Affordable housing

[vx220]

Hi, quickie question.
Is there a quick rule of thumb for builders developing a site as to the number of houses they build compared to how many are social affordable housing?
Cheers

[AlmostUseful]

Depends on local authority, but most of the ones I work on for the south west tend to be between 25 and 40%

[Equus]

Short answer: no.

It varies from local authority to local authority. Each authority has their own adopted policy. You will need to either look the policy up on their website (generally you're looking for a section in the 'Local Plan'), or else give their Planning Department a ring and ask to speak to the duty Planning Officer.



Edited to add to AlmostUseful's response, one authority I regularly work within is 15% for any development over 15 units, but I've seen everything from 10% on anything over 25 units to 50% on anything more than one... and some Authorities will allow a commuted sum (basically, you bribe them to allow you not to have any affordable housing on your site, with the money theoretically going toward affordable housing provision elsewhere).

Also, the policy requirement is not always an absolute: developers can often 'prove' by means of an open-book financial viability on a specific site that they can't afford to offer the full affordable provision... and they will tend to run rings around the Local Authority with well-cooked books, since the LPA will not usually have the resources or the expertise to challenge their figures.

Edited by Equus on Sunday 28th May 20:23

[Dracoro]

Do affordable ( to whom?) houses have to stay "affordable" o do the buyers just sit on it for a while then sell at full market rate?

[vx220]

vx220 said:

Hi, quickie question.
Is there a quick rule of thumb for builders developing a site as to the number of houses they build compared to how many are social affordable housing?
Cheers

Thanks guys

Is there a minimum number of houses where you don't have to include social or affordable housing? In Essex if that helps. I'll call planning on Tuesday, but to give us an idea

[Equus]

Dracoro said:

Do affordable ( to whom?) houses have to stay "affordable" o do the buyers just sit on it for a while then sell at full market rate?

Yes. It's usually written into a legal agreement called a 'Section 106 Agreement'.

The normal definition of 'affordable' is rented houses owned by Registered Social Landlowrds (RSL's... Housing Associations, in other words), but where it's a shared equity or discounted market value arrangement then the S106 will normally be worded to say that they have to remain shared equity/discounted below market value in perpetuity.

[Equus]

vx220 said:

Is there a minimum number of houses where you don't have to include social or affordable housing?

No, as above, both percentages and trigger levels will vary from LPA to LPA, even if they aren't negotiated separately by the developer.

Is this for a development you have in mind for yourself, or one by another developer that you wish to challenge?

[vx220]

Equus said:

vx220 said:

Is there a minimum number of houses where you don't have to include social or affordable housing?

No, as above, both percentages and trigger levels will vary from LPA to LPA, even if they aren't negotiated separately by the developer.

Is this for a development you have in mind for yourself, or one by another developer that you wish to challenge?

Neither really, just for friends info. I think the development is only for five houses

Will try Tuesday, and post back .

[Equus]

vx220 said:

Neither really, just for friends info. I think the development is only for five houses

Well, if I were doing a development for 5 houses, even if it was above the trigger level, I would tend to be trying to negotiate away the affordable (either by an open book financial viability or by paying a commuted sum)... the effect on values of the open market houses would be disproportionately 'blighted' by having to have on-site affordable, and the housing associations themselves often won't be keen on taking on dibs and drabs of affordable housing on such small sites, as it's a pain for them to manage.

[kurt535]

5 may be under the radar; just avoid at all costs having to build affordable housing, especially if they demand that one must be rented....they are THE worst case scenario!

unless you like rusting bikes, trampolines, old sofas and rusting bmx's left on the front lawn.....

[vx220]

kurt535 said:

unless you like rusting bikes, trampolines, old sofas and rusting bmx's left on the front lawn.....

It's The Essex, we have to have a Pinto block with twin 45s hanging off the side in every front garden!

[Equus]

If they can afford twin 45's, these days, they can bloody well afford to buy their own house!

[vx220]

Equus said:

If they can afford twin 45's, these days, they can bloody well afford to buy their own house!

Pintos and 45s are worth considerably less if you leave them outside to fill with water...

[Equus]

I only ever felt that Pintos had any usefulness or value for anchoring small vessels, even in their heyday, but there can't be many left outside in the elements with Webers attached, even in Essex, these days?

[vx220]

Equus said:

I only ever felt that Pintos had any usefulness or value for anchoring small vessels, even in their heyday, but there can't be many left outside in the elements with Webers attached, even in Essex, these days?

Every x-flow, pinto and CVH that got swapped for a zetec made its way home to Essex, had its spark plugs removed and then distributed to the houses that didn't have one...

[Equus]

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!

[Alucidnation]

A builder localish had a plot of land and a few years ago, to get round having to build affordable houses, he kept the planning amount low, and took a few years to build them.

However, now he has pegged it, the sons have taken over and now they are going up at an astonishing rate.

Mind you they are timber framed.

[Equus]

Alucidnation said:

A builder localish had a plot of land and a few years ago, to get round having to build affordable houses, he kept the planning amount low, and took a few years to build them.

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.

[Highway Star]

Equus said:

Well, if I were doing a development for 5 houses, even if it was above the trigger level, I would tend to be trying to negotiate away the affordable (either by an open book financial viability or by paying a commuted sum)... the effect on values of the open market houses would be disproportionately 'blighted' by having to have on-site affordable, and the housing associations themselves often won't be keen on taking on dibs and drabs of affordable housing on such small sites, as it's a pain for them to manage.

Always check your current Development Plan for the authority, however bear in mind that in practice, any site under 11 units/1000sqm may well be exempt from affordable housing contributions following the Written Ministerial Statement on Affordable Housing of November 2014 and the ensuing (failed) legal challenge by West Berks and Reading Councils, especially if the Development Plan in your area predates the WMS.

Councils are still trying to claw back on this and if a local authority is seeking to depart from the provisions of the WMS, it should provide evidence that it needs affordable housing delivery from small sites to justify this approach.

There was a time about a year ago when pretty much every appeal on this where local authorities were trying to resist the WMS was being allowed, but recently it has been more nuanced, now the WMS is being seen as a 'significant material consideration' and as justifying a departure from the development plan if the local authority aren't doing their best in terms of providing evidence that small sites are critical to their delivery of affordable housing. Many of the rural authorities around here are bringing in plans that tally with the WMS anyway.

Edited by Highway Star on Sunday 28th May 23:48

[Equus]

Highway Star said:

Any site under 11 units/1000sqm may well be exempt from affordable housing contributions following the Written Ministerial Statement on Affordable Housing of November 2014 and the ensuing (failed) legal challenge by West Berks and Reading Councils.

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?