Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsThe National Planning Practice Guidance (para 035) gives a bit of insight into the meaning of persistent under delivery but causes me some confusion.
In the section on Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (para 35) it has a section on 'How Should Local Planning Authorities Deal with Past Under Supply?'. Clearly this whole section is about land supply and this part particularly about 5 year supply and not about housing NEED.
For the purposes of 5 year supply the NPPF (FRAMEWORK) says that where there has been persistent under delivery a 20% buffer should be added to the 5 year supply.
However, the more recent NPPG (GUIDANCE) now talks about making up undersupply in the first 5 years as within the area of 'persistent underdelivery'. it doesnt say anything about the 20%. It says that if you have had persistent under delivery then that delivery should be made up in the first 5 years and says that persistent under delivery should be taken as a long term view to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle.
The NPPG then seems to be dealing with the old chestnut of whether to make up shortfall in the first 5 years (AKA Sedgefiled) or the rest of the Plan Period (AKA Liverpool) and not about persistent under delivery as in the NPPF.
Further confusion arises where the GUIDANCE says that if an authority can not make up the shortfall in the first 5 years it should work with its neighbours under DtC??? WHAT?
How can you monitor YOUR 5 year supply against YOUR authority's set target that was set in YOUR plan by considering YOUR objectively assessed needs, and then when you cant meet your 5 year supply (because you cant meet the shortfall in the first 5 years) you go to your neighbours? How? They will have their own housing targets set through their own Plan that they will monitor against. Is the NPPG saying that you have to hope that your neighbour has more than a 5 year supply so that you can have some? Surely that wont work because their supply is not meeting the needs of YOUR plan?
I have always considered this whole area very confusing and unhelpful because technically if you had 'persistently under delivered' you had to add 20% on to your 5YS and then if you had a shortfall (which could be exactly the same as persistently under delivering), you had to make up the shortfall in 5 years. Given that your shortfall was possibly cause by the economic situation you have to make up the difference AND add 20% on. Surely double counting? According to the NPPF the 20% was to ensure competition but surely if youre already meeting your OAN and your shortfall then competition is ensured anyway.
I'm still very confused. The NPPF and the NPPG seem to be considering 'persistent under delivery differently'?
Anyone?
Jonathan,
Here's my thoughts, for what they're worth. Apologies in advance for the long answer.
We ran some events recently on objectively assessed need and 5 year housing land supply. At those events, we ran the following example past people. It depends on one key premise; Namely that the authority has carried out an up to date assessment of need. This includes an up to date SHMA, and will also take account of the most recent population projections, and any other up to date evidence that is pertinent.
For the best real life explanation of this, see the recent Winchester Appeal. A key extract is "there was no reason whatever for a person in 2011 seeking to draw up a current estimate of population growth and housing requirements looking into the future from that date to 2031 and using up-to-date evidence to do so, to add on to the estimated figures any shortfall against what had been estimated to be needed in the first phase of the previously modelled period included in the South East Plan".
In other words, up to date evidence tells you how many people are currently in need. Adding in numbers from a previous plan period would amount to double-counting. NOTE, this is all about determining the NEED. The need is what translates into your requirement, or plan target.
Back to our example!:
Plan target of 15,000 dwellings over 15 years. This gives an annual 'baseline requirement' of 1000 a year. This baseline requirement won't change over the plan period.
Assuming a 20% buffer:
In year 1 the 5 year land SUPPLY (not NEED) figure is therefore 6000 dwellings (baseline requirement x 5 years + 20%). The NEED figure is 5000.
During years 1- 5 under-delivery persists with 800 a year being delivered. So 4000 dwellings are actually delivered and there is a shortfall of 1000.
