Re: NPPF - Five-Year supply and SHLAA - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Yes, I'd be interested to know this too, we are just about to embark on consultation with our Housing Market Partnership following our annual Call for Sites, and it would be useful to be able to give some advice! (But we are jealous of your 400+ sites of more than 10 dwellings - over 800 sites to consider here!)

Recent PINS appeal decisions have shed some light, and caused further confusion, with regard to the calculation of a five-year land supply for housing. Indeed they do not appear to agree with some of the guidance on this website. 1. Wychavon DC (APP/H1840/A/12/2171339) http://81.171.139.151/WAM/doc/Appeal%20Decision-864843.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=864843&location=volume2&appid=1001&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1 In paragraph 36 the Inspector sets out the approach to how a five-year land supply for housing should be calculated under the provisions of the NPPF. Although acknowledging that the NPPF is silent on the approach to be taken, it is clear that the Secreatry of State and PINS favour the Sedgefield approach over the residual approach employed by many local planning authorities (see Page 21 of document below). http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/landsupplychecks.pdf 2. High Peak (APP/H1033/A/11/2159038) http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=151722 Paragraphs 9-14 and 24 provide further information on how PINS view the calculation of the five-year land supply for housing. Of particular note is the Inspectors reasoning at the end of paragraph 10, which states that sites without planning permission should not be regarded as deliverable and that they should not be included in the five-year land supply for housing. Is this interpretation correct? Many housing allocations, for example, do not benefit from a valid planning permission, nor do many sites identified in a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). But, provided that there are no significant constraints to overcome, such sites are often capable of being delivered within a five year timeframe. However, the exclusion of sites without planning permission from the five-year housing supply appears to be PINS current interpretation of what is considered to be ‘deliverable’ and is reflected in another appeal decision at Wincanton (see below). 3. Wincanton (APP/R3325/A/12/2170082) http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/436147/items_for_information.pdf This follows on from the High Peak decision. The relevant information on the five-year land supply for housing is contained in paragraph 30 of the appeal decision (pages 5-21 of the document). Any thoughts on the implications of the above decisions, particularly in respect of the validity of including sites without planning permission in the five-year land supply for housing, would be most welcome.

Just wonder why you would spend the time preparing a SHLAA, if only sites with planning permission are included? Could we just go back to monitoring housing permissions?

It is important to remember that SHLAAs are not only used to calculate the 5 year supply. They also provide the evidence base for emerging planning policy. As a key component of an LPA's evidence base it is important to ensure that the SHLAA correctly identifies sites that are both deliverable and developable so as to inform future housing policies. The correct assessment of sites to be included in the 5 year housing land supply is set out in the NPPF and rightly interpreted in my opinion by the above appeal decisions - I have posted elsewhere on this and I believe that the only logical interpretation of footnote 11 is the one taken by the Inspectors. However SHLAAs also need to identify developable sites and if necessary broad locations so as to inform future housing policy so of course SHLAAs need to be prepared and that the analysis of which sites are deliverable and which sites are developable needs to be robust.

I think there may still be some distance left to run in regard to the appeal decisions and the interpretation of footnote 11. The Wincanton decision is already a softening of the High Peak one. It mentions that sites without permission can't be considered, 'except' (and then goes on to look at potential for windfall allowance and also sites under 10 units). This is a different interpretation from High Peak, rather than supporting it per se. I would suggest the most important thing, surprise surprise, is evidence. You should be able to demonstrate pretty readily that sites without the benefit of permission in 2007 have now been completed. You will probably be able to demonstrate that they were not all windfall sites, and most likely not all on small sites. Please don't get twitchy about the first couple of appeal decisions, and don't forget that planning permission only lasts for 3 years so by definition you'll only have a 3-year land supply if you only rely on permissions.

Adam Doesn't Para 14 in the High Peak Decision demonstrate that the Inspector did, in fact, allow windfall sites, just as the Inspector did at Wincanton? She didn't allow all the numbers claimed by the LPA because it appeared they may also have included residential gardens. There is no explicit mention of whether she considered sites under 10 units could or could not be included. Perhaps the Decisions are more consistent than you suggest.

Thanks for pointing that out Brian. Of course, the NPPF sets out how windfall can be calculated and used in the 5-year supply anyway, so in some ways that's a moot point and I should not have highlighted it at all. The details in the Inspectors reports refer to the amount allowed in the councils assumptions, rather than their inclusion per se. I think the bigger issues relate to the other points in my response.

This discussion has been quite insightful. Would anybody have a thought on whether we have grounds for using an emerging housing target to calculate the 5 year supply based on recent evidence/SHMA. We are revising our core spatial strategy to reflect, among other things, more realistic housing targets (effective after abolition of RSS). The effect of this on our district's 5 year supply would be to hike it from a very low base of around 2 years supply to >8 years.

Yes, South Northamptonshire Council have recently considered two reports at the Council Meeting on 15th July (see http://modgov.southnorthants.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=117&MId=1841&Ver=4 ) and resolved to use the emerging Joint Core Strategy housing numbers.

