maldon district affordable housing and viability supplementary … · april and the 31 may 2018....

Maldon District Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Document

Statement of Consultation

November 2018

2

Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Consultation Exercise 3 3. Summary of Responses 4 4. Adoption of the SPD 4 Appendix 1: List of Consultees 5 Appendix 2: Public Notice 11 Appendix 3: Summary of Responses, Officer Comments and Proposed Changes 12

3

Introduction Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) elaborate on specific policies in statutory planning policy documents, in this case the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2014-2029) (LDP), and national planning policy documents. SPDs can provide further detail on a particular topic or theme, or for specific sites or areas. The National Planning Policy Framework, 2018 (NPPF) states that SPDs can be material considerations in planning decisions. The Affordable Housing and Viability SPD provides additional detailed guidance to developers, providers and the community on the Council’s approach to affordable housing provision, ensuring that approved LDP policies H1, H2 and H3 are as effective as possible. This includes:

• Providing greater clarity about what affordable housing mix and tenure the Council seeks as part of residential development;

• Providing more guidance about financial contributions;

• Explaining the approach to be taken to Exception Site applications;

• Providing more guidance about the supporting information that is likely to be sought for different affordable housing proposals.

The expectation is that all new housing development should comply with the level of affordable housing set out in LDP Policy H1. This is not always the case – negotiations to reduce affordable housing requirements and other obligations based on site-specific viability assessments are a common feature of the planning process. The SPD provides further guidance on:

• when a viability assessment may be required;

• how the Council will take viability into account when considering planning applications;

• what supporting information may be required

• the Council’s approach to assessing financial viability through review mechanisms, if considered necessary by the Council and the applicant.

In accordance with Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, the draft SPD was subject to a six week public consultation period between 19 April 2018 and 31 May 2018. This statement of consultation analyses the consultation that was undertaken by the Council, provides a summary of representations received and the Council’s responses to these representations. Consultation Exercise The formal 6 week consultation for stakeholders and the community took place between 19 April and the 31 May 2018. Letters/emails were sent to over 1143 consultees, including statutory consultees, Members and those with an interest in affordable housing, and provided further information about the draft SPD and how to make representations. Neighbouring authorities were also consulted as part of the Council’s Duty to Cooperate requirements. A list of consultees is attached in Appendix 1. The draft SPD and supporting information were available to view and/or download on the Council’s website www.maldon.gov.uk/SPD . A public notice was published in local newspapers inviting representations to the draft SPD and where more information could be found (see Appendix 2). Copies of key documents were made available at the Council offices and at Maldon, Burnham-on-Crouch, Southminster and Wickham Bishops library where feedback forms were also available. This information was included on the public notice which was sent to each consultee.

http://www.maldon.gov.uk/SPD

4

Summary of Responses In total, 11 responses were received via completed feedback forms, letters and emails. A full schedule of consultation responses for the SPD, with the Council’s response, can be found in Appendix 3. Adoption of SPD A number of comments have been made which have implications for the scope and content of the document, resulting in amendments to the draft SPD. The changes provide further clarification and guidance on the key principles of affordable housing provision and viability in the District. These were approved by the Council on the 8 November 2018. This means that the SPD is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

5

Appendix 1: Consultees 3 Customer Services Brightlingsea Town Council

A & P Designs Ltd British Energy Generation Limited

A D Kiddle Chartered Accountant British Gas (Centrica) Plc - Head Office

A G Coot Design Brynleigh Technology Ltd

A J Norris & Son Burnham And Dengie Hundred Review

Abellio Greater Anglia Burnham Bakery

Access Energy Solutions Ltd Burnham On Crouch County Primary School & Pre School

Adept Communications Ltd Burnham Ramblers Football Club

Adshel Plc Burnham Residents Oppose Overdevelopment (BROOD) And Say No

Affinity Water Burnham United Charity

Age UK Burnham West Consortium

All Saints C Of E Primary School Burnham-on-Crouch Chamber Of Commerce

All Saints Church Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council

Allen Brothers Business Energy Solutions Ltd

Althorne Community Together (ACT) BWM Ltd

Althorne Ladies Club C.P. Gas Ltd

Althorne Parish Council Cadent Gas Ltd

Ampersand Associates Ltd Calfordseaden LLP

Anglian Water Canewdon Parish Council

Ann Nicholson Associates Carphone Warehouse

APB Design And Development Carron Energy Limited

Aquila Estates Limited CarTel Communications

Arbour Engineers Ltd Carter Jonas LLP

Arcady Architects Ltd Castle Point Borough Council

Arcus Consultancy Services Ltd Catesby Estates Ltd

Arkanum LLP CBS Cumbers MCIAT

Asheldam & Dengie Parish Council CEG And Dartmouth Park Estates

Ashingdon Parish Council CH Jones (Keygas) Limited

ATP Group Partnership Charles F Jones And Son

B W Holland & Sons Ltd Charter Project Consultancy Ltd

Baker Clarke Partnership Ltd Chelmer Canal Trust Ltd

Barnardos, Cancer Research UK, RSP Chelmer Housing Partnership

Barton Willmore LLP Chelmsford City Council

Basildon Borough Council Chelmsford Diocesan Board Of Finance

Baxter And King Chesterdene Ltd

BDG Design Chevron North Sea Limited

Bellway Homes Church Commissioners For England

Beneficial Telecom Churches Together In Maldon

Bentalls Shopping Centre Cirrus Planning And Development Ltd

Bidwells Clarion Housing Group

Blackwater & Colne Sailing Protection Association Clark Partnership

Bloor Homes Eastern CML Microsystems PLC

Bovis Homes Ltd - South East Region Code Development Planners

BP Gas Marketing Ltd Colchester Borough Council

Bradwell-on-Sea Parish Council Cold Norton Parish Council

Braintree District Council Coldunell Limited

6

Braxted Park Estate Collins & Coward Ltd

Brentwood Borough Council Colne Housing Society

Commercial Estates Group Early Years & Childcare (Chelmsford & Maldon)

Commercial Gas Direct Limited East Mersea Parish Council

Community 360 Ecotricity

Conocophillips Petroleum Company UK Limited Edgewood Veterinary Group Ltd

Consortium Of Charities Edward Gittins & Associates

Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc EE

Contract Natural Gas 2 Limited El Guaca Ltd

Coryton Energy Company Limited Electrabel N.v./s.a.