This shortfall is added to the 5 year requirement because there are 1000 more people in need at the start of year 6 than there were at the start of year 1 (because they did not get provided for in years 1-5). So 1000 is added to 5000 (the baseline requirement) = The NEED figure is now 6000
At Year 6 then, the 5 year land SUPPLY figure should be: 6000 dwellings plus 20% = 7200
The aim of having a supply this great is not to get 7200 dwellings built but hopefully to get somewhere near 6000 built. If you do build 7,200, this 'over supply' would be deducted from years 11-15 so the target would reduce. You are not double-counting as you are not increasing the overall plan requirement, you are not changing the number of people in housing need, you are merely looking to 'boost significantly' the supply. The overall target for the plan period remains 15,000.
In other words it is important to note that the requirement remains as per the baseline requirement for years 1 - 10 (ie 4000 built + 6000 = 10,000).
In the real world, of course, you would be likely to have updated evidence during the plan period, so the numbers would potentially change. This is an over-simplification to illustrate the point.
So, if the buffer is added in to the first 5 years (Sedgefield), you are asking a) why any shortfall must also be added to the first 5 years, and b) if that constitutes double-counting?
The answer to a) is based more on 'human nature' than actual practicality, but basically, if you are in need now, you should have a house provided for you as soon as possible, not 'sometime over the next 15 years'.
The answer to b) is 'no'. Remember, the buffer is about providing choice and competition in the market. So in the example above, you should be looking to identify land for 7,200 houses, so that there is a greater chance of 6,000 being built. You are not saying there are now 7,200 people in need, you are saying you need to look to supply land to deliver 7,200, so that there is a chance that 6,000 can be delivered (to meet the need).
I hope this helps? Having read it all back, I'm not sure now!
Do please get back in touch if you would like.
Adam
Andrea King, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsJust to jump in here, totally agree with Adam's interpretation, but my big concern in all of this is that council's are effectively being blamed and penalised for (predominantly) the private housebuilding sector not building at the rates required to satify needs, and as we know housebuilding rates haven't kept up with needs for the past 30-40yrs since the Government curtailed the council housebuilding sector. Councils can do all they can to allocate land to potentially provide for their identified needs (frontloading the most viable/deliverable sites from your SHLAA subject to key environmental designations), but if the housebuilders don't build the required numbers then the council is forced to bring forward and release more land from later in the plan period to up the supply, and they're always going to jump at developing the most attractive (typically greenfield) sites than the less viable (brownfield) ones that local communities and sustainable planning really wants to get regenerated, and hence they never happen and the frontloading requirement is always going to increase!
Furthermore, the NPPF is clear that your Plan, whilst being reasonably aspirational in ideally planning to meet your objectively-assessed needs in full (subject to the exceptional circumstances clause, incl. Green Belt designations, etc. which as Boles and recent PINS decisions have confirmed may well justify ultimately planning/allocating for a lower constrained figure), needs to be realistic and deliverable. Hence there seems little point in unnecessarily allocating and releasing land to try to provide for your full objectively-assessed needs plus any frontloaded buffer from previous under delivery (by the housebuilders) when the evidence shows there's not a hope in hell of the housebuilding industry ever building at the rates deemed to otherwise be required and thus unduly blighting areas by having to allocate more (often less sustainable urban fringe greenfield) land than is ever going to be necessary in reality.
And you can get a good feel of this potential from looking at your typical average gross and net housebuilding rates over recent years (and any known future demolitions) and then factor in what the HBF recently advised Government that they can only reasonably increase rates by up to 5-10% per annum (subject presumably to the relative attractiveness and economic vitality of your local area - housebuilders aren't going to build if local people can't afford to buy/rent the completed homes, with both parties being dependent on the banks for build finance, mortgages and deposit levels, etc.) to see what year-on-year housebuilding rates could at best reasonably be (regardless of what your population and household projections might suggest it might need to be). Hence common sense says there seems little point in allocating (or bringing forward) more land than this calculation would require on deliverability grounds, regardless of what your objectively-assessed needs and any shortfalls from previous years might suggest!
