is questionable. Paragraph 33 of the NPPF requires local authorities to decide whether to review plans within five years from adoption. If this review does not take place, policies within the plan may be considered out of date. As such, it is highly likely that the Council will revise its housing target at this stage and there is the potential that the higher target of 955dpa may, therefore, be revised down. In addition, paragraph 76 of the NPPF states that local authorities are not required to identify and update annually a five-year housing land supply where the adopted plan is less than five years old and where it has identified a five-year housing land supply at the conclusion of the examination. This will give the Council a protection for five years once the plan is adopted, even if the Council is not actually able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at that time. This would further reduce the number of homes built in the first five years after the plan is adopted.

For all of these reasons, we consider that the proposed stepped trajectory is unnecessary, inappropriate and unsound. The Plan is not positively prepared whilst providing for a lowered housing target for the period 2026 to 2031 as it does not meet local housing need for that time period. It is not consistent with national policy as the stepped trajectory unnecessarily delays the delivery of housing and affordable housing, contrary to the requirement of paragraph 60 of the NPPF which confirms the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. The trajectory should be amended to be a ‘flat’ rate across the plan period, with additional allocations made in the shorter term to deliver this.

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update 2021 to 2040 Draft for Regulation 18 Consultation January 2024

SPS5.13

Object

Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023) identifies the tests of soundness that Local Plan and Spatial Development Strategies are examined against as follows:

a) “Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and

d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.”

Draft Policy SPS5.13: 16 Southern Road is allocated for approximately nine dwellings. The supporting text sets out that the development will provide “an opportunity to contribute to the repair of the slightly fragmented arrangement of buildings in the locality, resulting in an improvement to the setting of Fairfields Conservation Area to the immediate south and the wider streetscene.”

It is understood that this site is occupied by Kwik-Fit. There is currently no planning application on the site which would indicate that the garage is no longer in use, and the website currently indicates that it is still open for business. The draft Local Plan is not clear as to whether this existing employment use is to be retained and if it is proposed to be lost, how the loss of employment land is to be justified.

Accordingly, we do not consider that this site can be considered to be deliverable / developable and it should be deleted.

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Update 2021 to 2040 Draft for Regulation 18 Consultation January 2024

SPS6: Neighbourhood Planning

Object

A spatial strategy that seeks to deliver housing in the most sustainable locations is wholly appropriate. However, in line with the paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) (2023), to promote sustainable development in rural areas:

“housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.”

This is also recognised within the Council’s Settlement Study (January 2024). As such, it is recommended that the Council considers the allocation of additional sites in more rural settlements to support this national policy objective, and to assist in delivering a greater number of homes within the early years of the plan period. Please refer to our representations on Policy SPS1 for more details.

Secondly, we question whether the spatial strategy in the adopted Local Plan, requiring Neighbourhood Plans to deliver a material proportion of the housing requirement, has been effective. The table below shows the number of homes completed as of 31 March 2023, as reported in the latest AMR. Whilst a number of settlements have exceeded the number of homes to be delivered through Neighbourhood Plans (and a number have extant permissions for dwellings), 44% of settlements have not met their target as of 31 March 2023, 13 years into the plan period.

[Please see table in attached representation form].

Policy SPS6 (Neighbourhood Planning) states that the Council will seek to deliver at least 495 dwellings in 10 settlements across the Borough. It states that if, at the time of the Local Plan’s five year review, a Neighbourhood Plan has not been submitted which would deliver the required number of homes, or at least 50% of the identified requirement has been given planning permission, the Council will allocate sites to meet this need through a subsequent Development Plan Document.

The preparation of Neighbourhood Plans is time consuming and expensive, relying on significant efforts from volunteers in the local community. They take a number of years to bring forward and are likely to face increased scrutiny at Examination given changes to national policy placing greater weight on their importance as part of the development plan. As such, whilst many Neighbourhood Plans have been “made” in the Borough, it is unclear whether there is the appetite and the funding to modify these plans to meet the requirement set out in Policy SPS6. This is likely to delay the delivery of housing.

The Council states that it will prepare a Development Management Document to allocate sites where sufficient homes have not been identified or granted permission within five years of adoption i.e. before a Local Plan Review is completed. With adoption of the Local Plan anticipated to be 2026, this will mean that a review will need to take place by 2031. It is understood that it is at this stage that the Council would prepare a Development Plan Document to identify sites. This DPD will need to be evidenced and examined, which could take a number of years, adding further delay to the delivery of homes. This is not considered to be positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy.

The Council’s justification for the delegation of site allocations to Neighbourhood Plans is noted in the Site Selection Report (2023) as being due to national policy requiring 10% of sites to be small sites, and that this is best to come forward as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process as local communities are best placed to identify sites. We acknowledge that paragraph 70 of the NPPF seeks to increase the number of homes delivered on small sites but the intention of this is to increase housing delivery - as smaller sites are often built out more quickly. This should also not prohibit medium sized sites of over a hectare, which are built out more quickly than larger strategic sites, also coming forward if they are suitable.

There is also nothing precluding the Council from allocating smaller sites itself rather than relying on Neighbourhood Plans. The Settlement Study (January 2024) states that allocating 10 dwellings is disproportionate to the size of some smaller settlements, but requiring a target of less than 10 dwellings requires a disproportionate amount of work to produce a Neighbourhood Plan. As such, some settlements are not required to deliver homes despite the Council having identified a need.

This is an issue created by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and could easily be resolved by the Council itself allocating sites through the Local Plan. As a minimum, the Council should be allocating sufficient sites to meet its housing target, particularly in the context of the Council currently being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

Policy SPS6 is not positively prepared or effective, delaying the delivery of much-needed homes in the Borough. Neither is it consistent with national policy as it does not accord with the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes (paragraph 60) and paragraph 20 of the NPPF which requires strategic policies to make sufficient provision for housing.