Council For The Protection Of Rural Essex Electricity Supply Board

Countryside Properties Elmwood Equestrian Centre

Courts & Co Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd

Crest Nicholson And Landowners Energy Plus Services Limited

Crown Oil Limited Energy Supplies UK Limited

Cumbria Energy Limited Enfield Energy Centre Limited

Cussen Construction Consultants English Rural Housing Association

D F Clark Bionomique Environment Agency

D J Bunting & Son Epping Forest District Council

D J Fisher (Farms) Ltd Equality & Human Rights Commission

D J W Architectural Designs Ltd Essential Power Ltd

D K Symes Associates Essex & Suffolk Water

D L P Luck Ltd Essex Birdwatching Society

Danbury Parish Council Essex Boys And Girls Club

Dartmouth Park Estates Ltd Essex Bridleways Association

David Horner Planning & Development Services Essex Chamber Of Commerce

Dengie 100 Parish Councils Essex Community Reuse And Recycling

Department For Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Essex Council For Voluntary Youth & Community Services

Department For Culture, Media & Sport Essex County Council

Department For Education Essex County Fire & Rescue Service (South East Group)

Department For Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Essex Fire & Rescue Service

Department For Transport Essex Police

Department For Works And Pensions Essex Water Company

Department Of Health Essex Waterways Limited

Design Partnership Essex Wildlife Trust

Dev Plan Essex Wildlife Trust - Maldon Local Group

Diocese Of Brentwood Essex Wildlife Trust Maldon/South Woodham Ferrers Local Group

Diocese Of Chelmsford Esso Exploration & Production UK Limited

Direct Rail Services Ltd Estuary Housing Association Ltd

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Evolution Town Planning LLP

DLP Planning Ltd Exxon Mobil Gas Marketing Europe Limited

DPDS Consulting (PlanInfoNews) F J McMorland & Sons

Drapers Farm Sports Club Fambridge Yacht Haven Ltd

Drivers Jonas Deloitte Famco Estates Limited

E & M Design Partnership FLAG Telecom Ltd

E.ON UK Gas Ltd Foddy Consult

EA Strategic Land LLP Forestry Commission

Foulness Island Parish Council Forrester Park Golf And Tennis Club

7

Framptons Planning Institute Of Directors - Essex

Friends Families & Travellers & Traveller Law Reform Project

ISS Facility Services

Friends Of The Prom John Baugh Ltd

GL Hearn John Bishop Partnership

Gladman Developments Ltd John Sime & Associates Ltd

Glenny LLP Joint Radio Company (JRC)

Goldhanger Parish Council KAB Associates Ltd

Great & Little Leighs Parish Council Kamal Saddiqui Social Welfare Educational Trust

Great Braxted Parish Council Kelvedon Parish Council

Great Totham Parish Council Kensington & Edinburgh Estates Ltd

Greater Anglia Ltd Kent & Essex Sea Fisheries Committee

Guernsey Telecoms Keyes Bros

GVA KLW Ltd

H J Keyes & Son Knights Developments Ltd

H Scott & Sons L A Sibley Ltd

Harlow Council L E Carr & Sons

Harry Green Gentlemans Barbers Lambert Smith Hampton

Hastoe Housing Association Ltd Land Charter Homes Ltd

Hatfield Peverel Parish Council Lanes New Homes

Haven Gateway Langford And Ulting Parish Council

Health And Safety Executive Lanpro Services

Henry Cowell & Son Lansdowne Telecom

Henry Gilder Drake Almshouse Charity Latchingdon C Of E Primary School

Heybridge Basin Conservation Society Latchingdon Parish Council

Heybridge Parish Council Layer Marney Parish Council

Heybridge Primary School Leelamb PM

Heybridge Residents Association Lewis Patten Chartered Architects

Heybridge Parish Council Linden Homes

Hibbs And Walsh Associates Little Baddow Parish Council

Highways England Little Braxted Parish Council

Hill Street Holdings Ltd Little Totham Parish Council

Hills Building Group Lodestar Properties Ltd

Hillside Playcare Centre London Energy Plc

Historic England London Southend Airport Co Ltd

Home Builders Federation M Scott Properties

Home Office MAG London Stansted

Homes & Communities Agency Magnox Limited

Howies & Sons LLP Maldon & District Council For Voluntary Services

Hullbridge Parish Council Maldon Archaeological & Historical Group

I S Ferguson & Son Ltd Maldon Cricket Club & Maldon Rugby Club

Iceni Projects Maldon District Access Group

Indigo Planning Ltd Maldon Elim Church

Inkpen Downie Architecture & Design Maldon Green Party

Inland Waterways Association Maldon Housing Association Ltd

J D Mee & Sons Maldon Islamic Cultural Association

J E Atkinson & Son Maldon Little Ship Club

J E Partridge & Sons Maldon Primary School

J R H Services Maldon Riverside Association

Januarys Consultant Surveyors Maldon Rugby Football Club

8

JB Planning Associates Limited Maldon Society

Jerry Flaxman Consulting Ltd Maldon Town Council

Maldon United Reformed Church OFCOM

Maldon Wick Ltd OFGEM

Maragota Properties Ltd OFWAT

Marble Design Old Ironworks Gym Ltd

Marine Management Organisation Ormiston Rivers Academy

Matthews & Son LLP Our Lady Of The Assumption

Mayland Parish Council P S Planning & Design

MAZ Homes Park Resorts

McCarthy & Stone (Retirement Lifestyles) Ltd Parker Dann

Melville Dunbar Associates Passenger Transport Executives

Messing Cum Inworth Parish Council Paul Bancroft Architects

Mid And North East Essex Mind Paul Dickinson & Associates

Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group Pemberton Farms Ltd

Mid Essex Friends Of The Earth Persimmon Homes (Essex) Ltd

Mid Essex Hospitals Trust Peter Brett Associates LLP

Mid-Essex Historic Buildings Trust PETGAS Trading (UK) Limited

Midlands Gas Limited Petticrows Ltd And Rice & Cole Ltd

Mike Sibthorp Planning Phase 2 Planning And Development Limited

Milford Gas Limited Pigeon Land Limited

Ministry Of Defence Plainview Planning Ltd

Ministry Of Justice Planning Potential Ltd

Moat Housing Group Planware Ltd

Morris Farm Plume - Maldon's Community Academy

Morrisons Stores Plc Police & Crime Commissioner For Essex

Moult Walker Chartered Surveyors Porta Planning

Munday & Cramer Property Services Ltd Port Of London

Mundon Parish Council Powergen Retail Gas (Eastern) Limited

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Powergen Retail Gas (Northwest) Limited