Ultimately it's all about having a strong evidence base! By all means challenge the ONS/DCLG projections with your own locally-informed assessments and evidence, but make sure it's robust and justified! Your objectively-assessed needs (based on projections and SHMA-identified needs) and any buffer for previous under-delivery are one thing, but at the end of the day your Plan needs to be realistic (with reasonable aspiration for growth) and deliverable in planning positively to achieve sustainable development!
Andrea,
Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to understand the calculations, it's another to understand how this translates to delivery (or not!).
The recent examination at South Gloucestershire 'allowed' the argument to use Liverpool rather than Sedgefield. However, before everyone gets too excited, the key point here was that even the Liverpool method showed a significant boost in housing supply for South Gloucestershire. So unless this is the case in your area, that argument may not be worth considering.
There are a lot of interesting points in the S. Gloucestershire Inspectors Report, and I recommend you read paragraphs 81-87 and 93-98. If you don't have time to read any more, these are particulalry interesting (dealing with RSS evidence, not having an up to date SHMA, and then the 5 year land supply).
It should go without saying that any Inspectors report should only be read 'for information' and not 'for copying'! There are always specific circumstances relevant to the local authority in question, and unless you can replicate all of them, you can't expect an identical outcome for your examination.
I was going to make a point about language and using terms like 'being penalised', but if you're in the least bit interested in what I have to say about that, look out for a forthcoming blog!
Andrea King, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsThanks Adam. Do you have a weblink to that South Gloucestershire Inspector's Report?
Jonathan, that info on stepping up housebuilding rates was in a Financial Times article "Builders attack Ed Milliband's 'wild' plan for 200,000 new homes" on 25 Sept. 2013 - see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfac3eba-25e8-11e3-8ef6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2yO5nXl8c (or just google search for that article).
We've therefore used this to produce an indicative graph for what we could potentially use as a guideline for reasonably increasing housebuilding rates, rather than necessarily just saying we're needing rates to increase immediately to for example double current levels, which just isn't realistically achievable! This can then in turn inform a more deliverable potential rate of supply that can inform your 5-yearly phases of housebuilding requirements/allocations.
I personally think in its simplest form, it's sensible to plan from a 2011 baseline tied in with Census 2011 and Census-based population/household projections (both ONS/DCLG-based and independent locally-informed analysis) to identify what your objectively-assessed needs are. That sets the clear base with no accrued underbuild from previous RSS/LDF-based requirements that you refer to. You can then factor in how net completions have actually panned out since then to inform the scale of any underdelivery, while also considering longer-term past housebuilding rates to get a feel of what reasonable achievable rates might be going forward and from which any 5-10% annual increase could be worked up from, comparing this with what the alternative projections-based growth scenarios might suggest is needed. Certainly a potentially useful part of your evidence base to inform what your Plan could/should reasonably cater for anyway!
Andrea King, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsFound it Adam - http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Documents/South%20Glos%20Core%20Strategy%20-%20Inspectors%20Report.pdf - yes, makes for interesting reading those sections!
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsThanks Adam and Andrea.
Adam I understand the process you have explained and why it sounds logical.
Andrea I like your reference to 'common sense' and agree with the points you make, particularly about plans being 'realistic and deliverable'. I think this is the key that is often left unconsidered in this very academic approach to 5 year supply.
In my view the approch Adam has outlines (I know its probabaly not Adam's personal approach but what emerged from a forum) is flawed in the light of the new NPPG.
I entirely agree that you should have robust OAN evidence. You should look at past delivery (eg against previous RSS targets) when setting new OAN based targets for your Plan period. This means that at the start of your new Plan you will have considerd all up to date needs and previous under supply and all of the relevant projections and demographics.
In this case then it will be impossible to 'persistently under deliver' in the first few years on the Plan because the NPPG says that persistent under delivery should be considered over the long term and including peaks and troughs in the market. As your needs are assessed up to date and your Plan is new it is therefore impossible to persistently under deliver until some time has passed and there have been peaks and troughs.
