Cultural cleansing

Those of us concerned with the conservation of our built heritage are generally motivated by a concern that were substantial elements that represent periods or events from our past to be lost or substantially damaged, so would our ability to recall the substance and significance of parts of our history and identity.  The term cultural cleansing was used to describe the attempts by Isis to destroy the temple and Palmyra in Syria but this is only at the extreme end of a process that will go on purposefully and accidentally around the world.

Clearly the cultural heritage is at greatest risk at times of regime change when through officially sponsored vandalism or simply neglect buildings and monuments can disappear from the landscape, with littel chance of return.

In the UK the former airbase at Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire represents what Historic England consider to be the best preserved remains from the Cold War in the country. Who knew that? Since the United States Air Force flew out  in 1994 there has been an almost constant debate about how the site should be treated.  This debate has been conducted mainly through the planning system; a succession of plans for the area (Oxfordshire and Cherwell District), applications and appeals supported with evidence in the form of studies, surveys and design briefs.  Without going into the detail of these proposals and decisions, the 'facts on the ground' are ample evidence that the authorities at local and central government levels are indifferent to the future of the site. While many of the buildings and structures have legal protection (Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments) and the flying field has been designated a Conservation Area,  a visitor to the site will see new housing encroaching into the hardened cold war landscape, cars being parked on runways/taxiways, businesses being run from Hardened Aircraft Shelters across the site (with their commercial traffic),  the local police force training on the runways, and no obvious way to appreciate the heritage site. In fact an internet search might reveal the minibus tours which are run by volunteers during the summer.

While the site was sold by the Ministry of Defence for about £26 million, this represented the value of the existing housing on the site. The rents from these and businesses has probably paid back this outlay and more - even before the number of houses to be built at Upper Heyford was increased threefold.

Enthusiasm for history has not yet caused the necessary of concern and outrage to safeguard the site, possibly because the Cold War is filed under politics in high stree bookshops, a subject with substantially less appeal.  By the time it becomes important to use the site as an instructional monument to assist in understanding the Cold War and subsequent relations with Russia the site will have been 'cleansed' of its power to inform through changes caused by collective carelessness and indifference carelessness. There remains some hostility to its preservation in the District Council which thought that the scar on the landscape could and should have been removed (like the fate of Greenham Common).

The Expert Panel supervising the additions to the list of World Heritage Sites are aware that the Cold War is not yet represented and recommended that research be carried out to see which transnational sites should be considered to be of 'universal value'.  This research remains to be done and, meanwhile,  the cultural cleansing of Upper Heyford continues making it harder to imagine it being used to perpetrate nuclear war resulting in a possible nuclear holocaust. 

Self or custom building - registers and duties

The Housing and Planning Bill became law on 12 May although there will be many further regulations putting flesh on these bones.  Apart from repeating my complaint that this legislation addresses any number of matters that could simply be dealt with by applying new policies and actually includes non-problems while missing the real ones - we should not expect anything less from  Government which believes that the planning system is the cause of so many problems which are actually beyond the powers conveyed by the 1990 Act (as amended).

However, there is section 10.  This greatly improves on the Self and Custom Building Act which imposed a duty on LPAs to hold registers of those interested in self building.

When formally brought into force, the H & P Act will require LPAs to permit serviced plots in numbers to match the numbers of interested individuals and associations of individuals (I was told that this was the Government's attempt to show that co-housing should be encouraged) registering within the previous 12 month period.  While it might be the case that some  of those on the registers will go out and make applications on land to meet their own needs, I cannot see any substantial demand being satisfied without plots/land being reserved on sites allocated in development plans or being permitted on a speculative or ad hoc basis (eg when there is no up to date development plan).

A lack of plots being provided/permitted by the LPA could become a very strong argument in favour of permission being granted on sites brought forward by individuals or groups.

My assumption is predicated on there being enough publicity given to both the registers and the duties that then arise for numbers to reach the levels predicted by the associated lobby groups.  In my village 145 out of about 1000 households said that they would be interested and 50 said that they would be interested in co-housing.There does not appear to be much of a downside to registering - British citizen over the age of 18 - although LPAs can impose a reasonable charge for administering the registers and some are trying to require some local attachment (probably illegal but might be used when distributing plots if insufficient to meet all the registered need).