Natural England Provide CIC

National Trust Purely Stairlifts

National Farmers Union Purleigh Parish Council

National Federation Of Gypsy Liaison Group Quakers Religious Society Of Friends

National Grid DPM Consultants Quilter Savill Associates

National Housing Federation - East Of England R W Wolton & Son

National Housing Federation London R A Brice & Partners

National Landlords Association R & R Architects Ltd

National Playing Fields Association R G + P Ltd

Network Rail Racial Equality Council For Ethnic Minority Groups

New Hall Vineyards Ramblers Association

NHS Mid Essex Rapleys LLP

NHS Property Services Ratcliff Partnership

Nicholas Ward Design Practice Rawreth Parish Council

Nigel Chapman Associates Ray Chapman Associates

North Fambridge Parish Council Raymond Stemp Associates

North Sea Gas Limited Reane Ltd

North Wales Gas Limited Renewable Energy Company Limited

Northern Gas Supplies Limited RHS

Norvic Gas Limited Richard Edward Associates

9

Npower Renewables - East Of England Office Richborough Estates

OBS Property Services Ltd Rivenhall Parish Council

Road Haulage Association Strutt And Parker LLP

Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd & Ives Property Holdings Ltd

Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Robin Levy Planning & Development Consultant Sunbury Developments

Rochford District Council Sustrans

Rochford Parish Council Swallows Gymnastics Club

Rose Builders T Mobile UK Ltd

Royal Mail Tambride Ltd

Royal National Lifeboat Institute Telecom Plus Plc

RSPB Tendring District Council

R Procter Farms Ltd Terence O'Rourke Ltd

Rural Community Council Of Essex Terence Wynn Evolve Architecture & Planning Ltd

Rural Solutions Tesni Properties Ltd

RYA Eastern Tetlow King Planning

S Thorogood & Sons (Southminster) Thames Water Utilities Ltd

St. Cedd's C Of E Voluntary Aided Primary School Thatched Cottages Self Catering Holiday Lets

St Francis Roman Catholic Primary School The Baltic Consortium

St Lawrence Parish Council The Federation Of Small Businesses

St Mary's C Of E Primary School The Gas Transportation Company Limited

Salvation Army Housing Association The Gypsy Council

Saturn Gas Limited The Living Water Christian Centre

Savills The New Welcome Sailor

Scotland Gas Networks Limited The Ratcliff Partnership

Scottish Hydro Electric The Theatres Trust

Scottish Power Plc Thomas Bates & Son Limited

Seeboard Energy Gas Limited Three

Sirius Planning Thurrock District Council

Smart Planning Thurstable School

Smith Construction Tillingham Village Council

South East Local Enterprise Partnership Tim Harbord Associates

South Woodham Ferrers Town Council Tiptree Parish Council

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Tolhurst Land Holdings

Southern Electric PO Tollesbury Activity Centre

Southern Gas Networks Limited Tollesbury Cruising Club

Southminster C Of E U/C Primary School Tollesbury Parish Council

Southminster Parish Council Tolleshunt D'Arcy Parish Council

SP Gas Limited Tolleshunt D'Arcy C Of E Primary School

Spalding Energy Company Limited Tolleshunt Knights Parish Council

Sport England Tolleshunt Major Parish Council

Springfield Eng. Consultants Topsail Charters Ltd

Springfields Planning And Development Ltd Traveller Law Reform Coalition

SSA Planning Limited Traveller Law Reform Project

SSE Telecommunications Ltd Tricker Blackie Association

Stanfords Chartered Surveyors Troy Planning And Design

Stanley Bragg Architects Ltd Tullow Oil UK Limited

Steeple Parish Council Turley Associates

Stephensons Buses TXU Europe Energy Trading Limited

Sterling Supergroup Ltd UK Power Networks

10

Stow Maries Parish Council Universal Telecom

Strutt And Parker Farms Ltd Utility Grid Installations Limited

Uttlesford District Council William Fisher Medical Centre

Virgin Media WINGAS GmbH

Vitol Gas Limited Winstred Hundred Parish Council

Vodafone And O2 Witham Town Council

Wardle Evans Ltd Womens National Commission

Waterman Boreham Woodham Ferrers & Bicknacre Parish Council

Whirledge & Nott Woodham Mortimer & Hazeleigh Parish Council

Wentworth Primary School Woodham Walter C Of E Primary School

Western Gas Limited Woodham Walter Parish Council

West Mersea Town Council Woodland Trust

Whitacre Management Ltd Woods Hardwick Ltd

Wickham Bishops Parish Council Wickes - Maldon

Wilkin & Sons Ltd Yorkshire Electricity Npower

All individuals on the database were also consulted.

11

Appendix 2: Public Notice

12

Appendix 3: Representations made, officer response and changes to SPD

Reference Name Organisation SPD Section

Summary of comments Officer Response Change to SPD

AH001 Mrs Montgomery

General No new housing of any sort until a new doctors surgery and junior school provided. Both surgeries in Maldon have closed their lists and the nearest surgery is in Danbury – if anybody is ill it will take a journey to see a doctor.

This comment is noted, and applies to the general principle of new development, so is outside of the scope of this SPD. However, the level of housing required is identified by the LDP and needs to be delivered to ensure the Council meets its objectively assessed housing need and has a 5 year supply of housing sites. This is a requirement of national policy. The infrastructure required to support this growth is set out in the LDP and the supporting Infrastructure Delivery Plan. For all developments of 11 or more units developer contributions can be sought to help mitigate adverse impacts upon infrastructure such as schools and/or health facilities. The LDP is supported by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

No change to SPD required.

AH002 EHRC Corporate Correspondence Team

Equality and Human Rights Commission

General The Commission does not have the resources to respond to all consultations, and it is not our practice to respond unless they raise a clear or significant equality or human rights concern. Local Councils have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in the Equality Act 2010 to consider the effect of their policies and decisions on people sharing particular protected characteristics. Provide advice on how to apply the PSED, which is the mechanism through which public authorities involved in the planning process should consider the potential for planning proposals to

Comments noted. No change to SPD required.

13



have an impact on equality for different groups of people. Refers to technical guidance at https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/technical-guidance-public-sector-equality-duty-england

AH003 William Fuller Tendring District Council

General Applaud the aspirations of the SPD and acknowledge MDC’s undersupply of affordable housing to date.


AH004 Debbie Mack Historic England

General Unable to comment at this time. Recommend that the advice of your local authority conservation and archaeological staff is sought as they are best placed to advise on local historic environment issues and priorities, including access to data, indicate how historic assets may be impacted upon by the SPDs, and opportunities for securing wider benefits for the future conservation and management of the historic environment.

Comments noted. The Council’s Conservation Officer was consulted on a draft version of the SPD.


AH005 Carla Wright Natural England

General Welcome opportunity to give views, the topic of the SPD does not appear to relate to our interests to any significant extent. Therefore do not wish to comment.


AH006 Lydia Burkett NHS England (East)

General Consider requirement for affordable housing for NHS clinical staff to assist with development viability, local recruitment and retention of key clinical staff

The SHMA does not identify a need for key workers accommodation in the District, which NHS staff could be identified as. But affordable homes are built for people who are unable to afford to rent or buy property available on the open market so subject to eligibility staff could apply for affordable housing.


AH006 Gordon Bussett Little Braxted Parish Council

General Welcome and support this SPD and have no other comments to make.

Support welcome and noted. No change to SPD required.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/technical-guidance-public-sector-equality-duty-england




14



AH010 Hugh Lacey Pioneer PS Ltd General The SPD seeks to extend the provisions of local plan policy H2 and H3 rather than provide guidance on its application. This issue has been variously explored in the High Court and relevant judgements can be seen by reviewing (Skipton Properties Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Craven District Council [2017] EWHC 534 (Admin)) and William Davis Ltd et al v Charnwood Borough Council Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 3006 (Admin), 23rd November 2017). The use of SPD to create new policy rather than give guidance on existing is contrary to law and places the SPD at risk of challenge on that basis.

Legal advice has been taken: It is considered that the SPD seeks to explain relevant LDP policies and/or national policy so is not creating new policy or extending adopted policy.


AH007 Duncan Murdoch

Moult Walker Paragraph 1.7

Should be re-worded to give more scope for viability assessments to negotiate and agree a reduced provision of affordable housing. This should not just be restricted to ‘site circumstances’ and ‘exceptional costs’ in isolation. Experience in past years has highlighted the need for flexibility arising for difficult market circumstances and falling house prices and restricted mortgage availability. Matters such as abnormal costs, disproportionate infrastructure and construction costs, market conditions and funding availability should be included.

The Council has a recently approved LDP therefore the expectation is that new housing development should comply with the level of affordable housing set out in LDP Policy H1. Paragraph 1.7 acknowledges that there will cases where this is not possible - site circumstances is a generic term used to cover a range of issues which are discussed in more detail later in the SPD. The Viability PPG (014) is clear that abnormal costs, site specific infrastructure costs, site fees, all policy requirements and current market evidence should be used to inform benchmark land value in viability assessments. Therefore all of these issues should be taken into account when land is purchased or an option on land taken. However Paragraph 8.8 provides the flexibility to renegotiate where viability is a genuine concern.


AH007 Duncan Moult Walker Paragraph The Council’s reference to review The Viability PPG (007) states that ‘where up to No change to SPD required.

15



Murdoch 1.8 mechanisms for phased viability assessments where a scheme is below policy compliant is noted. To simplify and speed up the drafting of S106 agreements, this should be flexible in nature and not over-complicated but refer to recognised viability thresholds. Conversely, for a marginally viable but policy compliant scheme, there should be review mechanisms to reduce the affordable provision in future phases should there be a worsening of market conditions and worsening of the viability position. It is difficult to renegotiate S106 obligations once planning permission is granted and would otherwise stall development in such circumstances.

date policies have set out contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable.’ However, Paragraph 8.12 of the SPD requests that evidence is submitted to show how the affordable housing will be delivered as part of a policy compliant scheme. This would provide the basis for negotiation should an alternative level of affordable housing be sought once planning permission is granted. But Paragraph 7.17 states that where a reduction in the level of affordable housing is required, a new or modified planning permission will be required, rather than a review mechanism because affordable housing is required to make a scheme of 11 units or more policy compliant. Under these circumstances a review mechanism would not be appropriate.

AH009 Meghan Rossiter

Tetlow King on behalf of Rentplus UK Ltd

Paragraphs 1.9-1.19

Rentplus UK Ltd provide affordable rent to buy housing through the rent - save - own model. This is achieved through a combination of a secure affordable rented period (whichever is the lower of 80% of open market rent, including any service charge, or Local Housing Allowance), giving time to save, and a 10% gifted deposit to enable tenants to buy their own home in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. This tenure has been formally recognised as part of affordable housing within the consultation draft NPPF (March 2018), though the specific Rentplus model is not delivered at an intermediate rent, but with a rental cost that responds directly to local affordability, being more accessible

The adoption of the SPD has been delayed slightly to ensure the NPPF and Viability PPG can be taken into account in the final SPD. This includes: Paragraphs 1.9: amend definitions for affordable housing Paragraphs 2.1-2.12: National policy: to reflect revised guidance. Glossary: amend definitions to be consistent with the revised NPPF.

Change 1.9 and 2.1-2.12 to reflect affordable housing and viability guidance in the NPPF and Viability PPG. Amend definitions in Glossary for: Affordable Housing, Rural Exception Site. Add new definition for Build to Rent.

16



and affordable to working households who aspire to home ownership. As the publication of the final amended version of the NPPF is expected in July it will be important for the Council to keep the SPD under review, and it may be prudent to delay adoption of this document until after the NPPF to ensure it reflects the final policy approach to contributions and other interrelated factors.



Paragraphs 1.9-1.19

The Council’s adopted Policies H1, H2 and H5 are compliant with the current definition and policy approach set out in the NPPF, but as recognised by those definitions set out on p5-7 of the draft SPD are in the process of being updated. These recognise the need to help working households save for a deposit while paying below-market rents, a tenure that is becoming increasingly important at a time when affordability is so stretched locally. According to the latest NHF Home Truths East of England 2017/18 report, affordability as expressed by the ratio of house prices to income in Maldon is 11.2, with mean monthly private sector rents identified as £862 and average house prices of £339,492.

The adoption of the SPD has been delayed slightly to ensure the NPPF and Viability PPG can be taken into account in the final SPD. This includes: Paragraphs 1.9: amend definitions for affordable housing Paragraphs 2.1-2.12: National policy: to reflect revised guidance. Glossary: amend definitions to be consistent with the revised NPPF.

Change 1.9 and 2.1-2.12 to reflect affordable housing and viability guidance in the NPPF and Viability PPG. Amend definitions in Glossary for: Affordable Housing, Rural Exception Site. Add new definition for Build to Rent.



The Council’s reference to and recognition of the NPPF provision for either off-site provision or a financial contribution is welcomed and supported.

Support noted and welcome. No change to SPD required.



The SPD provides a sound forum to confirm the Council’s expectations in


17



terms of profit margins (which are generally known and agreed on schemes in the District).

AH008 Kevin Fraser Essex County Council

Paragraphs 2.12 – 2.13

ECC supports the proposed mix, and acknowledges the need to keep this under review to inform any necessary change in policy. LDP policy seeks to deliver 40% affordable housing (in some parts of the district), and is supported. However, it is important to consider the specific issues and requirements regarding individual applications. It is important that this requirement does not act as a constraint to the delivery of new overall housing, namely some 294 additional homes per annum, the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN). In determining the viability of affordable housing provision significant consideration will need to be given to the provision of the infrastructure required to support development, and its cost. Infrastructure requirements will need to be properly evidenced, recorded and monitored in order that a balanced consideration can be undertaken in prioritising between affordable housing and infrastructure. On phasing of s106 contributions, consideration should be given to different rates of delivery of key infrastructure. For example roads and schools are less flexible in terms of delivery than the phasing and percentage of affordable housing units. By ensuring the less-flexible infrastructure is delivered

It should be noted that the Council’s Objectively Assessed Need is 260 and not 294. The housing target set out in the LDP is 310. The IDP sets out the infrastructure required to deliver the LDP. The Council has a robust s106 monitoring system in place to ensure that all infrastructure/contributions are recorded and spending monitored accordingly. The IDP also identifies priorities for infrastructure delivery. The LDP also recognises that there is a significant need for affordable housing in the District. The use of planning obligations must be consistent with the three tests set out in national legislation. The Council prefers to have a flexible approach to securing infrastructure: a blanket approach may not address the needs of the development, may adversely impact upon the viability of a specific scheme and may not be consistent with the three tests for planning obligations set out in national legislation. As such, the Council will expect infrastructure to be delivered when it is likely to be required to meet the needs of a development, therefore it would be unreasonable to require roads and schools to be delivered first.


18



first, affordable housing can ‘catch-up’ and benefit from the S106 uplift on the bigger sites in due course.

AH010 Hugh Lacey Pioneer PS Ltd Paragraph 2.13

The SHMA is reliant on data which is at least 5 years old. As a consequence the needs which it identifies may not now be reflected in the district. Ahead of a new SHMA being produced any SPD should caveat references to housing need on the basis that the findings are now somewhat dated to be precisely informing decision making on a site by site basis.

The LDP was approved in July 2017. The SHMA is an important part of the LDP’s evidence base, and was recognised as such by the Inspector at the LDP examination. Given that 71 affordable houses have been built in the District to date during the Plan period (which is less than the 390 units required by the SHMA) the affordable housing need will have not decreased. The 40% target referred to in paragraph 2.13 forms part of adopted LDP policy H1 so it is appropriate that the SPD refers to it. As required by national guidance, the SPD builds in flexibility to ensure that the guidance is able to respond to the evolving housing market as well as changes to national guidance.

No change to the SPD required.



Paragraph 2.16

The Council’s consideration of the emerging national policy approach to affordable housing is very positive, putting the Council in a good position to continue to negotiate appropriate contributions on individual developments at this time of policy transition. Paragraph 2.16 (that discounted market sales housing and starter homes are considered a form of intermediate housing is supported), while affordable rent to buy should be considered a hybrid rent and sale tenure. While the draft changes to the NPPF state that this tenure utilises an intermediate rent, the Rentplus model uses the lower of 80% of open market rent (including

The Council acknowledges the way the Rentplus model operates. However, the allocations and criteria applied to Rentplus properties differ to the traditional rented product – tenants can rent for a period of time and then have the option to buy, but are unable to rent indefinitely – so Rentplus is comparable to a shared ownership or intermediate housing product. Therefore, in line with the revised NPPF when assessing tenure mix the Council will generally consider Rentplus to be an Intermediate housing product. Paragraph 4.20 states that this is the preferred tenure mix ‘unless otherwise agreed with the Council’ which provides flexibility for developers when negotiating a planning application.


19



service charges) or Local Housing Allowance (LHA) to increase affordability and access to these homes. In areas where Rentplus homes have already been developed it has become clear that these homes assist many existing affordable housing tenants into homes that better meet their needs and aspirations, freeing up those homes for other households in need.



The Council’s recognition that not all schemes should rigorously meet the SHMA dwelling type and mix requirement is noted and supported. Each scheme should be judged on its own merits and tailored to suit the local characteristics of the market demand, viability and location.




Paragraph 2.18

Increasing the range of affordable tenures available in the area to meet needs will greatly assist in meeting a greater overall level of need across the district. The encouragement throughout this SPD for delivery of a wider range of affordable housing tenures, including affordable rent to buy is fully supported.




Specific reference to certain house types should be avoided within the SPD; in this instance, bungalows. The need for bungalows is acknowledged but the actual need is often suppressed by market forces and demand. Bungalows are ‘land hungry’ and reduce the development density of schemes, affecting viability. Any requirement for bungalows conflicts with

The SHMA identifies a demand for bungalows in the District. So it is appropriate to refer to this type of housing as a housing product that could meet the needs of the older population. However, it is not clear from paragraph 3.4 that the demand is taken from the SHMA. A reference will be added to clarify the point. It is possible to design and develop bungalows

Add reference to the SHMA in paragraph 3.4: The District has a rising ageing population, providing the right type of housing is important to meet the changing needs of older people over time: the SHMA2 identifies that providing smaller affordable homes that

20



Policy H1 regarding effective use of land. that are relatively small scale, and that are not land hungry. Developers are producing schemes in the District that incorporate bungalows as part of a wider dwelling mix indicating that it is possible to provide bungalows as part of a viable housing scheme in the District.

meet their needs and aspirations…



The factors to be taken into account should also include topography, infrastructure and other site constraints.

It is not practicable to provide a complete list of issues that the Council will take into account as they will vary by site. However, the list will be expanded to include topography and other site constraints (which could include infrastructure).

Amend paragraph 4.6 to: In reaching a view on this, the Council will take into account such issues as land ownership, planning history, topography, site constraints and the natural boundaries of the site.


The SPD seeks to extend the provisions of local plan policy H2 and H3 rather than provide guidance on its application. Paragraph 4.9 - application of Vacant Building Credit requires a viability test. This is not a feature of policy nor is it a requirement in national guidance.

The intention of Paragraph 4.9 is to identify the type of information the Council may require to consider an application involving VBC. It is not to set new policy. However, for clarity the phrasing of paragraph 4.9 has been amended.

