Affordable housing
Discussion
Equus said:
Rate of build doesn't usually have anything to do with it. And if you try to fiddle the system by applying for planning permission in phases, with each phase under the trigger threshold, the LPA will usually (and perfectly legitimately) aggregate the numbers and apply affordable requirements accordingly.
Here is one of the "phases".https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7465978,-1.73010...
The whole estate just below that has taken approx 20 years to get this far.
We've just done a 10 plot scheme in Devon comprising of 6x £1m houses and 2x semi blocks which were designed to look like 2x single units to match the private houses. It's a joke, the client even struggled to get an HA to take them they were that unwanted, but that's what the planning authority insisted on so that's what got built. Even offers to build a complete HA development elsewhere was rejected.
Alucidnation said:
Here is one of the "phases".
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7465978,-1.73010...
The whole estate just below that has taken approx 20 years to get this far.
That development is being built under a single Outline Planning Permission ref. 8/88/0126P, granted by Christchurch Borough Council in 1990.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7465978,-1.73010...
The whole estate just below that has taken approx 20 years to get this far.
The Planning permission is too old to be available to view online, but will predate the policy requirement for affordable housing.
These days it would be normal to impose a planning condition stating that all Reserved Matters have to be discharged within a certain period of time and/or phasing of the development much be agreed prior to commencement, precisely to control this sort of ongoing development that can find itself 'left behind' by new Planning policies, but if no such conditions were imposed back in 1990, then it's perfectly legitimate for the builder to continue the development under the approval that was granted back then.
It's a historic anomaly, in other words.
It probably seems like semantics, but it's not: the developer is not avoiding affordable housing by building in phases that fall below the trigger threshold, they're avoiding it because they're building under a consent so old that no affordable housing was required.
They can build out that development as fast as they like, and so long as they stick to the original Outline, they won't need any affordable.
AlmostUseful said:
We've just done a 10 plot scheme in Devon comprising of 6x £1m houses and 2x semi blocks which were designed to look like 2x single units to match the private houses. It's a joke, the client even struggled to get an HA to take them they were that unwanted, but that's what the planning authority insisted on so that's what got built. Even offers to build a complete HA development elsewhere was rejected.
Yes, I've done similar schemes (one in Stratford on Avon a number of years ago springs to mind). It's ridiculous, as you say - you end up with complete social disparity between the very affluent occupiers of the open market housing, and the 'poor relations' in the affordable. Social engineering at its worst, but some authorities are stupid enough/stubborn enough not to be willing to negotiate.Did you try appealing on the affordable, using the NPPF '6 tests'?
Equus said:
Alucidnation said:
Here is one of the "phases".
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7465978,-1.73010...
The whole estate just below that has taken approx 20 years to get this far.
That development is being built under a single Outline Planning Permission ref. 8/88/0126P, granted by Christchurch Borough Council in 1990.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7465978,-1.73010...
The whole estate just below that has taken approx 20 years to get this far.
The Planning permission is too old to be available to view online, but will predate the policy requirement for affordable housing.
These days it would be normal to impose a planning condition stating that all Reserved Matters have to be discharged within a certain period of time and/or phasing of the development much be agreed prior to commencement, precisely to control this sort of ongoing development that can find itself 'left behind' by new Planning policies, but if no such conditions were imposed back in 1990, then it's perfectly legitimate for the builder to continue the development under the approval that was granted back then.
It's a historic anomaly, in other words.
It probably seems like semantics, but it's not: the developer is not avoiding affordable housing by building in phases that fall below the trigger threshold, they're avoiding it because they're building under a consent so old that no affordable housing was required.
They can build out that development as fast as they like, and so long as they stick to the original Outline, they won't need any affordable.
Alucidnation said:
So, basically that's a yes then.
A yes to what?That he can continue building under that specific Outline consent without affordable? Yes
That he 'got round it by keeping the planning amount low' and building slowly? No
He 'got round it' by gaining a planning consent for 337 dwellings (275 houses, 26 bungalows and 36 flats) before the policy requirement for affordable housing existed.
He could have built all 337 dwellings in a single year, if he'd wanted to, and he still wouldn't have needed any affordable housing. His sons could finish the remainder of the development in the next fortnight, and it wouldn't make any difference...
Edited by Equus on Monday 29th May 10:00
Equus said:
This is a very valid point, and one which I must admit I'd forgotten about. I'll ask our Planning Director, when I next speak to her, but do you know if any directives have gone out to LPA's telling them to give weight to this, following the failed challenge? We were expecting such a directive, at the time, but I don't recall having seen one.