Finally, to put this in context, the Government wants self and custom building to make a very substantial contribution to housing supply.  The volume builders are unlikely to build more than 50% of the 250,000 dwellings said to be required (DanthePlan is uncertain about this if all new housing was 2 bedroomed - see previous blogs on under-occupation).  The Government is committed to 200,000 new dwellings per year.  When more than this was being built the 'extra' was provided by council house building and small builders.  The latter suffered in the 2007/8  crash and are slow to return but might assist with some of the custom building. Some councils are forming building companies (that might escape the right to buy). However, it will take a monumental effort for  the current level of self building to grow from 10% of 120,000 (ie 12,000) to the 20% of 200,000 (50,000 dwellings) per year that the Government has in its sights.  Let alone the 50% experienced in many other countries.  So get on the register(s) and get building.

Some thoughts on neighbourhood planning

Since getting out of the way of the naighbourhood planning enthusiasts I have been trying to help from the sidelines with the same messages that were rejected when working inside the tent - as chair of the parish council and its planning committee.  Possibly 2000 NDPs are under way or have been made and all will be different in significant ways.  However, I am writing this blog in case the experience in my village has any similarities to others and might have some lessons for the unwary.

The first and most important point to be made is that there is evidence of the NDP not being read or understood by those seeking to apply it to developments in the village.  At the first committee when a significant development was being considered after the 'making' of the NDP the councillors had not brought their copies along and had not the first idea which policies were relevant and, when they were introduced from the public seats, how they should be applied.  This leads on to the next point that is the diffiiculty in drafting policies. I have blogged before on the need for policies to be proscriptive (what should not be done, prescriptive (what should be done) or permissive (what could be done). The neighbourhood planners have bequeathed the district council a plan with policies that do not mean what they had hoped but are pressing very hard for the intended meaning to apply.

Having been delegated the power to produce development plans (by the Localism Act 2011) the neighbourhood planners have taken it upon themselves to negotiate with prospective developers of the allocated sites. There is complete confusion about whether this is a rather detailed consultation (on behalf of whom it is not clear) or some form of negotiation on which the developers could reasonably rely.  Having voted on an NDP which is being interpreted in ways which could not have been anticipated at the time of the referendum, the village residents are now being 'represented' in respect of matters that were not even mentioned in the NDP.  Attendance at the meetings of the parish council or the implementation committee (of mostly non-parish councillors)  is possible but an opportunity taken up by one or two people.

The Localism Act did not foresee the extent to which local people would depart from planning practice as it has developed over the last 70 years.  The theory that the basic condition of conformity with strategic policies in the local plan (if one exists) does not appear to have prevented the neighbourhood planners from re-defining and supporting ribbon development (that was proscribed in the NDP), from successfully objecting to a development that was not allocated but which accorded with all other NDP policies (i'll come back to the main transport policy), and have decided that the development of two thirds of an open space at the centre of the village preserves or enhances the agricultural and rural  character the conservation area.   The committee has an interesting use of the term 'consensus' which seems to refer to the two or three people engaged in the negotiations with developers (or is it a consultation?).

Just on the question of transport a policy requiring new developments to 'reduce traffic' survived both the examination and scrutiny by the LPA that had been limiting development in the village due to a serious bottleneck on the main route out.  This policy is routinely ignored by the PC, implementation committee and the LPA.

My warning is that it will be hard to dissuade those who have prepared neighbourhood plans from wanting an active role in the implementation. However, these people are unlikely to have any experience of this exercise while assuming that the localism agenda if not the legislation gives them the authority for doing so.  This is an unequal 'contest' and the concept of consulting or negotiating 'without prejudice' seems to be beyond the comprehension of this very small number of enthusiasts.

None of this is 'sour grapes' from somebody squeezed out of the NDP process but a question as to how much of accepted planning practice (re ribbon development and conservation) is being re-written.  The very sad thing is that where innovation is required, for example in respect of local food systems, affordable housing/community land trusts, group self/custom-building, low carbon transport, the opportunities are being missed.