This was the point I was making in my initial post. There is a mix up between the NPPF and the NPPG which make a strict academic approach flawed. The NPPF says that if you have persistently under delivered you should add a 20% buffer to ensure competition but does not define 'persistent under delivery' In the NPPG it is defined as over along term including peaks and troughs but then the confusion starts because the NPPG then starts to say that the shortfall of this under delivery should be made up in the first 5 years.
Adam's example above talks about the 'buffer' being included and refers to 'Sedgefiled' but as I as I understand it Sedgefield/Liverpool is nothing to do with a 'buffer'. Sedgefield/Liverpool derives from debates about whether previous shortfall should be made up quickly (5 years) or over the plan period. The 'buffer' is about adding 20% to ensure competition for persistent under delivery.
In effect it IS double counting (in my opinion)
Referring back to Andrea's commen sense approach and that plans must be 'realistic and deliverable' this does not sit with the example above where you are setting yourself an unattainable 5 year supply (7,200 in order to try and achieve 6,000 dwellings)
The academic approach has serious implications because if you do not have a 5 year supply your housing supply policies are out of date (NPPF). This leads to all kinds of problems with appeals and, as Andrea mentions above, bad sites being pushed for development because you don't have a 5 year supply.
Going back to Adam's example, doesn't it sound silly that you have done all of the evidence gathering, assessed OAN, been through examination and beem found sound (HOORAY, YOU HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE, WELL DONE) and then in the first 2 years you've under delivered so YOUR HOUSING SUPPLY POLICIES (which went through all of that process to establish) ARE OUT OF DATE!...Oh well what a waste of time all that work was then!
Im sure all of these variations will be argued over again and again. I think that fundamentally the problem with the 'system; is that nobedy really knows/agrees what it all means and this is not good for anyone. The NPPG has not helped.
Andrea, I'd be interested in the HBF letter/report that you mention which talks about the ability of developers to increase supply. Do you know where I can find that please?
PS, If the above sounds like I'm having a pop at anyone, I'm not. I'm frustrated with the system and I really appreciate both of your responses.
Jonathan,
No pop taken :-)
Thanks for pointing out my error though. When I said 'if the buffer is added to the first 5 years', I should have said 'the shortfall'. You're right of course, the buffer is nothing to do with Sedgefield or Liverpool. It has to be added into years 1-5 anyway!
With regard to 'persistent under-delivery', this has to refer to the previous plan period. At examination, you can't be talking about what has been delivered unless you're looking at the past. In order to go back far enough to cover peaks and troughs, you should probably go back more than 5 years. I understand some authorities have been to examination where 5 years was considered 'enough', and as we know, the period is not defined anywhere.
So, when deciding whether previous delivery is under or over, and persistent or not, you are looking at delivery against the target that was in place at the time. So back in 2004 (if you go that far) you may be looking at a regional plan target. If you have an adopted core strategy, it would be that target.
Here's the crucial bit. Under-delivery does not re-appear in your future supply requirement, as long as you have an up to date assessment of need and have converted that into a target. It is simply a means of deciding whether you have to apply the 5% or 20% buffer.
Let's say in each year since 2004, your housing completions fall below whatever was the target at the time. It's clear you have persistently under-delivered. This means you apply the 20% buffer to your new target.
Does any of this under-delivery have to be provided for now? Only if you have yet to carry out a new SHMA and factor in all the other statistical goodness we've all discussed already. If you have the up to date evidence, any previously unmet need that still exists will be there in the new numbers. Just like the Winchester report says.
At our events, we used the term 'backlog' to mean 'under-delivery from a previous plan period', and 'shortfall' to mean 'under-delivery within the plan period'. Although the Winchester report I mentioned is very clear about not including past under-delivery in a new plan (provided the evidence is up to date), it was slightly unfortunate the Inspector used the term 'shortfall'. We think it should have been 'backlog'. Here's a link to the materials, which you may find useful: http://www.pas.gov.uk/plan-making/events-and-support1/-/journal_content/56/332612/5769215/ARTICLE
So, persistent under-delivery is used solely to determine the buffer to be applied. It is not double-counted because it isn't added to your new plan target in any way (unless you have yet to update your SHMA etc).