In the meanwhile, I guess it would come down to whether you have the appetite to appeal on it, where the LPA's plan hasn't been brought into line?
No further one from DCLG as far as I can remember, but there was a letter from the head of PINS to the Chief Executive of Richmond apologising for inconsistent decisions by her Inspectors, can't remember the date but some time in the past six months.In the meanwhile, I guess it would come down to whether you have the appetite to appeal on it, where the LPA's plan hasn't been brought into line?
In this letter she gives the message that the WMS is merely a material consideration, but that the Development Plan remains the starting point for considering affordable housing policies. The WMS was very much a Brandon Lewis/George Osborne 'policy', I'm not sure how much Javid/Barwell believes in it. Then again, in a few weeks, those two might not be in the same jobs so we might have a whole different set of rules to work with!
Highway Star said:
...there was a letter from the head of PINS to the Chief Executive of Richmond apologising for inconsistent decisions by her Inspectors
...In this letter she gives the message that the WMS is merely a material consideration, but that the Development Plan remains the starting point for considering affordable housing policies.
So in other words she's apologising for the inconsistent decisions, but reserving the right to continue being inconsistent? ...In this letter she gives the message that the WMS is merely a material consideration, but that the Development Plan remains the starting point for considering affordable housing policies.
...but yes as you say, give it a few weeks and the goalposts could move again.
Equus said:
I've spent very little time in Essex, I must admit (although I do have a job on in Chelmsford, at the moment).
I can only hope you're doing it a disservice!
No, he's actually being quite complimentary and restrained about this most charming of counties. I can only hope you're doing it a disservice!
He's not touched on the rotting sofas, knackered Sierras up on bricks, burnt out Jetskis, abandoned skips full of builders rubbish, heaps of breeze blocks and paving slabs, shopping trolleys, miss matched car wheels and tyres, broken fridges and washing machines, heaps of sodden clothes and photos hurled out a broken window during the last violent domestic, remnants of bonfires and profusion of weeds as well as the ubiquitous mossy caravans that all feature prominently in many a Essex front garden.
He's also been polite enough not to comment on the chipped and crumbling concrete lions or swooping eagles or horses heads that adorn way to many gateposts or even mentioned the occasional festoon of Police tape surrounding the dried blood trail leading from the smashed in front door and splattered down the path.
Here you are.
20 seconds Googling
What better way to ruin a new housing estate with £300K+ houses? Of course I want to spend that much money and then look out the window and see single mothers with a fag in their mouths having a conversation about little Chantelle and her new puffy pink dress for her pre-school graduation, whilst showing off their latest diamanté jewellery and how the dad is getting out of prison soon.
T5SOR said:
What better way to ruin a new housing estate with £300K+ houses? Of course I want to spend that much money and then look out the window and see single mothers with a fag in their mouths having a conversation about little Chantelle and her new puffy pink dress for her pre-school graduation, whilst showing off their latest diamanté jewellery and how the dad is getting out of prison soon.
But did you not know that by putting people like that into affluent areas it raises their standards overnight and they start to speak with a plum in their mouth?No?
Must just be the lunatic f**king councils that think that is the result then!!
Our scheme either pre-dates any AH rules or something was arranged for another site - 62 plots here and none are AH - just a mix of 3/4 bed detached bungalows and 2 storey houses.
One of the newer schemes in the town, their AH allocation is right by the entrance to the scheme and now the developers are away you can see the rot taking hold already - grass isnt been cut, random cars parked on the grass (rather than in their allocated parking bays that are empty but mean a 20 second walk from the front door), bags of rubbish in the front garden etc etc. I dont think it will be pretty at all in a few more years.
Tomo1971 said:
Must just be the lunatic f**king councils that think that is the result then!!
To be fair, there are no easy and ideal solutions.People on low incomes have to be housed somewhere, and current affordable housing policy/strategy is a result of the post-war Council estates having proved even more problematical (and they were a major step forward from the back-to-backs, slum terraces and tenements that preceded them).
For the majority of mid-range housing, on-site affordable provision is a tolerable compromise... it's only when you get to small developments of high value open market housing that it becomes more socially divisive than inclusive, and off-site provision starts to make more sense.
Though I appreciate that this is PistonHeads, and that the preferred solution for most people will therefore be concentration camps, with an option on the gas chambers.
Equus said:
Jaguar steve said:
Here you are. 20 seconds Googling
Jaywick, by any chance? 20 seconds GooglingIt can't all be like that, though? Chelmsford looks moderately inoffensive, from what I've seen of it so far?