Inspector rules that food is a planning matter

Much as I would like to share my comments on the Housing and Planning Bill I am afraid that the ideology of the Government has come up against the rather deeper knowledge in intelligence of the Lords and it is impossible to know what the outcome will be (ie when the Commons vote on the amendments).  

So this blog goes back to the subject of food and rejoices in the fact that the Inspector charged with examining the VALE OF WHITE HORSE DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PART 1 has issued a number invitations for further comment.

INSPECTOR’S REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL

"Has the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 adequately addressed the needs of the food production industry as per paragraph 161 of the NPPF?"

To make this intelligible the relevant extracts from the National Planning Policy Framework are included in this blog: 

"Business

160. Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area. To achieve this, they should:

●work together with county and neighbouring authorities and with Local Enterprise Partnerships to prepare and maintain a robust evidence base to understand both existing business needs and likely changes in the market;

and

●work closely with the business community to understand their changing needs and identify and address barriers to investment, including a lack of housing, infrastructure or viability

161. Local planning authorities should use this evidence base to assess:

●the needs for land or floorspace for economic development, including both the quantitative and qualitative needs for all foreseeable types of economic activity over the plan period, including for retail and leisure development;

●the existing and future supply of land available for economic development and its sufficiency and suitability to meet the identified needs. Reviews of land available for economic development should be undertaken at the same time as, or combined with, Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessments and should include a reappraisal of the suitability of previously allocated land;

●the role and function of town centres and the relationship between them, including any trends in the performance of centres;

●the capacity of existing centres to accommodate new town centre development;

●locations of deprivation which may benefit from planned remedial action; and

●the needs of the food production industry and any barriers to investment that planning can resolve."

My comments to the Inspector are as follows:

"1.      This policy cannot have been complied with without also demonstrating compliance with para 160 that refers to LEPs and changes to business needs.  In fact the OxLEP is aware of the need for ‘starter farms’ [1]but this does not seem to have been conveyed to the LPA.  The LPA response to the inspector’s question relies on the CE/SQW Report that does not address changes to the local food systems or the barriers to change that, as implied by this question, a ‘sound ‘ local plan would need to address.  The ‘robust evidence base’ required by para 160 and which should deal with the role that food and agriculture plays in housing, soils, biodiversity, as well as employment and business is entirely missing.

2.      The ‘barriers to investment’ that the draft plan has failed to identify or address let alone ‘resolve’ include the affordable land for new farm enterprises, the associated and affordable housing, and the components of a low carbon food system in terms of production, processing and distribution.  The LPA response is not and could not be that para 161 is irrelevant but, despite have received representations throughout the plan preparation period, changes to local food systems were simply not investigated.  The ‘business as usual’ approach to food systems is not only contrary to the NPPF requirement to consider changing needs, but contribute to locking-in the existing systems and make change much more difficult.  Sound planning is expected and required to avoid  this trap and positively plan for the future.

3.      The consequence of this omission (not only causing the plan to be unsound) will be that the changes necessary to reduce the carbon emissions from agriculture will be made much more difficult if not impossible to achieve. The plan must be able to show how it would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and mitigate carbon emissions.[2]  Given the significant scale of carbon emissions from agriculture (and subsequent processing and distribution) the 60% reductions to carbon emissions required by 2030 will not be possible if the plan does not deal positively with this issue.

4.      The necessary changes anticipated by paras 160 and 161 are likely to involve an increase in new farms and farmers who without modifications being made to the plan will not find it possible to access suitable and affordable land or associated housing." 

I hope that my blog conveys the idea that the main problem with the planning system is that it puts people off and despite the reduction of reading load represented by the NPPF, few people actually read it and use the good bits in advocating the necessary changes to bring about sustainable development.  In this case the Inspector is asking how the draft local plan meets existing Government policy.

---

[1] Creating the environment for growth OxLEP 2-15  p63

[2] ss 39(2) and 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended)

An honest re-defining of affordable housing

The Government has extended (to 22 April) the consultation on amendments to the NPPF in respect of the definition of affordable housing, prompted by the expectation that Starter Homes will be part of the Housing and Planning Act when it has worked its way through the legislative process.  Those thinking of responding could reference the following.