What this highlights is the importance of monitoring. You've mentioned the importance of being realistic and having a deliverable plan. Absolutely. So talk to the development industry and look at delivery rates. Look at what the market is doing (you have to do this when considering viability anyway). Leave 'no stone unturned' in assessing potential sites.
This is why I put the reference to South Gloucestershire in there. Inspectors are going to be pragmatic if they have the evidence in front of them. The Inspector here acknowledged that using Sedgefield would lead to undeliverable rates, so they applied Liverpool.
Assemble this evidence, and if you can demonstrate that you won't be able to deliver all your objectively asssessed need, you are likely to be able to adopt a plan with a lower housing figure than your need. But don't start with the assumption you can't, get there by using the evidence you have.
Thanks Andrea,
The bad news for you is, you'll get to hear me say all this again next week at RTPI North East!
Adam
Andrea King, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsHaha! My presentation to start the day does briefly touch on some of this too, but no doubt yours will go into more detail later. Should be an interesting session anyway!
Thanks for the comments above.The most fundamental point in all of this is the fact that we do not have a housing "market" in the UK. See Kate Barker's report!
We secured a sound Core Strategy which at the time effectively reduced the South East Plan housing requirements for Milton Keynes by 15%. This was based on our evidence and specifically our Housing Technical Papers.
The realism of the argument that you should make up a shortfall in the first five years of a new Plan (even if it is started today) is extremely weak. Where is the finance going to come from given we have been through the most significant recession for 80 years?
Someone somewhere needs to come up with a radical new way of providing housing to add to the provision made by private housebuilders. This should aim as an absolute minimum to achieve an addition of 33% over the private housebuilders rate per annum and then we may restore the gap left after Councils stopped building significant numbers in 1979!
John Halton, modified 9 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
New Member Posts: 11 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsAn interesting debate and one we seem to have on an almost daily basis as our Core Strategy approaches Publication.
Having made my way to the slides from the recent PAS presentaions on this matter, I was interested to see the buffer is applied at Stage F - i.e. after adding in the shortfall - rather than at Stage D.
Does this not result in an element of double-counting?
Thanks John,
Our view is this: If you have a shortfall from earlier in the plan period, this is still part of your unmet need. So the percentage to add, has to be added to the current need, not what the need was at the start of the plan period. If you have a surplus, it would work the other way, too.
We don't think it is double-counting, but happy to hear your view on this. Remember, it is all to do with providing adequate choice and competition in the market. It is not about adding in a further requirement. So your overall figure for the plan period stays the same, it's just that you have to try to identify more land earlier. As per the slides, it's the part that gets you from a SUPPLY (not requirement) of 6,000 over 5 years (inc buffer) to a supply of 7,600 over 5 years (inc buffer). Any additional delivery over and above the 6,000 (in this example) would count towards a surplus as per the Practice Guidance.
All of this neatly side steps Bob's points above, but we're working with the system we've been given :-)
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 10 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsAndrea/Adam
Thanks again for your input to the discussion. It's helped me think my way around this complicated area.
Ive tried to apply the best approach I can factoring in all fo the evidence, thought proceess and NPPF/NPPG guidance which I suppose is all that anyone can do!
Thanks again
Jon
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsI have to agree with John and disagree with Adam on this one.
This matter was debated at a recent Examination in a neighbouring authority. The HBF said that previous shortfall from earlier in the Plan period should be added to the 5 year requirement and then the 20% buffer should be added for 'persistent under delivery'.