Sorry, the South Northants Council meeting should have been 15th August not 15th July

Adam As every appeal is different as is the way in which evidence on housing land supply can be presented to inspectors there will invariably be slightly different approaches to what sites can or cannot be included in the supply. However my reading of Wincanton and High Peak is that the approach adopted is similar especially as it deals with footnote 11 which is the main point I've made previously. Putting it another way, if sites without planning permission are relied upon to make-up the 5 year supply, then Councils can simply put forward sites of their choosing to contend that they have a 5 year supply and therefore avoid the requirements of paragraphs 49 and 14 of the NPPF. Most SHLAAs I come across are not supported by robust evidence to satisfy the tests of deliverability so unless every appeal inquiry is going to have to go through sites without planning permission on a site by site basis to examine the evidence then you have to have a framework within which to include sites as deliverable. All SHLAAs have the necessary health warning that the identification of sites does not mean that planning permission will be forth coming and therefore until permission is granted there can be no certainty that they will come forward. I have suggested in another posting that all footnote 11 says is that sites with consent should normally be deemed deliverable unless there is evidence that points to the contrary. The reverse must be true and in both cases the evidence needs to be robust and able to stand up to examination. This is precisely the approach adopted in the two appeals. As for your point that permissions only last 3 years, this is true but as not all consents are decided on the same day then if some lapse then others in the pool of consents will come forward. The requirement is based upon a number for the required supply so its like a reservoir where if the level is dropping it needs to be topped up to ensure a continuation of supply. On the point about using an emerging housing target to redefine the 5 year requirement, recent appeal decisions show that inspectors are unlikely to want to rely upon an emerging requirement where the evidence has not been tested through examination. There are several recent appeal decisions on this with ones in Solihull and Wychavon being two that come to mind.

Michael. Thanks for your reply. You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with a number of your points, but I have made my thoughts clear already so I won't rehearse my arguments again. Anyone else out there want to jump in? How many of your allocations do you anticipate coming forward within 5 years? What evidence are you using to back up those assumptions? How about sites at pre-applications stage or those going through the application process now where the council is minded to approve? How many of you are in councils minded to 'simply put forward sites of [your] choosing' to help boost the numbers? How robust do you think your SHLAA is? Have you at least done plan-wide viability so you understand the range and type of values in your areas?

Adam, Although we are all entitled to our personal views on the question of housing land supply and my views are no more authoritative than anyone else, the points I have been making are supported by the two appeal decisions referred to above which are of course material planning considerations where the same issues are being considered. I'm not aware of any conflicting appeal decisions to support an alternative reading of footnote 11 and as such these appeal decisions cannot be overlooked. As you do not say why you disagree with what I've said then I can't comment further but you should know that I attended a planning inquiry last week (I wasn't the appellant) and the Council's planning policy witness was trying to rely upon views you have expressed in this forum to say that these are the views of the PAS on the matter and hence should be given some authority. The appellants were not surprisingly arguing the Wincanton and High Peak position on footnote 11. Whilst this forum provides a very useful platform to debate these and other matters and debate is invariably healthy, I thought you should be aware that views are being used for purposes outside of this forum. Just to add as another footnote, the quote you have highlighted actually isn't mine as I was repeating the point made by the appellants' counsel at the Inquiry. I was simply using it as a general point to explain my concern and it should not be taken out of context.

Adam Not too surprised that no-one has yet confessed to simply putting forward sites of their choosing to help boost the numbers (to paraphrase the quote you highlighted). I wonder if I could re-phrase one of your other questions and ask your view on the inclusion of sites within a 5 year supply, which are at pre-application stage, are going through the application process now or have completed the application process, and which Councils have been minded to refuse, have recommended refusal or actually refused permission? The sentiment I took from your questions, was that if LPAs were minded to approve sites then that might justify their inclusion in the 5 year supply. Surely, the reverse should apply, too?

I too have contributed to other threads on this topic earlier this year. Given the amount of debate, and the importance of the housing land supply in making planning decisions, it might in the interests of saving an awful lot of time be best if PINS/PAS/CLG were to publish a good practice guide on calculation of the housing land supply!

Just thought I'd return this thread to see if anything else has come to light. With no guidance on how to identify a five-year land supply and recent decisions by PINS Inspectors that cloud the issue further, where do we go from here? The three key questions that need a definitive answer are: Q1 - Should LPAs use the 'Sedgefield' or 'residual' method when dealing with past undersupply? Answer - Inconclusive ... but, PINS Inspectors suggest the government favour the former. Q2 - How do 'underperforming' LPAs calculate the 20% buffer? A - Inconclusive ... some local planning authorities calculate 20% of their annual requirement BEFORE taking account of any undersupply, others do not. Q3 - Can LPAs only include sites with planning permission in their five year supply? A - Inconclusive ... many practitioners do not believe this is what the NPPF is saying (Para 47, Footnote 11). But others do, and PINS Inspectors in their decisions at High Peak and Wychavon (see above) appear to suggest that this is the case. I would suggest that as Geoff says above, we need some clarity on this important issue sooner rather than later.