Jaywick. I know it better than anybody might reasonably want too.Over the years and even more so recently since it somehow managed to wheedle City status out of whoever allocates such incredibly high honors Chelmsford - Chompssfud or The Taaan if you want to sound a bit more like a local - has become more TOWIE than Chav or Cockeny Waaankah. For the genuine full fat London Overspill deal and the litter, fly tipping and human detritus that accompanies it you need to travel south of the A12 towards the Thames and around the bottom third of the county. Or just visit 'Aarlow or 'Baaazildun.
You'll get where I'm coming from then
only today i drove around a taylor wimpy site at sprowston, norwich to see if i was right to pull out of a moderate 3 storey town house (sold for 275) due to its close proximity to 3 affordable rents.............well, seems i was right. already, total filthy nets up at windows/washing hung out of windows and, the most predictive part, the obligatory beaten up zafira not parked in the allocated space instead RIGHT up the kerb on the pavement in front of their house. why oh why 
Local council here allocated a area of land for development to meet its government quota. stated that it was requires to consist of 35% affordable. Last week they approved a developers plans for this area with a measly 18% affordable housing. the Council didn't even stick to their own rules.
kurt535 said:
only today i drove around a taylor wimpy site at sprowston, norwich to see if i was right to pull out of a moderate 3 storey town house (sold for 275) due to its close proximity to 3 affordable rents.............well, seems i was right. already, total filthy nets up at windows/washing hung out of windows and, the most predictive part, the obligatory beaten up zafira not parked in the allocated space instead RIGHT up the kerb on the pavement in front of their house. why oh why
There's a development called Beaulieu Park - yes that's really how it's spelt - near Chelmsford. It's fronted by startlingly overstyled £1M+ homes more or less imitating New England and early C19 Dutch architecture. There's huge floodlit statues of Deer at one entrance attempting to give the impression it's in the deep rural countryside and not adjacent to a working gravel pit in Essex. Tucked away around the back is the obligatory Social Housing ghetto. Find your way in there and it looks like you've somehow wandered into the landfill storage area for the gravel pit.Gets even more interesting when you look at the Police crime map.
There's a new estate local to me with the typical social housing complement, the precise location of these houses is very easy to pinpoint using the crime map!
Interestingly, not too far from my parents house they trialed a different solution where they split off the social housing from the main 'posh' estate. They built a separate access road and further separated these estates by means of a wide drainage culvert that has no bridges to cross it!
There's a new estate local to me with the typical social housing complement, the precise location of these houses is very easy to pinpoint using the crime map!
Interestingly, not too far from my parents house they trialed a different solution where they split off the social housing from the main 'posh' estate. They built a separate access road and further separated these estates by means of a wide drainage culvert that has no bridges to cross it!
Buzz84 said:
Local council here allocated a area of land for development to meet its government quota. stated that it was requires to consist of 35% affordable. Last week they approved a developers plans for this area with a measly 18% affordable housing. the Council didn't even stick to their own rules.
As explained above it will have been the developers that negotiated this amount down, and they'll have done it by means of an open book viability assessment that 'proved' that the development would not be financially viable with full affordable provision.Affordable housing is linked to the Planning consent by means of both Conditions on the approval and the Section 106 Legal agreement. The use of both of these is controlled by central government guidance which can over-rule local policy to some degree.
The guidance on Planning Obligations states that:
"Where local planning authorities are requiring affordable housing obligations or tariff style contributions to infrastructure, they should be flexible in their requirements. Their policy should be clear that such planning obligations will take into account specific site circumstances."
"On individual schemes, applicants should submit evidence on scheme viability where obligations are under consideration. Wherever possible, applicants should provide viability evidence through an open book approach to improve the review of evidence submitted and for transparency."
Interestingly, not too far from my parents house they trialed a different solution where they split off the social housing from the main 'posh' estate. They built a separate access road and further separated these estates by means of a wide drainage culvert that has no bridges to cross it!
The same result is achieved by providing a discrete round the side access door and separate communal areas in upmarket city flats and apartment developments for the Social Housing sector I believe. Certainly seems to absolutely outrage the Leftists who are incapable of comprehending why not everybody in the same building is entitled to free newspapers and Wi Fi, deep pile carpets and a 24 hour concierge service.
The same result is achieved by providing a discrete round the side access door and separate communal areas in upmarket city flats and apartment developments for the Social Housing sector I believe. Certainly seems to absolutely outrage the Leftists who are incapable of comprehending why not everybody in the same building is entitled to free newspapers and Wi Fi, deep pile carpets and a 24 hour concierge service.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff