development including executive & affordable...

APPENDIX A

DEVELOPMENT

INCLUDING EXECUTIVE & AFFORDABLE HOUSING

WORKING GROUP

FINAL REPORT

DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING EXECUTIVE & AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKING GROUP

FINAL REPORT

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The Development Including Executive & Affordable Housing Working Group findings in align with the following terms of reference be recommended accordingly to Quality Services Committee 1.2 The Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Corporate) agreed at its meeting held on 22 July 2003 that a review of Development and Affordable Housing in the Borough be included on the Committee’s Work Plan. 1.3 It was recognised that the Best Value Review Committee was scheduled to commence a best value review of housing strategy in September 2003 and that the topic was also likely to feature strongly in the Council’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment. 1.4 Due to the resource implications upon the specialist officers for servicing the various reviews it was agreed that, with careful timetabling, the findings and outputs of the Working Group could be useful not only to Cabinet, but also to the Best Value Review Committee and could avoid any duplication of work in this area. 1.5 As part of a reallocation of Committee functions in July 2004, the General Assembly of the Council received a report recommending changes to the committee structure. A review of the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees revealed that the previous model that was in place did not appear to make optimum use of either Member or officer resources. The Audit Commission, as part of the Corporate Performance Assessment (CPA) process, had expressed concern that the previous arrangements regarding the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees did not have a sufficiently strategic focus on monitoring the achievement of key ambitions. 1.6 It was therefore agreed that an alternative option, based on the Kent County Council model, be introduced. As part of this review, the Overview and Scrutiny Committees were abolished and a Scrutiny Committee and Quality Services Committee were established. 1.7 The appointment of the Quality Services Committee was to encompass overview, best value and comprehensive performance assessment functions. To keep continuity, it was agreed that the Committee would continue their work under the previous arrangements and complete this review. To complete the review the following terms of reference were agreed for the Working Group: - 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE: 2.1 To consider the range of housing needs and demands likely to arise in Dartford

over the next five years.

1


FINAL REPORT

2.2 To explore options and models for meeting various housing needs and demands which are likely to arise.

2.3 To consider practical issues relating to the provision of housing to meet the range

of the needs and demands likely to arise. 2.4 To consider whether research is required on any of the above.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Quality Services Committee supports the following recommendations and conclusions herein and refers them to Cabinet, for consideration:

3.1 All guests of the working group be sent a copy of the report and be thanked for

their valuable contributions for their participation with the Working Group. 3.2 In response to Members’ concerns about levels of traffic in the Kent Thameside

Area generally, it was felt to be essential that local authorities work in partnership to develop a co-ordinated transport policy.

3.3 In response to changes to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that

all members of the Council, particularly those sitting on the Councils’’ Development Control Board receive additional training to assist members to adjust to the reforms within the planning system.

3.4 The working group recommends the Council reviews/realigns its regeneration

strategy to the Councils’ core planning, housing and communities strategies to provide stronger links within a wider range of policy reforms to maximise the opportunities to supply affordable homes within the wider context of this report through the emerging LDF documents.

3.5 Cabinet to recommend a comprehensive review of the Councils’ Affordable

housing and key workers strategies/policies to bring them in line to meet public expectation, demand and need.

3.6 The core strategies contained within LDF documents provides many opportunities

and it is therefore recommended to Cabinet that the Council takes at its earliest opportunity, a review to further expand key worker policies within the emerging housing and community strategies.

3.7 The Working Group suggests that an appraisal, assessment and evidence based

system be included within the core LDF documents linked to the housing and community strategies for the benefit of developers to demonstrate that their development proposals are aimed at meeting demand and needs.

3.8 That Cabinet recommend that a new Executive Housing working group be formed

to address the issues raised within this report as a separate item.

2


FINAL REPORT

4 CONTENT AND INTRODUCTION POLICY, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AND SECURING RELEVANT HOUSING OBLIGATIONS

4.1 The Borough of Dartford, situated in North West Kent is a thriving town which is currently undergoing considerable growth, being an integral part of the Thames Gateway. The planned growth includes the regeneration of underutilised and derelict land with the objective of transforming the locality into a major employment and residential area serving London and the South East. It is anticipated that around 30,000 homes will be built over the next thirty years and the affordability of housing will be a key issue for current and future residents.

The Working Group reviewed the planning and development process which included the following stages:

• Structure Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy)

• Local Plan (Local Development Framework)

• Supplementary Planning Guidance (non-statutory, optional)

• Pre-application discussions

• Planning Application

• Housing Corporation Funding

• Section 106 Agreement

• Appeal

• Judicial Review

• Lawful Development/Alternative Use

• Compulsory Purchase

The Strategic Housing Manager informed the Working Group of the relationship and links between the Council’s Housing Strategy and the planning and development process. Members gave full consideration to the stages of the planning and development process, with particular emphasis on the relationship and implications each had on local development.

3


FINAL REPORT

EXPLORATION OF DEVELOPMENT-RELATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN ST. CLEMENTS WAY CORRIDOR 4.2 In the context of future development, B255 St. Clements Way is a critical road corridor in the area, especially at its junction with A226 London Road. St Clements Way is a key traffic route that needs to support major development at Ingress Park, Eastern Quarry and Ebbsfleet, which will all have considerable traffic impacts. 1. Kent Thameside Model The Kent Thameside transportation model has been used for some years to assess traffic implications of potential development scenarios in Kent Thameside. The model was first built in 1993 and received its most recent update in 2002. The Group received a presentation on the Kent Thameside Model, by Keith Mitchell and Gary Heard of Peter Brett Associates (PBA). Land Securities had commissioned PBA to produce a traffic micro-simulation model based upon the Kent Thameside Model, which showed details of predicted traffic conditions on the St Clements Way corridor. The micro-simulation model, which forecasted the traffic flows at 2005, 2011, 2018 and 2025 was able to take account of am and pm peak flows, public and private journeys and the impact of slow moving vehicles. Members sought assurances about the methodology for validating the modelling data and asked to know what contingency measures were being planned to mitigate any under-projections in traffic flows. The introduction of ‘Fastrack’ had been taken into account with the micro simulation model, although it was confirmed that it did not reflect the impact of the assumed improvement in rail travel on traffic levels. 2. Greenhithe Triangle Study The Working Group also received a presentation from Babtie by Mr Faiz Nassiri. Babtie had produced a micro-simulation model, based on local surveys in October 2001, to examine options for dealing with future traffic levels around the A226/B255 junction in both the am and pm peaks. Demonstration of the present-year model showed the existing difficulties which appear at 17.45 at the Crossways Boulevard/St Clements Way junction. It was stated that London Road would be gridlocked within a few years unless some alleviating measures were introduced. The two main conclusions from the study were: (i) an all-vehicle part of the Everards Link (shown in Figure 3), would not obviate the

need to provide major improvements at London Road/St Clements Way junction; further, there would be congestion at the new traffic signal junction where the link joined London Road at The Avenue.

4


FINAL REPORT

(ii) carrying out the major improvement to the London Road/St Clements Way

junction alone, in the form of an underpass with St Clements Way passing underneath the roundabout (see Figure 5), achieves adequate capacity in the future years tested and also removes the queuing on London Road (east).

Following this conclusion, Kent County Council commissioned the consultants to investigate the feasibility of an underpass scheme. Once this had been carried out, it showed that the underpass scheme could be achieved with virtually no increase in traffic levels on the roundabout and would have minimal environment impact on local residents. It was confirmed that Kent County Council felt that an underpass would solve the projected difficulties and could possibly be achieved within five years, however would cost an estimated £4.9m. EXPLORATION OF CURRENT HOUSING DEMANDS AND COMPARISON WITH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON NEW SITES. BRIEFING ON SPECIFIC HOUSING CLIENT GROUPS’ NEEDS/DEMANDS

A day well spent in the life of Alan Cherry

Alan Cherry pictured right is currently Chairman of the Sustainable Development Round Table affiliated to the Government office for the East of England. The working group had the pleasure and privilege to spend an evening with Mr. Cherry discussing the groups undertaking within the context of how his company Countryside Properties was tackling the difficult issues of delivery affordable and sustainable development within the Thames Gateway in the 21st Century. Brief Background In 1984, Alan was awarded an MBE in the New Year's Honours List and awarded a CBE in 2003 in The Queen's Birthday Honours List. During this period, he was also elected as an Honorary Member of The Royal Town Planning Institute in 1991 and awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Anglia Polytechnic University, as well as being appointed a Deputy Lieutenant for the County of Essex in 1992. Over the years, Alan has been a member of numerous organisations and working parties including:

5


FINAL REPORT

Member of the Government's Urban Task Force Board Member of the East of England Development Agency Director of Invest East of England Chairman of Anglia Polytechnic University Member of the National Council of the CBI Chairman of the CBI East of England Regional Council Member of the Bank of England Property Forum Board Member of the Teeside Development Corporation Board Member of the National Westminster Bank City and West End Advisory Board Member of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh's Inquiry into British Housing Member of the Inner City Commission Chairman of the New Homes Marketing Board Member of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Inquiry into Planning for Housing Board Member of the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership National President of The House Builders Federation Deputy Chairman of Workspace Group PLC 4.3 Following on from that meeting, Mr. Cherry extended an invitation to the Working Group, to visit some examples of the approach that Countryside Properties had developed within Kent Thameside. The Millennium Village at Greenwich, which has demonstrated the benefits of incorporating environmental features within a new housing development, provides some insight into whether or not the Millennium project achieves significant results, the long-term consensus is still to be determined but the short-term view within the industry is that it has not. However, this should not detract from the overall commitment of Countryside Properties and English Partnerships after all the Millennium Village should be highly commended as these pioneering developments are extremely high-risk proposition and the concept is sound but will take time to develop and perfect before mainstream acceptability is finally achieved. For this reason, the working group would encourage the Council take the opportunity to develop a project of this nature involving Countryside Properties within Dartford. The working group felt that the developers approach was heading in the right direction and although Countryside Properties had produced significant pieces of work elsewhere, there most recent developments should be viewed as just the beginning of a journey rather than the end.

6


FINAL REPORT

The benefits however are clear, developers with proven environmental track records need to be encouraged to set new higher and exemplar standards within the development industry if we are to fully deliver and achieve the promise of sustainable development, which, ultimately will determine the future of not just generations to come but possibly the future of our planet as well. Sustainable New Communities Greenwich Millennium Village, London Greenwich Millennium Village shows what can be achieved with effort and imagination - shaping a new community where people will enjoy living, working or visiting. This community combines excellent urban design with sustainable construction techniques. Lessons learnt here will point the way forward for building other new urban communities around the country.

John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister Technology and innovation are at the heart of this new urban Village and is evident in the use of sustainable construction techniques and the provision of a community website. Greenwich Millennium Village is an ambitious mixed-use development encompassing almost 1,400 new homes, 20% of which will be affordable housing units fully integrated with the rest of the development. We are aiming, subject to planning permission, to increase the number of homes to around 2,500 units. This increase is possible because of the success of achieving higher densities in the early phases. The Village will also contain new shops, restaurants, work spaces and studio offices. Community facilities already include a new school, health centre and green open spaces are being provided that will benefit the wider Greenwich area. Built using best practice and some of the most advanced technology this development seeks to establish new sustainable methods of construction for the future. The Village will be a beacon for 21st century living, with new technologies in the home and environmentally friendly modes of transport. Background to the Greenwich Millennium Village Scheme The Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott launched the Millennium Village competition on the 10 July 1997. Its aim was to find a developer to create a community which is built to the highest quality of architectural design, embraces a mixed use approach and addresses environmental and energy conservation issues. The Masterplan

The Masterplan was created by Ralph Erskine, an internationally recognised architect with a deep understanding of the relationship between communities and the built environment, having previously worked on housing extensively in Europe, as well as in the UK.

Erskine's vision for the Village is to create a vibrant new community that works for people and where the pedestrian has priority over the car. In urban design terms, the Village

7


FINAL REPORT

reintroduces the London square to create streets and public spaces that are human, lively, intimate and secure. The Village itself is built around and overlooks an Ecology Park, created by English Partnerships. A new and sustainable approach to construction. Greenwich Millennium Village is being built using some of the most advanced technology and adhering to current best practice in the construction industry. Long-term partnering arrangements are being developed with suppliers so that they too can be encouraged to invest in research and innovation. The buildings are being made from materials that are environmentally sustainable. Recycled and locally produced materials are being used whenever possible. By maximising off-site prefabrication and by segregating and recycling materials significant reductions in construction waste are being made. The BREEAM Rating scheme has been adopted at Greenwich Millennium Village. This assessment method aims to show how improved environmental performance can be achieved through good design, rather than high capital cost solutions. Environmental performance is expressed on a scale of Pass to Excellent, and Greenwich Millennium Village has received the mark of Excellent on every phase to date - the first development in the UK to do so. Sustainable living

All homes are being equipped with water and energy efficient domestic appliances. The overall site planning and the orientation of the buildings have been specifically designed to maximise the benefits of solar gain. The heat and electricity needed for the Village is being generated on site through local, small scale, gas powered combined heat and power (CHP) plants. CHP has the advantage of producing a source of environmentally efficient, low cost energy. All homes have high standards of energy insulation.

Sustainable Transport The Village is promoting sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling and is well connected to London's newest and best public transport facilities. It will be virtually car free and traffic will be carefully managed to reduce pollution. Public transport links have been vastly improved in this part of London. Bus services link the Village to the new underground station at North Greenwich. From there, it is a short journey on the Jubilee Line into Central London and just one stop to Canary Wharf. The Village has been principally designed for the pedestrian. A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle routes have been specifically planned to provide interesting, attractive, safe and direct routes within the Village and beyond. Safe and secure cycle stores are being provided throughout the Village, including at public transport

8


FINAL REPORT

interchanges. CCTV enhances safety through monitoring public transport, cycle routes and pedestrian areas. Environment New green open space for informal use by adults and children and an Ecology Park that has considerable ecological importance have been established, covering 50 acres. Tens of thousands of trees and shrubs, together with new meadow grass, have been planted and nature trails opened. The lake is linked to ponds, reed beds and islets to attract birds. This has been highly successful and an abundance of birds and wildlife can be seen from reed-warblers, swifts and house martins to skylarks, herons and foxes. In addition, £11m has been invested by English Partnerships enhancing the Thames foreshore with an innovative river-terracing scheme.

Greenwich Yacht Club has been re-housed in new buildings adjoining the Ecology Park. Greenwich Millennium Village has a unique and natural environment and has already won a sustainability award at the RIBA Housing Design Awards and more recently a Civic Trust Award in 2004. Indeed, a survey has shown that 80% of our home buyers were influenced in their decision to purchase by the environmental agenda for the Village.

Sustainability Targets Greenwich Millennium Village is setting new standards for environmentally sustainable development. Over the lifetime of the project, the aim is to achieve:

• 80% reduction in primary energy consumption • 50% reduction in embodied energy

9


FINAL REPORT

• 50% reduction in construction waste • 30% reduction in water use • 30% reduction in construction costs • 25% reduction in project duration (construction time) • Zero defects at hand over

The Greenwich Millennium Village encompasses:

• An innovative approach to Masterplanning that uses landscaping, architecture and orientation to create a sheltered and tempered microclimate and transform a virtually uninhabited windswept brownfield site into a place where people want to live and work.

• Technology and innovation is at the heart of this new urban Village and is evident in the use of sustainable construction techniques and the provision of a community intranet, teleservices centre and information technology in the home.

• Multi-functional urban development which creates a balance through careful design between private and public spaces and involves the successful integration of public transport and pedestrian movement systems.

• The re-use of previously developed land in order to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of new land being taken for development.

• A truly mixed use development that incorporates flexible mixed-tenure homes, fully integrated leisure, community and employment uses in a bio-diverse habitat.

• Environmentally sustainable development that achieves drastic reductions in construction costs, energy/water consumption and waste.

Community Development A Community Development Manager is working with the growing number of residents to facilitate important social innovations to help promote a sustainable community. An active Residents Association has been formed which is taking a keen interest in local management issues. Greenwich Millennium Village Management Limited was set up to be responsible for the long-term management of the Village. This Company will ultimately be owned by the residents/owners and thus will determine the standards they require. St. Mary's Island, Kent Britain's first new island community.

St Mary's Island, Chatham Maritime is the first development of more than 50 homes in the South East (excluding London) to receive a BREEAM rating of 'Very Good' from the Building Research Establishment (BRE). On the site of the former Royal Naval Dockyard, Countryside Maritime Ltd., a joint venture between Countryside Properties and the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), is currently creating three distinctive phases of development. One of these, the 'Fishing Village' has recently won recognition from Energy Efficiency Best Practice in Housing for successfully combining

energy efficiency measures with renewable resources.

10


FINAL REPORT

Overcomes major technical constraints to bring brownfield land forward for development, including extensive site reclamation and decontamination as a result of the previous use as a Ministry of Defence Royal Naval Dockyard. Conserves the existing environment and visual qualities of the landscape through the creation of a wide sweep of parkland running across the island which contributes to bio-diversity and wildlife. Provides a park and marina, education, community, leisure and retail uses to complement the island environment. Establishes character areas to create a sense of place and identity. Mixes residential and commercial/retail uses at the Historic Dockside, including the conversion of the dock buildings into high density, environmentally responsive 3 to 5 storey apartment blocks, 'live and work' units and 3 storey town houses. Chatham Maritime is a development of national and regional significance created from dereliction in an attractive urban waterfront location. During 2004 St Mary's Island Chatham Maritime received broad recognition including -

• Building for Life Silver Standard award (a joint initiative from CABE, House Builders Federation and Civic Trust).

• Commended in the Regeneration category of the RICS Awards. • Shortlisted in the Sustainable New Homes Awards. • 'Best Sustainable Development', at the What House? Awards - Silver. • Challenging Regeneration Project winner for Chatham Maritime (with SEEDA) in

the Building Regeneration Awards. Sustainable Development is also proving beneficial to the bottom line as well as the environment. Countryside Properties Vision, strategy and business benefit Countryside Properties consistently demonstrates its long-term approach to creating sustainable living and working places that combine social, environmental and economic viability in such a way that adds value to the business. Judges comment 'Best corporate social responsibility practice for a non-FTSE 100 company' at the IR Magazine Awards 2004. Countryside Properties' objective is to create enhanced returns for shareholders whilst developing sustainable communities that offer the highest quality of life to everyone. We believe this is best achieved through our innovative, responsible and long-term approach to development. We aim to maintain our leading position in sustainability in our industry, but always with the intent of adding value to our business. We seek to ensure that our approach reflects emerging legislation, management and reporting standards and meets the needs of our business. In order for us to measure our performance against our commitment to corporate responsibility, we annually review our

11


FINAL REPORT

ESE objectives to ensure they are aligned with the Group's business strategy, Government policy and are as 'future proofed' as possible. Our strategy continues to strongly support the Government's four principles of sustainable development:

• Enabling social progress which recognises the needs of stakeholders • Providing effective protection of the environment • Encouraging the prudent use of natural resources • Developing high and stable levels of economic growth and employment

These principles are translated into new and forthcoming legislation through a raft of codes, objectives and recommendations, the most significant of which are mentioned in the Chairman's Introduction. We are rising to the challenges of changing demographics, diverse societal cultures, increasing stakeholder and employee expectations and the need to balance the natural and the built environments. In doing so we are recognised as a leader in the delivery of sustainable communities, by not just complying with the Government's development policies, but by consistently setting new industry standards.

The above comments are reproduced with the kind permission of Countryside Properties

A Prefatory Note; Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident, it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.

King Whitney Jr.

4.4 The Working Group invited local Estate Agents and Mortgage Advisors to join them to discuss housing needs within the borough. Mr J Gibson, Sales Manager at Clifton & Co Estate Agents and Mr S Clarke of Campbell Clarke Surveyors & Valuers, attended the meeting on 26 April 2005.

Mr Gibson gave the Working Group a breakdown of housing demand, based on enquiries received by Clifton & Co Estate Agents:

2 bedroom properties 35% 3 bedroom properties 33% Studio/1 bedroom properties 24% 4/5 bedroom (executive) properties 8%

The rental market in the Borough was particularly active and Mr Gibson advised that enquiries for rented accommodation were a third higher than those for property purchases. This was thought to be caused by those at the bottom of the property ladder being unable to secure an adequate mortgage, leaving renting as their only option.

12


FINAL REPORT

It was estimated that one in four properties sold by Clifton & Co were purchased for subsequent letting and people who purchased a property to rent, expect the associated income to cover their mortgage repayments.

Members identified that a 5% deposit was normally required for property purchases, which placed additional financial pressure on first-time buyers.

The Working Group discussed the income that would be required for a couple to purchase a basic two bedroom house. Members were advised that a joint income of £40,000 would normally be required to secure the necessary mortgage on a £130,000 house. Mortgage offers are now often made on a case-by-case basis following a detailed review of an applicant’s financial liabilities and credit rating.

Members discussed shared ownership as a way of delivering affordable housing. They were advised that when a property for shared ownership had been advertised, it had resulted in an overwhelming number of responses compared to enquiries for full market value properties.

The Working Group discussed the availability of homes for rental. Properties were always available and there was a quick turnover because landlords did not want their properties to be empty for long. Rented accommodation was often advertised up to two months before becoming vacant, this enabled a new tenant to be lined up before the existing tenant left. Clifton & Co Estate Agents provided for Members’ information, a breakdown of the types of property being sought by prospective buyers in the area.

Flats/maisonettes 42% Mid terrace properties 15% End of terrace/semi detached properties 38%

Detached properties 4%

Members discussed the provision of affordable housing with Mr Gibson who advised that even those properties which were cheapest to build were still out of reach for most first-time buyers. To meet demand, focus should be placed on the provision of more 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL HOUSING PRODUCTS AND PROCUREMENT OPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INCLUDING INNOVATIVE OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING HOUSING TO MEET CHANGING HOUSING NEEDS AND DEMANDS 4.5 The Working Group was asked to review potential housing products and procurement options for affordable housing, including innovative options for providing housing to meet changing housing needs and demands. Members of the Working Group considered the housing options available in the borough:-

There are several types of accommodation available: -

13


FINAL REPORT

FLAT OR HOUSE SOLE TENANCY – A private flat or house that is rented to one person or a family.

FLAT OR HOUSE SHARE – A group of people (often friends) share a private flat or house.

STUDIO – A one-room flat that contains the bedroom, living space, kitchen and bathroom.

BEDSIT – Standards vary, but usually bedsits are a bedroom with mini kitchen facilities. Bathrooms are often shared and accessed along a hallway, there may also be shared kitchen facilities.

LODGING – a rented room in a private house or flat.

COUNCIL HOUSING – Local Authorities provide a diverse stock of accommodation, but there are restrictions about who qualifies to live in their properties.

HOSTEL, HALLS OR PURPOSE BUILT – These are often lockable bedrooms in a flat where residents share kitchen and living space.

SHARED OWNERSHIP – This option is for people who cannot afford to buy a home on the open market. With this scheme you buy a partial share in a home from a Registered Social Landlord, usually 25-30%, with a mortgage. The remaining property is then rented from the Registered Social Landlord.

OWNERSHIP – purchase a freehold or leasehold property outright or with a mortgage.

As set out in the Council’s Local Plan, all new housing developments within the borough have to give consideration to affordable housing. There is no single definition of what is affordable. However the definition used in the Council’s Key Worker Policy is “Affordable housing is any housing for rent, purchase or shared ownership that is specifically developed or acquired or for which financial assistance is given for the purpose of providing a home at a cost that can be afforded by a household that could not afford to meet its reasonable housing needs at open market prices” The Council’s Key Worker Housing Policy defines a Key Worker as someone earning below a certain threshold to be reviewed from time to time who is employed: a) in one of the following public service posts/services: teacher nurse and possibly other essential health staff police

14


FINAL REPORT

other key public service staff that are hard to recruit or retain because of local housing availability and costs

b) in an essential service in the private sector, that registers an interest in participating in the scheme, and can demonstrate to the Council’s satisfaction that they are of value to the community and local economy. Priority for allocating places in key worker schemes receiving public subsidy is given to those listed at a) above. The Working Group reviewed the problems the borough has with providing housing products. It has been recognised that housing costs in the South East of England have increased dramatically in the last 10 years, which has not kept inline with average incomes. People on low and middle incomes have found it difficult to get access to the housing market, when house prices in England rose by 13 % in 2004(1). Shown below are the comparison between the average prices of residential properties in 1999 and 2004: -

Source: Land Registry

Region/Area Av Price £ Sales Av Price £ Sales DA1 1 79900 80 141241 39 DA1 2 76212 47 168858 43 DA10 0 82339 48 147880 27 DA11 9 61748 22 121779 47 DA13 9 161210 13 379809 14 DA14 5 103306 22 219606 14 DA2 6 93668 102 158663 52 DA3 8 110894 49 215153 31 DA4 9 133736 26 167674 18 DA5 2 138285 14 273346 19 DA9 9 79120 89 186679 105

Oct – Dec 1999 Oct – Dec 2004

(1) Council of Mortgage Leaders – Press Release 1 Feb 05

It was recognised that the cost of purchasing a property in the borough was a problem for some people. Although, there are many different mortgages available, Mortgage Lenders will normally lend a person three times their annual gross salary. However, if they are purchasing a property with a partner, the additional income is usually recognised and a higher sum offered. For example a person earning £20,000 gross per annual, could have a mortgage for £80,000. A joint income of £40,000 gross per annual could have a mortgage for £100,000.

15


FINAL REPORT

Buyers would also need to consider the additional costs involved with purchasing a property, as the following fees need to be paid:

Costs Approximate costs for

£100,000 property Stamp Duty £1,000* Solicitor’s fees £900 Searches £25-150 Land Registry £80 Solicitor’s disbursements £35 Lending source’s solicitor’s fees £300 Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee £1,400 Lender’s valuations £160 Survey fee £300 Building Insurance £200

Source: www.yourmortgage.co.uk

*In the Lord Chancellor’s Budget announcement on 16 March 2005, Stamp Duty would now be exempt on properties under £120,000 – see below.

Stamp duty is the tax normally paid by the purchaser of a property to the Government. However, until the Lord Chancellor’s budget announcement on 16 March 2005, stamp duty was previously based on the following rates: -

o Exempt: if the purchase price of the property is under £60,000 o 1% of the purchase price on any sales exceeding £60,000 and under £250,000 o 3% of the purchase price on any sales exceeding £60,000 and under £500,000 o 4% of the purchase price on any sales exceeding £500,000

The view has been expressed that the Government should reform stamp duty, as the £60,000 threshold had not been raised since 1993 and did not reflect property prices. Chancellor Gordon Brown announced on 16 March 2005, that the Government would reduce the costs for people looking to buy their first home, and doubled the stamp duty threshold to £120,000. Reviewing the 2004 house sale figures, this change would mean that 15% (or 28,095)(2) of the sales in the South East would have been exempt from paying stamp duty. BAGROUND AND INFORMATION Summary 5. The current range of housing within the borough may be described as a good mix. However, evidence would suggest that local supply cannot meet local demand. As a result of this, careful consideration needs to be applied to support the more vulnerable groups most likely to be at risk. Currently there are nearly 3000 people on the Council’s waiting list for rented accommodation and therefore the working group suggests that it would be in the public interest for the Council to review its affordable housing and key workers policies to bring them in line to meet public expectation, demand and need.

16


FINAL REPORT

5.1 The working group is not however suggesting an automatic increase to the current 30% affordable housing requirement within new developments; however, there is not a clear indication of the need to provide more socially rented accommodation throughout the borough, as the high numbers reflected on the Councils’’ housing list is not necessarily reflective of need but rather demand. The long-term strategy must address this issue as urgent. The working group considers for that reason, Cabinet should not dismiss lightly the possibility of an increase of 10 or even 20% to the current affordable housing policy. 5.2 The working group’s findings show that owner occupation is now out of reach of many local people, including key workers such as nurses, police, teachers and their support staff. An assessment of the relationship between the regional lower quartile incomes to local authority lower quartile house prices indicate that both low and high demand exists in parts of the country and in some case within the same regions however in Dartford there are considerable problems of affordability as a result of high demand. 5.3 If we can accept that housing is the one common denominator and how it links people and wealth, we can understand that a stable UK housing market can mean the difference between social and economic success or failure. This provides the basis for the wider understanding of the fundamental microeconomics within the inter-relationship between housing and the economy. For economies to be successful, whether at the national, regional or local level, we need balanced housing markets. For housing and communities to be sustainable, we need strong economies. And this link holds true across the whole of the UK. 5.4 There are of course a number of ways to prioritise the manner in which the Council chooses to address these issues, none of which are simple or represent easy choices. However, these are some of the most important issues facing not just this Council but Council’s around the country and regardless of its complexity asserting blame or developing policies that work against the grain are to be avoided at all costs. 5.5 There is considerable value in recognising the need for a bipartisan policy approach which if framed correctly could provide a strong basis aimed at meeting in the wider context, public expectation, demand and need. However, the value of such policy changes should also be subject to full democratic scrutiny before being implemented. 5.6 The Prime Minster has stated that “We have to recognise the fact that there is an excess of demand over supply for housing in the south” The Government accepts that the challenge facing all tiers of Government is to make home ownership more affordable. 5.7 However there is a tendency to measure affordable homes against an individuals or families ability to pay, this in my view should be regarded as a flaw in the approach to the delivery of more sustainable and affordable homes. The working group’s findings would appear to support this view, which were based on land and development costs, Government grants paid either by subsides grants to Socially Registered Landlords (SRL) or incorporated via a calculated system known as TCI (Total Cost Indicator) which is nationally set and varies considerably from area to area.

17


FINAL REPORT

5.8 Much further work is required to take into account the effects of long-term affordability, and how through the planning system Council policy could be better utilised to redefine the Council’s long-term approach to delivery of sustainable and affordable housing. These objective should not only be aimed at meeting housing targets but also incorporate sustainable design as well as high quality designed homes, accessible, maintainable and affordable to a wider range of people as well as efficient to run and environmentally acceptable. 5.9 In 1987, the then Norwegian Prime Minister, Ms Gro Harlem Brundtland, said that sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Government until recently has portrayed Sustainable Development (SD) as a simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for people in the future. However the widely used Brundtland definition is now more commonly used by the Government to describe SD as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The idea of sustainable development has been around for a number of decades and although the idea is simple, the work to be done is substantial, complex and delivery is proving problematic as it means meeting four goals at the same time:

• Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone • Effective protection of the environment • Prudent use of natural resources and • Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

5.10 Within the context of the working groups remit it is important that we reference Sustainable Development (SD) which includes environmental, social and economic goals as well as prudent use of natural resources. We should also note that SD is about protecting, and where possible enhancing the environment, not just for its own sake but also because a damaged environment will, sooner or later hold back the social needs of people as well as economic development and lower the quality of life. 5.11 This includes basic social needs for affordable warm homes and safe streets, as well as other social needs such as giving people the opportunity to achieve their potential through education, participation in society and good health. Sustainable Development is equally about maintaining a robust economy because this is needed to create the wealth to meet these various needs, now and in the future. 5.12 However, Sustainable Development is not about self-sacrifice. Many measures can improve the quality of life such as providing warmer homes, cleaner air, safer streets and healthier communities but none has proved as elusive as providing affordable homes for all. Situations still exist where people cannot afford to heat their homes adequately or where they use less water than they need for fear of the cost are not acceptable. 5.13 Instead, everyone must work together to meet people’s needs in ways, which put less pressure on the environment. The use of renewable energy, Increasing the energy efficiency of homes and reducing leaks from water mains are good examples of better ways to improve people’s quality of life, as are improving access to schools and shops on

18


FINAL REPORT

foot, by bike or public transport, each in it own way are attributable to the cost of providing affordable homes. 5.14 Sustainable Development should begin with sustainable design as it is about thinking in different ways and finding new ways to do things. It means considering how to reduce the amount of waste produced rather than just cleaning up power station emissions; or reducing the need to travel by considering where people want to live and work, rather than just producing less-polluting cars. 5.15 Sustainability is directly linked to affordability in the wider context and cannot be confined to just providing homes for key workers and people on low income. Affordable homes are not about reducing quality nor does it mean lowering the quality of life and reducing comfort and well-being, when in fact the opposite is true. As demand for housing in the South East is unlikely to reduce more and more thought will have to go into designing sustainable and affordable quality homes and that means creating better buildings for people, better products for our use, and better places to inhabit. 5.15 Sustainable design starts with the understanding that the purpose of design is to create physical artefacts that benefit people. Sustainable design is a movement that should seek to enhance that goal within the wider context of Sustainable Development, and that requires a more holistic approach. Renewable energy should be given the highest priority within new developments such as the Town Centre, Eastern Quarry, Swanscombe Peninsula West, The Bridge and West Hill Hospital, as to do otherwise could be regarded as reckless AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING INLCUDING EXECUTIVE HOUSING 6. The Government's objective to bring down house prices is unlikely to be achieved and affordable housing will have to take on a new meaning in the wider sense of affordablity and sustainable communities. 6.1 A key consideration of the work carried out by the Working Group was to review potential housing products and procurement options for affordable housing, including innovative options for providing housing to meet changing housing needs and demands. 6.2 There is no single definition of what is affordable. This report provides a full definition used in the Council’s Key Worker Policy relating to “Affordable housing”. The Council’s Key Worker Housing Policy is also defined within this report however; there is no specific housing policy for executives or executive housing currently with planning guidance. 6.3 The working group did however find evidence to support a requirement to ensure that executive types needed special consideration in so much as there is a need to provide homes for executives’. As a result of that, and however novel, I see no reason why an executive housing policy could not be developed within a section of the housing strategy, providing that an adequate evidence base supported this as a viable option. 6.4 Equally an executive housing caveat should such a policy be developed would also need to be considered in terms of the wider context of sustainable development as

19


FINAL REPORT

such homes have the potential to demand a greater amount of usage of natural resources putting greater pressure on the environment. 6.5 Executive housing could however also be affordable and should not just be treated as exclusive housing or seen to be perceived to receive special treatment such as two additional parking spaces for example above and beyond what the average resident might be expected to accept. 6.6 Nevertheless the case for executive housing would in my view rest or fall on a very special justification to distinguish an ‘executive home from that of a large family home. For that reason I consider this if even possible, would require a clearly defined definition in what the Council’s vision for executive homes were and how that related back to the need for such a policy. 6.7 Any such policy should also state clear and defined objectives based on achieving / balancing the Councils’’ approach to delivering sustainable development. Produce clear-cut benefits aimed at maximising their impact effectively and efficiently, and deliver real results such as social and economic improvement, measurable in increased wealth and employment opportunities within the borough, without compromising prudent use of land, natural recourses or creating a negative impact on the environment. 6.8 As well as the sequential test of sustainability there is also spatial Interventions, which are about clear cut objectives, thinking about alternatives or options of intervening to meet them, effectively creating Executive Zones could be considered spatial intervention and it is difficult not to imagine a place where “This is where all the rich people live” a gated community. 6.9 Additionality is also a key test and is measurable against the extent to which something happens as a result of an intervention that would not have ordinarily occurred in the absence of the intervention in the first instance. 6.10 As there are so many unresolved matters resulting from this discussion that can not be determined by the working group it is therefore recommended that further work be carried out and that a new Executive Housing working group be formed to address the issues raised as a separate item. POLICY CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES 7. Policy context in terms of planning and housing strategy were sufficient in so much as not to have to make unnecessary recommendations for change. However, the Local Plan Second Draft Deposit is effectively frozen and is afforded very little weight in planning terms and has become rather a mismatch of well intended policy and as a result of that, become difficult to follow. 7.1 The development of the emerging Local Development Framework should present an opportunity for the Council to address, and more clearly define, all of the Council’s development policy and in particular those covered by the Development Including Executive & Affordable Housing Working Group.

20


FINAL REPORT

7.2 Equally, the core strategies contained within LDF documents provides many such opportunities and it is therefore recommended that the Council takes at its earliest opportunity a review to further expand key worker policies within the emerging housing and community strategies. There is clear evidence to suggest that Intervention is required as current development proposals and in particular, those relating to housing types being brought forward by developers are not planned in the truest sense as the best example of sustainable development. 7.3 The LDF framework documents could and in fact should provide the evidence base for developers to build the appropriate housing types to meet demand and need. The working group therefore highlights the need for robust end-user statistics within the housing strategies in support of delivering sustainable development particularly where it relates to affordable and executive housing. 7.4 The Working Group suggests that an appraisal, assessment and evidence based system be included within the core LDF documents linked to the housing and community strategies for the benefit of developers to demonstrate that their development proposals are aimed at meeting demand and needs. This would provide the Council with a valuable tool as a means of assessing the concept of new planning proposals at the pre-application stages as well as provide some degree of certainty of acceptability to the applicant and the Council that the end users needs were being addressed and not just or necessarily the type of house being developed. 7.5 The Barker reviews of housing supply and the Egan Review of Skills are two key pieces of work that have produced recommendations that if fully implemented, will have significant financial impacts on local authorities. 7.6 There is a need for the Council to demonstrate widespread engagement in improving its approach to planning and placing it at the heart of localism to counter threats based on Government and regional delivery boards assumptions that local authorities are not capable of improvement. 7.7 The role of the Core Strategy, its links with the Community Strategy, the Council's policies, housing strategies etc, and national and regional planning guidance. It proposes a range of issues to be addressed, and provides a spatial vision for Dartford, strategic objectives for the core strategy, and several flexible spatial options which provide alternative approaches to the delivery of the vision. 7.8 Priority for attention in Local Development Documents (LDDs) should be those parts of the UDP which are the most out of date, particularly those superseded by more recent national and regional planning policy guidance. It is also important that the LDF gives effect to the spatial elements of the Community Strategy, Biodiversity Action Plan and other Council strategies, such as those for housing and regeneration, as they emerge. Another important factor influencing the selection of priorities is the availability of an adequate evidence base to support new proposals. The LDS needs to reflect these localised priorities in the programming of LDD production. DELIVERY ISSUES

21


FINAL REPORT

Region 8. A number of housing associations and developers in the region are developing schemes, which not only produce cheaper housing but also address environmental sustainability issues. Particular schemes include:

Atlas Project by Midsummer Housing Association, involving 150 affordable homes in Milton Keynes, achieving high standards of insulation;

SUN (Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood) by Hyde Housing in Southampton incorporating many aspects of green issues; and

People Power by Maidenhead & District Housing Association, producing low cost homes that generate their own electricity.

The working Group experienced first hand examples of how innovative and forward thinking developers Countryside Properties had developed their vision of sustainable development. 8.1 Whilst we must accept that not enough homes are being built in the South East to meet the demands from the increasing number of households in the region and its growing economy. The Government's Communities Plan seeks to accelerate the current house-building programme by increasing the house-building target by roughly 200,000 in addition to the 900,000 new homes already planned between 1996 and 2016 in the South East. 8.2 However the eighth report agreed by The ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee produced a report entitled:- Planning for Sustainable Housing and Communities: Sustainable Communities in The South East. 8.3 In which the committee acknowledged the Governments intend that the homes should be built as part of sustainable communities. However, building more homes is not a panacea and the impact of such a housing programme on the environment could prove unsustainable. 8.4 A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation takes the general view that "the UK needs some 210,000 additional homes each year, in place of current levels of under 150,000, to bring supply more in line with demand over the next 20 years. The report highlights that 70% of demand is currently in the Southern regions but only 50% of the new house-building is in these areas". 8.5 The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions in Europe has not yet been fully assessed. Dartford sits at the heart of the Thames Gateway and is closely connected to London and measures must be developed first at the local level linking in at the regional level to safeguard against the event that Dartford could become nothing more than an expensive extension of London or worse a highly priced commuter settlement. 8.6 There is little doubt that additional homes will place excessive demands on the environment and this could lead to the loss of further Greenfield sites elsewhere in the

22


FINAL REPORT

region it also gives rise to excessive pressure on the water, electricity supply and other natural resources. 8.7 The expense and complexity of the task to build so many homes is recognised by the Government, although they have yet to estimate the costs of providing the transport links, health care, education and all the other facilities which new neighbourhoods require. 8.8 There is ample evidence that even the enlarged house-building programme in the South East will have little impact on house prices. This underlines the importance of the new developments including significant amounts of affordable housing. The Government has acknowledged the need to provide for more homes than are currently being produced, and whilst one must accept the assumption in principle that by increasing supply over demand could lead to reduced house prices in the long-term. 8.9 The reality is quite different as there is very little evidence that the proposed new major house-building programme within the four identified growth areas and in particular the Thames Gateway will actually achieve that. It is therefore more likely that the impact on prices will be insignificant because factors other than the supply of housing will have a major influence on prices. 8.10 The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said "House prices will continue to increase while interest rates remain low and public confidence in national economic performance remains strong. In such circumstances any rapid increase in house-building is unlikely to have a significant impact on prices in the short term". INFRASTRUCTURE 9. The new style spatial strategies contained within the LDF offer Dartford fresh opportunities to provide more sustainable and affordable house-building programmes as well as employment within the borough. It also presents opportunities to develop good practice in building high-density high quality vibrant neighbourhoods that are mixed tenure with well designed environmentally efficient homes, affordable in the here and now and the future. 9.1 In addition to clearly defined objectives within the core LDF documents and the Council should encourage the use of Concept Plans, Masterplans, Development Briefs and Design Briefs upon which to provide the basis for the layout of the new neighbourhoods ensuring a higher degree of predictability as to the outcome of planning application. 9.2 However, prescriptive guidance on road layouts that limits the potential of architects, urban designers and civil engineers to emulate the success of the Victorian neighbourhoods should be resisted, particularly where the results or impacts from new communities onto the existing are reasonably predicable. There will of course always exist the presence of intellectual arguments often presented by developers/consultants that may at first appear compelling and therefore justified but unless the argument can demonstrate that it meets the immediate and future local requirement first and foremost, such development should be considered un-sustainable.

23


FINAL REPORT

9.3 Equal consideration should be shown to all new mixed-use development proposals and not just domestic housing that cannot demonstrate their efficiency or their ability to contribute to future environmental improvement and should be measured against a sustainability test demonstrating the developments likely predicated impact100 years into the future. 9.4 Infrastructure also has a huge impact on the sustainability and affordability of development and it is widely understood that it is considerably more expensive to make environmental improvements retrospectively. Therefore given what is already widely accepted as best practice it becomes clear that the Council must do all that it reasonably can to ensure that all future development is both sustainable and affordable especially in the long-term. The costs of providing the infrastructure for the house-building programme in the borough cannot be unreasonably burdened on developers. Particularly were such costs are paid in at the County level and it is unlikely that the existing residents will see any immediate benefits to offset the disruption caused by construction which is expected to last 25 to 30 years in Dartford. 9.5 Therefore new development proposals should be limited to local capacity. In other words were it can be reasonably predicted that a proposed development scheme will have significant negative impact on local infrastructure including natural resources it should be considered un-sustainable and therefore un-affordable unless substantial infrastructure improvements can be provided by the time of occupancy. 9.6 The working group in meeting 2 explored some of these difficulties on a localised level when they discussed development related traffic impacts at St Clements Way and the Greenhithe triangle. 9.7 As a Council, we need to be confident that the infrastructure will be available when the housing is occupied. The Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has said that the Communities Plan "was not a wholesale plan for transport infrastructure, education and health. And further said that, "An implementation framework is required, drawn up jointly by several Government departments, and the local authorities to ensure budgets are identified and the infrastructure provided when the new housing is occupied. 9.8 The Thames Gateway will take roughly 30 years to deliver, there is only £610m allocated in the Communities Plan over the next three years clearly a significantly amount more funding will be required in the longer term. 9.9 The last major regeneration scheme to hit these shores was in the 50’s and again in the 70’s will be remember by most long serving members of the Council lets hope we can all agree that there are critical lessons for the Dartford area that can be drawn from the successes and failures of previous housing growth policies. 9.10 Although the New Towns programme was developed and delivered in a very different political and policy climate, many of the issues that the Government, the New Towns Development Corporations and local authorities grappled with in the 1950’s and 70’s are similar to those that will need to be addressed today.

24


FINAL REPORT

• Valuable Lessons can be learnt from such experiments, number 1 is almost all of the new homes built in the ‘New Towns’ are now in need of comprehensive redevelopment after only 40 years.

• The’ New Towns’ highlighted the poor layout of their centres, the low density

housing development and the failure to secure mixed use.

• It is important that the lessons of this experience are learned and the new neighbourhoods are planned in a way which will satisfy demands in the very long term.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been drawn from the various discussions, meetings and referenced documents within this report. The working group considers this to be an integral part of its finding and therefore recommends the following conclusions to Cabinet. The Cabinet is asked to consider referring the working groups’ findings to LDF working group so that the relevant sections may be considered for inclusion and where appropriate within the emerging LDF Core Documents and ultimately form part of the Councils’ overall regeneration strategy. The basis for this recommendation is the current regeneration strategy does not reflect the dynamics’ of change within the housing and employment markets. Present day circumstances quickly become out of date within these constantly changing markets. The working group accepts that a snapshot may give an indication of requirements in the short-term but it does not consider the fact that a significant proportion of people will experience a change of circumstances over the next 20 years and beyond. Regeneration Strategy – to promote the attraction of revenue and wealth the need of increased educational requirements and new job creation, housing requirements both socially and privately rented, private homeownership are all complex issues that require balancing in order to meet peoples needs now and in the future. A snapshot view to cover the next 20 years will not provide a true representation of what is required because of the ever-changing dynamics and consequent effects on everyday life. Snapshot views must be taken with a pinch of salt. It is therefore preferable that the development of a robust and flexible regeneration strategy should contain mechanisms’ that are able to take into account ‘The Dynamics’ of change and unpredictability within the region as a whole. • Dartford Borough Councils’ strategy in part seeks to rebalance economic activity and

housing demand within the borough with the creation of 2 jobs per new household. In support of this strategic approach the Council recognises the need to bring forward a comprehensive strategy to show how employment and the demand for housing particularly affordable housing could be distributed more equitably across the borough as part of an integrated strategy.

• The Council accepts that a spatial strategy could help ensure that the supply of housing is better balanced with demand, reduce the impact on the environment and better promote social and economic opportunities

25


FINAL REPORT

• Dartford Borough Council through public service and private sector agreement seeks to achieve a better-localised balance of supply and demand for all housing. This includes for example: affordable housing socially rented, shared equity, special needs housing (and housing built to higher than normal densities) which is not affordable simply because it caters to a particular group; local assessments of needs for affordable housing may show for example that there are elderly households who cannot afford sheltered housing provided by the market.

• The Council’s approach to service delivery agreements for the public service and private sector agreements should set out ways to reduce demand in the borough as well as boost demand in areas with surplus housing

• Dartford Borough Council accepts that these proposals are unlikely to have any impact on reducing house prices making it all the more important for the Government to support a major programme of affordable housing including all necessary infrastructure support.

• The Working Group is not convinced that the proposed enlarged house-building programme can be accommodated within the region without seriously affecting the quality of the environment.

• The working group believes that before new house-building targets are approved, the probable impact on the environment must be appraised within the Council’s LDF sustainability appraisal criteria as well as a further sustainability appraisal within the context of PPS9 for all new development meeting the minimum threshold including those currently with outline planning.

• The working group confirms that the provision of affordable housing has up to now fallen far short of the target in Regional Planning Guidance.

• The working group identified that new funds allocated by the Communities Plan will help but caution against development that cannot be support by the existing levels of infrastructure or where new and essential infrastructure cannot be delivered by the time new developments are occupied.

• The working group endorses that as extra funds become available from the ODPM they should be allocated and concentrated in areas where needs and demand are greatest.

• The working group agrees there are many areas in the borough in need of regeneration and funding for affordable housing provision should not be reduced in other areas because of the increased development elsewhere and that established communities should secure a fair share of any new funds arising from new development.

• The working group considers that more affordable housing should be concentrated in or close to the town and village centre to increase the population so that they can support as well as improve local basic services, and amenities; such as a passenger railway stations, parks and employment opportunities.

• There are many examples within the borough were affordable housing is in high demand served by existing transport links that are in need of regeneration that would reinforce the vibrancy of Dartford town centre and the villages of Stone, Temple Hill, Swanscombe and Greenhithe etc.

• The working group recognises that small development sites can help make an area sustainable, even though individually they will make only a limited contribution towards achieving the Governments ambitious house-building targets.

26


FINAL REPORT

• There are nonetheless a number of sites that could be utilised to provide Affordable/ Executive type housing, as well as a particularly high number of Windfall sites not included in the UDP / local plan. Such sites might ordinarily be considered unsuitable for affordable housing and there is evidence to support a trend by smaller developers to lodge planning applicants just under the minimum threshold required to include affordable housing. It might be useful in meeting the Council’s objectives if these apparent loopholes were tightened and where an executive type housing policy/strategy might prove useful if pursued.

• The working group welcomes the Government's commitment to reviewing planning guidance on affordable housing, but urge the Council/Cabinet to lobby for support to increase local authority powers to require contributions from developers as well as streamlining the negotiation process.

• The working group considers that potential contributions from private developers through planning gain agreements must not be overestimated particularly if they were placed into a local (not regional) centralised fund they could provide funding toward improving the existing communities, infrastructure where it is most needed, refurbishment projects and affordable housing

• The working group acknowledges there are a few examples of well designed modern housing developments such as Ingress Park, Chatham Maritime Village and the Millennium Village in Greenwich. However it should be noted that Ingress Park has only managed to deliver a very small number of affordable housing, and although architecturally superb it is not the best example of sustainable development in the wider sense of this report.

• These are however examples of successful high density housing developments offering an improved promise of quality of life, flexible space and healthy living lifestyle. These aspects should be studied and the design principles translated to incorporate the wider aspects of affordability and sustainability raised in this report.

• The working group considers rigid highway standards and design guidance inhibiting upon the implementation of the aspirations in PPG3 to create well designed neighbourhoods. The development and use of up to date traffic models that adequately reflect current day circumstance must be reflected within any new highway standards and guidance is urgently required which are more flexible to allow architects and planners to draw up designs to fit a particular locality

• New development sites are required to deliver higher density housing and this should be actively encouraged (provided there is adequate evidence and infrastructure to support the proposed scheme) to maximise levels of affordable new homes.

• The working group is concerned that the current batch of new homes are not, being built to the highest environmental standards to enable the use of natural resources, biodiversity, environmental and renewable energy commitments that in the long-terms will not compromise as a whole, societies future needs.

• The working group welcomes developments in the borough that offer an opportunity to develop a new model of environmentally efficient housing which has equipment to reduce water and energy consumption and high levels of noise insulation, which in the long-term will contribute to the affordability of housing. Although there is evidence to suggest that the initial installation costs could be higher, they would be offset by the long-term savings in running costs, and eventually as this becomes the benchmark the cost of eco-development materials would reduce by volume buying.

27


FINAL REPORT

• The working group considers that within the LDF environmental features such as those required to achieve the higher EcoHomes standards should be made a condition of planning approval and included in Building Regulations. as well as the need for building regulations on noise insulation to be effectively enforced

• Affordability should not be restricted to those in need or judged against the end users ability to pay but by the cost to the ‘Planet and Mankind’. The Council should include in the LDF documents / policies a means to secure environmentally efficient housing and give greater priority to achieving high environmental standards when deciding on planning applications’.

• The working group recommends a form Kitemarking scheme that would help raise the profile of environmentally efficient homes. The Councils’ regeneration strategy should set higher environmental standards for all homes and businesses with the borough

• The working group would have raised concerns that the Deputy Prime Minister had not confirmed that other Government departments have made allocations to support their ambitious house-building programme in the south East. However the working group had concluded its work prior to the ODPM recent announcement of their commitment to boost affordable housing.

• The working group welcomes’ the Government's drive to put more people into homeownership which has received a double boost recently with new equity loans for its Open Market HomeBuy scheme and the launch of a multi-million pound investment round to improve and increase the supply of social housing.

The lead member Cllr Martin Murphy in concluding this report wishes to express on behalf of the working group his sincerest appreciation to Member Services, The Executive, and Regeneration team in recognition all of their support, considerable assistance, and individual contributions to the working groups’ work herein.

28


FINAL REPORT

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS ODPM News Release Dec. 2005 Government announces boost for affordable housing ODPM Planning and Affordable Housing Survey Of English Housing 2004/05: Provisional Results Government Response to the Egan Review Skills for Sustainable Communities [1].PDF Barker review report 494.PDF Housing policy190705.PDF (A joint HM Treasury & ODPM policy document) Home ownership 250505.PDF (A joint HM Treasury & ODPM policy document) The UK Mortgage Market: Taking a Longer-Term View Key Workers Housing Policy (Dartford Borough Council) Home Truths (Town and Planning Association) Kent Thameside Fastrack – Everards Link & London Road/St Clements Way Roundabout, Greenhithe (Dartford Joint Transportation Board – 20 March 2003) Kent Thameside Fastrack – Everards Link, Greenhithe (Kent County Council Highways Advisory Board 5 November 2002) Council of Mortgage Lenders – Press Release (1 February 2005) Council of Mortgage Lenders – News and View Issue 3 (22 February 2005) www.yourmortgage.co.uk www.landreg.gov.uk www.myhouseprice.com

29