Amend paragraph 4.9 to: Applying VBC at the outset would reduce the affordable housing contributions and potentially increase the financial returns to both landowner and developer. If a developer considers VBC should be applied, sufficient evidence will be required to ensure that an application can be considered appropriately. This may include a viability assessment (see Section 8.0)…


The SHMA is reliant on data which is at least 5 years old. As a consequence the needs which it identifies may not now be reflected in the district. Ahead of a new SHMA being produced any SPD should caveat references to housing need on the basis that the findings are now somewhat

The LDP was approved in July 2017. The SHMA is an important part of the LDP’s evidence base, and was recognised as such by the Inspector at the LDP examination. Given that only 71 affordable houses have been built in the District over the plan period (less than the 390 units required by the SHMA) it is unlikely that the affordable

Add new paragraph 4.22: The SHMA2 suggests a mix, but to achieve maximum benefits to better meet unmet need and to achieve other SHMA recommendations, such as, to achieve a balance of homes

21



dated to be precisely informing decision making on a site by site basis. This is particularly relevant given the SPD seeks to identify ‘example mixes’. Paragraph 4.21 suggests these have been varied from the SHMA to account for viability, deliverability and to meet need. No evidence is provided to support these mixes set out in Appendix 3 and no indication is provided as to how viability, deliverability and meeting needs have been considered and combined to arrive at these positions. Ahead of setting out such a set of target mixes the Council should identify the evidence they have relied upon and the subsequent analysis which underpins the final proposals and how this provides ‘guidance’ on the application of policy H2.

housing need will have significantly decreased. The 40% target referred to in paragraph 2.13 forms part of adopted LDP policy H1 so it is appropriate that the SPD refers to it. As required by national guidance, the SPD builds in flexibility to ensure that the guidance is able to respond to the evolving housing market as well as changes to national guidance. Paragraph 4.21 refers to the example mixes in Appendix 3. These are based upon the SHMA requirements and slightly adjusted to provide a slightly more low cost home ownership to improve viability and reduce the need for subsidy. The example mixes are based on a combination of the analysis of unmet need, moderated to improve viability, and then linked to achieve a balance of homes that would stimulate additional supply from within the existing stock (which achieves another of the SHMA recommendations). That gives the maximum benefit to housing in the District – offsetting the fact that Low cost housing cannot be conditioned for local need due to HCA / government requirements. However, Paragraph 4.23 states that the Council may consider a different mix, providing developers with flexibility to negotiate an alternative should, for example, local housing needs would benefit from an alternative.

that would stimulate additional supply from existing stock, maximise viability (by providing slightly more low cost home ownership), the Council considers the example mixes in Appendix 3 are more appropriate - these have been successfully secured in Section 106 agreements - and will be the starting point for discussion.


The SPD seeks to extend the provisions of local plan policy H2 and H3 rather than provide guidance on its application.

Legal advice has been taken: This seems to be an explanation of point 7 in LDP policy H3. A business case would show that there is revenue

Amend paragraph 4.26 to: All applications for specialist and/or supported housing

22



Paragraph 4.25 implies that a business case is necessary to deal with the provisions of policy H3 of the adopted plan. Policy H3 does not require this and makes no mention of a ‘business case’. Part 7 of the policy is not worded in this way (it is by contrast seeking confidence that revenue funding can be secured). This new test being applied via the SPD is significantly beyond the scope of policy and is therefore creating new policy rather than providing guidance against the adopted position.

funding as required by H3. The approach taken is considered to be appropriate in a SPD.

should be consistent with Policy H3, and be accompanied by a business case demonstrating the financial feasibility of providing housing-related support for the relevant client group (to fulfil policy H3 (7)).



Paragraph 4.20

Its inclusion within the split of affordable rented to intermediate housing at paragraph 4.20 is not however, as this indicates that rent to buy is a form of intermediate housing. As set out above, this tenure is rented for a period of between 5 to 20 years at an affordable rent, with tenants being supported in saving for the full purchase of that property. As each home is maintained and managed by a housing association for the full period of rent it is more appropriate to consider it as fulfilling a joint role, affordable to local families who cannot afford to access intermediate sale homes due to the lack of a deposit or the inability to access a deposit for other reasons in the short to medium term. The Council would benefit from taking a flexible approach to enabling delivery of affordable rent to buy as part of its

The Council acknowledges the way the Rentplus model operates. However, the allocations and criteria applied to Rentplus properties differ to the traditional rented product – tenants can rent for a period of time and then have the option to buy, but are unable to rent indefinitely – so Rentplus is comparable to a shared ownership or intermediate housing product. Therefore, in line with the revised NPPF when assessing tenure mix the Council will generally consider Rentplus to be an Intermediate housing product. Paragraph 4.20 states that this is the preferred tenure mix ‘unless otherwise agreed with the Council’ which provides flexibility for developers when negotiating a planning application.


23



affordable rented expectations, while acknowledging the contribution to affordable homes to purchase.



Reference to the Policy H1 restriction on off-site actual provision seems restrictive. There may well be good instances of alternative sites better suited to off-site affordable provision that should come forward. Such examples, could well improve viability and ensure a policy compliant scheme comes forward using off-site provision.

The purpose of a SPD is to elaborate upon key LDP policies, and not to set new policy. Policy H1 does not identify off site provision on an alternative site. Therefore the SPD would be introducing new policy which can only be established through a LDP review.



Moult Walker Paragraph 5.3-5.4

The lack of reliance on any public subsidy is overly restrictive. There may well be circumstances whereby grant funding is needed to support viability, pilot new affordable housing initiatives and 100% affordable housing schemes (for example). Public subsidy is relevant for a viable scheme in favourable market conditions. However, there needs to be flexibility and scope for grant, subsidy and investment in a falling market and higher development costs.

The availability of public subsidy is limited. Maldon has a recently approved LDP: the affordable housing requirements in the SPD reflect that adopted policy, which were tested through the Whole Plan Viability and considered to be realistic and achievable, without grant. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Council to expect that, in general, affordable housing should be provided without the need for public subsidy. However, the Council acknowledges that there may be cases where grant is available. If this is the case then it will be taken into account through the negotiations for the scheme.



Homes England no longer apply the Design and Quality Standard having reverted to Building Regs.

It is acknowledged that the Design and Quality Standard is no longer formally used. Paragraph 5.5 will be amended to refer to the Maldon District Design Guide SPD.

Amend first sentence of paragraph 5.5 to: To promote integrated communities, affordable housing should be designed to meet the requirements set out in the Maldon District Design Guide SPD and be…

AH010 Hugh Lacey Pioneer PS Ltd Paragraph The Council may seek the additional floor Paragraph 5.7 states that the national space No change to SPD required.

24



5.7 space of the Nationally Described Space Standards but this must (to accord with national guidance) be a matter tested via examination as a local plan policy amendment.

standards are a starting point for discussion. This is not new policy: the SPD is simply referring to national policy and re-stating national policy on house size.



The upper limits of the space standard will impact on viability unless the affordable rents and values are increased to suit larger homes. This may in turn compromise affordability.

Paragraph 5.7 states that the upper limit of the Nationally Described Space Standard is the starting point for discussion. It is expected that an appropriate size of property will be negotiated through the pre-application and application process.



Paragraph 5.10

Paragraph 5.10 identifies that the design and layout of affordable housing will largely be addressed through the Maldon District Design Guide. The Guide seeks to encourage affordable homes to be spread across a site in small groups of no more than 15 to 20 homes to achieve an appropriate mix with market homes, or in self-contained flatted blocks for ease of management. Clustering of affordable homes in this way enables the achieving of mixed and sustainable communities, which is supported.



The SPD seeks to extend the provisions of local plan policy H2 and H3 rather than provide guidance on its application. Paragraph 5.17 - application of 30% of ‘relevant local income’ as affordability criteria to all elements of affordable provision coming forward in the area. This represents an additional requirement beyond that identified in the plan and

The details of paragraph 5.17 follow the same principle as the SHMA in assessing housing need i.e. the extent to which those in housing need are unable to access housing on the open market taking into account local costs and incomes. Incomes have been informed by the housing need survey that was undertaken as part of the SHMA and correlated with other relevant data (in the SHMA) such as Annual Survey of Hours and

Change last sentence of paragraph 5.17 to: So that the affordable housing meets all planning requirements, and the rents, service charges and maintenance are affordable to future residents, as indicated by the SHMA annual housing costs are affordable if

25



does not reflect the affordability measures relied upon in the SHMA.

Earnings (ASHE). However, for clarity reference will be made to the SHMA in paragraph 5.17.

they do not exceed 30% of relevant local income:’



There may be instances where Registered Providers are unable or unwilling to take ownership of completed affordable homes. Under such circumstances there needs to be a cascade mechanism to other providers or direct sale.

The s106 agreement will be worded to ensure that if there are issues with deliverability with a particular Provider then another Provider should be sought, rather than allowing direct sale.

Add the following to paragraph 7.11 to highlight that other providers should be sought through the development process: In exceptional cases, the original Registered Provider may be unable to fulfil their agreement to deliver the housing. To prevent the housing being lost from the affordable stock a standard clause will be used to require the developer to secure a second Provider.



The Council’s requirement for 100% nominations is inflexible and circumstances may arise whereby other key stakeholders (for example Essex County Council) require a shared proportion of nominations.

Paragraph 5.20 adds that where a Registered Provider is unable to offer the Council 100% nominations this should be agreed at planning application stage.



Paragraph 5.23

Paragraph 5.23 sets the expectation that no more than 50% of the market housing on the application site should be completed before all affordable housing has been constructed, transferred or leased to the Registered Provider, and is supported.




The reference to 2 bed terrace affordable housing should not prejudice other scheme mixes further to local needs assessments and demand testing (and

Paragraph 5.25 identifies that 2 bed terrace will be used unless the type of affordable housing on site indicates this would be inappropriate. This provides sufficient flexibility to consider


26



other circumstances). alternative scheme mixes.

AH010 Hugh Lacey Pioneer PS Ltd Paragraph 5.25 to 5.28

The SPD seeks to extend the provisions of local plan policy H2 and H3 rather than provide guidance on its application. This methodology is predicated on the price which a registered provider can pay for new affordable provision. This does not necessarily equate to the cost (i.e. subsidy necessary) to provide affordable housing in site. This cost or subsidy calculation should compare the open market value of a property with the prospective revenue from providers for the same property with an adjustment for return and sales costs. This difference represents the actual ‘subsidy’ required to deliver affordable housing on a given site. To this end the council’s methodology only considers a part of the calculation and as a result will be overstating the cost of providing housing and the consequent level of contribution.

The Council’s approach to securing financial contributions in the SPD is well-established and has been used successfully since 2015. It seeks to secure a financial contribution sufficient to provide equivalent affordable homes in the District having regard to the value of the units that are not being provided on site. It is directly linked to the cost of providing similar homes elsewhere in the District without including the cost of land which would be a disproportionate level of contribution for schemes with viability issues. It is also a recognised value between Registered Providers and developers that can be easily verified by the Council and updated to take account of changing market conditions as required by national guidance. However, in exceptional cases where the financial contribution sought would have an adverse impact upon viability, a viability assessment would be required as part of the planning application, as evidence. The SPD will be amended to this effect.

Add new paragraph 5.29: Where a developer considers that the financial contribution will make a scheme unviable, the Council will expect that evidence is submitted to ensure that the planning application can be considered effectively. This could include a viability assessment.



The developer contributions give greater certainty to developers to gauge the merits of off-site provision on more challenging and difficult development schemes.



Moult Walker Paragraph 7.3-7.5

It should be recognised that at outline application stage, the dwelling mix and phasing may be purely indicative. Suggest the following amendment to the wording as follows (our changes in orange): “For

Paragraph 7.5 recognises that at outline planning stage it may not be clear the number and mix of dwellings that are proposed. It also recognises that this could change at reserved matters stage. Therefore, it is acknowledged that not all the

Change paragraph 7.3 first sentence to: For pre-application discussions to be productive developers need to ensure that as much

27



pre-application discussions on affordable housing to be the most productive, developers need to ensure that are encouraged to provide as much of the following information is supplied as possible…”

information identified in paragraph 7.3 could be available.

information as possible is supplied. This should include, where possible information on:



Concerned that the draft SPD does not allow S106 re-negotiations to occur when economic circumstances have worsened, as is currently expected. This is contrary to CLG’s emphasis that “It is important that local authorities are sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled in the context of significant changes in costs and values…” (draft NPPG p7). The draft NPPG goes on to encourage review mechanisms that takes these changes into account over the lifetime of a development. DPE suggest the following changes in orange: 7.16 “Where a S106 agreement is amended a Deed of Variation will be required to ensure any relevant changes to the planning obligation are captured. The Council will resist not adjusting the affordable housing provision downwards through the use of a Deed of Variation and in the first instance will seek to but will consider varying the tenure of the affordable housing (without reducing the number of units) in this way if it is agreed that viability will be improved. If the latter approach is pursued but the scheme remains unviable due to current market conditions then consideration will

Paragraph 7.14 of the SPD states that the Council will work with developers to find solutions where the viability of a scheme has been proven to have substantially changed and there is difficulty in meeting the affordable housing trigger or complying with the terms of the s106 agreement. This would include significant economic changes since the plan was approved. However, for clarity and for consistency with the Viability PPG, examples of such circumstances will be added to 7.14. Affordable housing is required to make schemes of 11 or more units policy compliant. Therefore the Council considers that a review mechanism or a Deed of Variation is not the appropriate tool to re-negotiate the level of affordable housing. Instead Paragraph 7.17 states that in exceptional cases where it is agreed that the level of affordable housing should be reduced a new or modified planning permission will be required. This approach reflects Government thinking on the use of review mechanisms in the Viability PPG (009).