The authority, the consultant representing the authority, the neighbouring authorities and the Inspector all argued that this would be double counting. The Inspector then wrote to the authority setting out the methodology and indicated that the 20% buffer was only added to the 5 year requirement and not including the shortfall.
I may be completely out of line here and out of sync with recent policy and practice but I am of the view that 'common sense' should prevail to at least some degree in this whole situation. The delivery of housing is difficult enough as it is. This whole academic approach is bogging authorities down with confusion and as John states above causing constant debate on a matter which should have been made clear in the NPPF in the first place. An opportunity arose to clarify the matter in the NPPG which just further confused the situation. The lack of clarity on this issue is actually impeding the preparation and adoption of timely plans.
Thanks Jonathan,
It's really useful to have recent decisions to refer to. Is this something 'in the public domain' yet? If so, do you have a link or something to share? If this ends up being the definitive decision, then we can hopefully put this part of the conversation to bed. Question: Buffer before shortfall or after? Answer: Refer to this decision....?
Common sense should definitely prevail! Remember though, at risk of sounding like a stuck record, you're dealing with the supply side of the equation. 'Delivery of housing is difficult enough as it is' indeed. So perhaps, at least as far as this 'argument' goes, ensuring a wider choice of potential supply would help with that delivery? Clearly I'm only talking about sustainable development here, not a free for all. If the sites don't exist, then they don't exist.
I couldn't agree more that it's a shame there even has to be a debate about how to 'calculate' something, but the numbers matter, and therefore so does the 'working out'.
Adam
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsAdam
The examination was Amber Valley Borough Council. The Inspector has suspended the examination after a first set of hearings because of two main issues, one relating to increased HMA need and one relating to the lack of identified deliverable sites. The hearings will reconvene in November.
However after the first sessions where the 5 year supply methodology was discussed (including whether to add 5% or 20% to shortfall or not), the Inspector sent the authority a letter which is on their website. Its the one of 13 May.
In the letter the Inspector sets out a calculation based on a methodolgy after the hearing discussions.
Although the EIP is not concluded and so there is not an Inspector's report yet, I think that this letter does indicate the Inspector's view. He also closes the door on some issues in terms of them being raised again later.
As you will see, the Inspector has identified the 5 year basic annual requirement (498 dwellings), then dealt with shortfall which totals 800 dwellings and then in step 2 he has added a 20% buffer which is a further 498 (20% of the basic requirement - not including any of the shortfall). He has also stated a couple of paragraphs below the table that his summary includes an allowance for the shortfall from the Plan start to be made up in the first 5 years.
Great,
Thanks Jonathan. That's really helpful. If this is the emergence of a consistent 'line' then that can only help us all!
Adam
Hi all,
This has been a really interesting discussion and I agree the whole area is confusing! My question is slightly off topic but relates to housing land supply.
Prior to the NPPG, inspectors were suggesting that until authorities have a new up-to-date housing figure adopted, they can use the former RS requirement as a basis for their housing calculations where this was the last figure to have been subject to public examination. Am I correct in thinking that paragraph 030 of the NPPG changes this approach and requires authorities to use the latest evidence available even though this may not have been tested (and according to para 30 the weight attached to it should reflect this). Authorities are then required to "add on" a buffer and the historic shortfall if applicable?
Thanks, Leanne
John Halton, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
New Member Posts: 11 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsLeanne,
That's certainly my understanding of the situation following the recent PAS events, which explored this subject matter in some detail. Keith Holland (PINS) was adamant that regional strategies, and the evidence produced for them, no longer have any place in planning.
That said I continue to disagree with Keith Holland (PINS) about when to apply the 5% or 20% buffer. He clearly regards the buffer as a 'supply' issue, when to my mind it is purely part of establishing the 'requirement'. As such the buffer should be applied before any undersupply is added to the requirement.
I should make clear that the views of PINS (and PAS) carry far more weight than my own, even if I'm right.
Thanks John, that's really useful. I understood the 20% issue in the same way as you.