Send your thoughts to:   planningpolicyconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Affordable Housing Re – definition

Background

1.         This is an excellent opportunity to restore one of the areas of planning control that has led to its serious loss of credibility. What is being referred to in planning circles as 'affordable' is seen as ridiculous by those faced with paying up to and over half their income in rent and/or mortgage payments to keep a roof over their heads.  Those in the PRS (the fastest growing sector) see the safety net of social renting becoming less available.   It should be a main purpose of the planning system to provide an adequate supply of housing that can be paid for through about 30% of gross household income (the other purpose is ensuring that all housing is sustainable).  If this is not possible through home ownership (and Government statistics should be able to reveal the extent to which households could reasonably afford to buy – subject to Bank of England estimates of interest rates and a normal 5% discount) then the remainder would have to be accommodated in rented accommodation.  In the absence of any rent controls in the PRS (that should be on the Government agenda), it will be the social rental sector that must meet these needs.

 2.        Providing a reasonable and realistic definition of ‘affordable housing’ is one of the few areas of written guidance that does justify considered change and should not be regarded as part of the perpetual meddling by this and previous governments.

3.         Decisions on what policies should be introduced, applying new or old definitions, should always attempt to analyses planning for housing as a system and take a systemic approach.  

  

Definitions

4.         The current definition of affordable housing follows the original High Court judgement that found there to be a material planning difference between a home that could be afforded by a local person, taking into account local earning potential, and one that could not. 

"Affordable housing: Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision."(emphasis added)

This definition of eligibility makes no reference to Housing Benefit, Help to Buy, Funding for Lending or any other discounting through public subsidy or the bank of mum and dad.

5.         "Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency."

No amendment is required to the definition of 'social housing', although this should not be within the definition of 'affordable housing ' if the 'national rent regime' requires public subsidy.

6.         "Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable)."

This definition does require amendment as, in many if not most parts of the country, 80% of market rents would not satisfy the 'eligibility' criteria’ relating to local incomes.  If there is a public interest or planning benefit of retaining a category of houses rented at 80% of market rents then this should be the subject of some special justification.  What is unacceptable is to continue to call it ‘affordable’ and include it in the Glossary as such.

7.         The consequence of corrupting the original definition through the ‘national rent regimes’ and the reference to 80% of market rents has contributed substantially to house price/rent inflation and s106 obligations have acted like a conduit passing various public subsidies straight into the pockets of developers and landowners.  ‘School-boy economics’ explains that increasing demand without a commensurate increase in supply will cause an increase in price and, therefore, the level of unaffordability. There isn’t a housing supply model that suggests that prices can be reduced where there is less than 1% annual increase in supply, mostly by developers intent on maintaining if not increasing prices.

8.         In fact there could be a significant impact on prices if most of the 200,000 new dwellings built each year were small/2 bedroomed properties.  A substantial increase in supply of what are already intrinsically the cheapest form of property could reduce prices in that particular sector.  Incidentally, there would still be a supply of larger properties for households larger than the average of 2.4 people due to the downsizing of some of the 8 million household looking for attractive ‘right-sizing ‘options

9.         "Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing."

Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes."

Consultation Q1.

Do you have any comments or suggestions about the proposal to amend the definition of affordable housing in national planning policy to include a wider range of low cost homes?

10.       The eligibility criteria are based on the Court's justification for distinguishing 'affordability' as a material consideration being the relationship with local earnings  is logical and must not be changed.  

11.       In fact the system would work as intended: to provide genuinely affordable housing, if the eligibility criteria were consistently applied.  The Glossary/definitions should be brought into line by removing the "affordable rent" category that is an abuse of language, and ensuring that "social rent" is affordable relative to local wage levels. 

12.       There is no reason why intermediate housing or even low cost houses for sale (including Starter Homes) could not be included,  so long as the eligibility criteria are met. There is a difficulty in that the affordability in terms of purchase of all or some of the equity is conditional on the interest on loans.  In these circumstances the affordability should be based on a Bank of England estimate of the interest over 20/25 years and not any current (loss leading) deals that might be available and a 5% deposit.

13.       There is also a case for including self/custom building by individuals or associations of individuals within the definition of 'affordable housing' subject in each case to the submission of a business plan showing that the house(s) would be provided (to a liveable standard to allow for self-finishing)  at a price to meet the eligibility criteria relating to local earnings.  This would remove the existing disincentive for LPAs to support self/custom building due to the exemption from s106 obligations and other tariffs that already apply to affordable housing.  There would also be the opportunity for self/custom builders to share the equity with a Registered Provider that could have provided and retained ownership of the land/serviced plots on which the houses were built.

Garden Cities and local food systems

The reason that I am not a fan of new settlements is that I feel that a substantial amount of new development should be in the form of smaller dwellings, many in the form of co-housing and commissioned by associations of individuals (see Housing and Planning Bill and opportunity to sign up to registers held by Local Planning Authorities after 1 April).  New settlements are more likely to perpetuate the current unsustainable levels of under-occupation of our housing stock that using new build to balance the size of houses and households.

Having said that, the Government has continued with its support for new settlements with a call for expressions of interest in the recent publication of "Locally-led garden villages, towns and cities" found through Google but with expressions of interest required by 31 July 2016!  How local opinion will be ascertained within the next 4 months and how these proposals would fit with existing and emerging development plans is a puzzle.

Those wanting to contribute to this 'debate' might be interested in the email sent to the Communities Secretary.

Dear Sir or Madam

Having read through the latest promotion of garden villages, towns and cities I would be interested to know whether this is an amplification of the advice at para 52 of the NPPF or intends to change it in any way?

Para 52. states,  "The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities…."

It was and is a fundamental principle of garden cities (and sustainable development) that the urban areas are functionally related to the surrounding rural hinterland  that should include zones for market gardening.  it seems to be the case that in the desire to see more housing being built the important contribution that should be made by local/regional food systems is being overlooked.  If Para 52 of the NPPF remains as Government policy should DCLG not be reminding those submitting expressions of interest that the related use of the surrounding rural area will be fundamental to their prospects of success?

Yours sincerely

Custom building - and a back door to co-housing

The Government is keen to see the level of self/custom building increased from about 8% of housing supply to something approaching 20% that will still be among the lowest in the world.  A substantial contribution from this sector is need if the 1m new dwellings by 2020 promised by the Government in 2015 is to be achieved.

All local planning authorities (LPAs) are being required to have registers available by 1 April 2016 for those wanting to self or custom build.  This under the 2105 Self Building Act and the Registers might have to change when the Housing and planning Bill passes into law as it is likely to include the scope of associations to register their interest to include those wanting to co-house.

There will then be a requirement for LPAs to provide the land on which the demand shown in the registers can be expressed. The target is for 50% to be met in three years and 100% within five.  I take this to be a rolling horizon so that people can expect to be on the registers for between 1 and 5 years with an average of 3?  There is nothing to stop people  registering in different local authority areas although councils might give priority to those with local connections.  If councils fail to provide suitable land/serviced sites the remedy would seem to be that those on the registers could try to self provide and use the council's failure as an argument at appeal in a similar way to the argument used by volume builders that there isn't a five year housing land supply.  This would be in addition to political pressure being applied through councilors, parish councils, members of parliament and the media.

In many parts of the country it is highly unlikely that the registered demand will be met without reserving sites on large allocated and permitted sites.  Logically 20% of such sites should be reserved for self/custom builders to move towards the Government's target.  However the Department of Communities and Local Government seems to think that 'requiring' this approach would be contrary to the spirit of localism and should emerge from the duty placed on councils to find effective ways to meet the registered demand.  If this approach is not adopted then self/custom build sites might be additional to the Local Plan allocation or contribute to the windfall 'allowance'. Such sites should still be in suitable and sustainable locations. 

We should be queuing at planning offices on 1 April (if not before) with our pens set to express our demand as individuals or associations of individuals for opportunities to create our own homes.  This is also appears to be the only way that co-housing will be privileged through the planning system even if some co-housers see themselves as commissioners of custom built dwellings rather than builders.

And a committee of the House of Lords has recommended that the Government reinstate a Code for Sustainable Homes and the Zero Carbon Homes target.