Change Paragraph 7.14 to: The Council will work with developers to find solutions in cases where the viability of the scheme has been proven to have substantially changed, and there is difficulty in meeting the affordable housing trigger set out in a S106 agreement or complying with other terms in the deed. Such circumstances could include: where the development is proposed on unallocated sites of a wholly different type to those used in the Whole Plan Viability Assessment; where further information on infrastructure or site costs is required; where particular types of development are proposed which may significantly vary from the standard models of development for sale; or where a recession or similar significant economic changes have occurred since the LDP

28



be given to a reduction. A Viability Assessment and our critique of it will determine what is the maximum reasonable affordable provision and most appropriate tenure mix having regard to the prevailing economic circumstances at the time of S106 renegotiation”.

was approved (Viability PPG, 007).


Moult Walker 7.17 For the same reasons as for 7.16 DPE suggests deletion of 7.17.

Affordable housing is required to make schemes of 11 or more units policy compliant. Therefore the Council considers that a review mechanism or a Deed of Variation is not the appropriate tool to re-negotiate the level of affordable housing. Instead Paragraph 7.17 states that in exceptional cases where it is agreed that the level of affordable housing should be reduced a new or modified planning permission will be required. This approach reflects Government thinking on the use of review mechanisms in the Viability PPG (009).

No change required.

AH010 Hugh Lacey Pioneer PS Ltd Paragraph 8.14 onwards

The SPD seeks to extend the provisions of local plan policy H2 and H3 rather than provide guidance on its application. The plan policy does not include reference to the application of review mechanisms. Evidently the provisions identified in the draft SPD represent new policy which should first be properly tested through a plan policy review. The level of detail contained in the review mechanism proposals provides clear evidence that this is a matter which should be properly considered via a review of the local plan policy and full examination.

The intention of the SPD is not to provide policy rather it is to provide additional guidance relating to the operation of key policies. For clarification, the content will be amended slightly.

Change paragraph 8.16 to: The Viability PPG (009) states that ‘Plans should set out the circumstances where review mechanisms may be appropriate, as well as clear process and terms of engagement regarding how and when viability will be reassessed over the lifetime of the development to ensure policy compliance and optimal public benefits through economic cycles’. However, the Council may request that

29



review mechanisms be used in the following cases: Change paragraph 8.18 to: Should a review mechanism be considered appropriate…



Paragraph 8.3 and 8.4 is supported in terms of assessing the viability of a development, and its consistency with the draft NPPG. This states that a benchmark land value should be calculated on the basis of the existing use value (EUV) of the land, plus a premium for the land owner, known as Existing Use Value Plus (EUV+). Therefore, a viability assessment should be based on the benchmark land value for a policy compliant scheme.




ECC supports mandating the use of review mechanisms to capture increases in the value of a large or multi-phased development, especially those schemes where policy requirements are ‘diluted’ on viability grounds. Consequently, paragraphs 8.16 and 8.17, and the emerging draft NPPF is welcomed on this matter. It is important that every opportunity is taken to maximise the level of infrastructure provided with new development. If circumstances change after a viability assessment and the viability of a development improves, the financial gains should be shared with the local community to meet the full implications of the development. Given


30



the resource pressures on local authorities, especially in terms of planning and highways staffing, there is no guarantee that review mechanisms would be used in all the circumstances where it would be appropriate to do so without a mandatory requirement regarding the use of such a mechanism.


Paragraph 8.9

Paragraph 8.9 refers to the draft NPPF, which seeks to ensure the planning application process is open and transparent by requiring that all ‘viability assessments should be prepared on the basis that it will be made publicly available other than in exceptional circumstances’. ECC supports this proposed approach to enable the community to understand what is being funded by a development. Mindful that this could be used negatively and public scrutiny will also increase the need to demonstrate value for money. However, there are very few circumstances where this would be problematic. There could be limited situations where specific viability information, contained within an assessment, should remain confidential, and this will need to be assessed at the time.

Comments noted. The Viability PPG (paragraph 021) continues to require that viability assessments should be made publicly available other than in exceptional circumstances. It adds that ‘even in those circumstances an executive summary should be made publicly available’. The PPG identifies those circumstances where an exemption from publication could be sought. This information will be reflected in the SPD.

Add new text to paragraph 8.10: National legislation allows for limited exceptions, such as information relating to ongoing negotiations over land purchase, information relating to compensation that may be due to individuals (Viability PPG, 021)…

AH003 William Fuller Tendring District Council

Paragraph 9.0

It is considered that should the undersupply detailed within the document persist perhaps stronger measures will need to be explored.

Noted. This would require new policy so would need to be part of a LDP review.


AH009 Meghan Tetlow King Paragraph While the monitoring and review section The Council’s Authority Monitoring Report Amend 9.2 to:

31



Rossiter on behalf of Rentplus UK Ltd

9.2 is welcomed, this should set more fixed expectations at paragraph 9.2 for when a review will be considered necessary. ‘Significant changes’ to local circumstances should be benchmarked to, for example, a shortfall of at least 10% in the level of affordable housing expected to be delivered against need.

monitors all the indicators in the LDP. Should this identify that the LDP is not effective in delivering the LDP policies then a review of the LDP would be required. As the SPD provides further guidance in relation to the LDP it would be appropriate for the SPD to reviewed should the AMR identify that the relevant policies are not being delivered as expected.

Add new bullet point 1: The AMR identifies that Policies H1, H2 and H5 are not effective in delivering the identified level of affordable housing Change bullet point 2: There are significant changes to the Local Development Plan’s evidence base that indicate the LDP is unable to deliver the identified level of affordable housing.



Glossary Expect the Glossary to be updated following the publication of the final NPPF in July 2018; if this does not differ significantly from that set out in the March 2018 consultation document this may be undertaken without further formal public consultation.

The Glossary will be updated to reflect any new terms in the document and/or to ensure that the definitions align with the revised NPPF.

Amend definitions in Glossary for: Affordable Housing, Rural Exception Site. Add new definition for Build to Rent.