Just another question if anyone can help...are authorities adding on the amount of undersupply from the start of the former RS period? In the case of the North West this would mean adding the undersupply from the period 2003 onwards to the basic requirement to give you your "housing target" (forgetting about the 5 or 20% at the minute). In the case of our authority this would give an overall housing figure which is much higher than the one in the former RS. This isn't itself a particular issue as we'll be allocating more sites through the new Local Plan. However, in the longer term, if the new target isn't met and the under-supply continues (which is a realistic prospect in areas of low demand), the annual target would just keep increasing as the amount of under-supply grows making it more and more difficult to demonstrate a 5 year supply.
People like the "certainty" a new 15 year Plan brings as they can see where is likely to be developed over that period. However this could be lost if the housing policies in it are out-of-date after a few years if there is no 5 year supply. I guess the only way to address this would be to do frequent Local Plan Reviews?
Thanks, Leanne
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsLeanne
My understanding is the RSSs are gone. You don't use them for establishing targets now. You establish your own targets through your own evidence by establishing your Objectively Assessed Needs. This starts with the ONS projections. You can do work (housing requirements studies), SHMAs etc to consider relevant issues but you shouldn't use RSS anymore.
Thanks for your reply Jonathan.
Just to clarify my second question a bit...we are in the interim period between Local Plans. The housing requirement in our current Local Plan is taken from the former RS, is not up-to-date and has therefore gone. We have never met that figure and therefore have a large under supply/shortfall.
I understand that, in line with the NPPG, our new housing requirement should be based on current evidence such as the SHMA, CLG figure etc, however as far as I'm aware these figures do not take into account this historic undersupply/shortfall. Although the RS has gone, I understand that the shortfall in housing which was calculated against it, still has to be addressed/made up for.
I was wondering if there were any authorities who are also in this interim period who's housing requirement used to be based on the RS. If so, how are you calculating your under-supply? Are you going right back to the start of the RS period?
Hope I'm not over-complicating things!!
Leanne
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsLeanne
I'm not an expert on this but I'd say that in setting your housing target for your new plan you should include any shortfall from whatever was the previous fully evidenced plan.
If that was the RSS which set you a provision target then it would logically be any undersupply against that requirement from the start of the requirement period. That might not necessarily be the adoption of the RSS, it could be the adoption of your last local plan which was based on the RSS as its housing need evidence. If you had a previous local plan and you under provided against the target set in that document then I'd say you should take that under supply into consideration in setting the Objectively Assessed Need for your new Plan.
Remember its only the NEED you are assessing though. If you did terribly against your previous plan and it means that adding the past under supply means your new plan has a very high OAN you still have to meet that need. When you come to set your new plan 'PROVISION TARGET' that might involve talking to other authorities under DtC if you are unable to meet it yourselves.
That sounds logical to me but I'm happy to be corrected.
Andrea King, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsMy understanding on this is that:
- RSS/RS is no longer relevant now it's been revoked, although the evidence base that supported them may be of relevance still - I recall Government advising that when they were revoked it may be appropriate to use the so-called 'Option 1' figures that supported them as an interim position.
- for SHLAA purposes of measuring 5yr and 15yr housing land requirements, you should use your adopted development plan figures as the basis, possibly together with those RSS 'Option 1' figures in the absence of anything more recently concrete - eg. our LDF's 2007 Core Strategy was based on the then RSS submission draft Option 1 figures, but these were increased in the final 2008 RSS, so since the RS was revoked we've reverted to measuring our SHLAA against our earlier adopted LDF figures but also illustrated against the old RSS requirement for info purposes pending confirmation of any new alternative objectively assessed need figures for our emerging Local Plan. In both cases we reflect the position against a 20% addition to those Plan requirements together with the under-provision since the 2004 start of their plan periods.
- if you use the Census 2011 data and any reasonable (not just ONS/DCLG) census-based projections as the baseline point for your new Local Plan, then surely you don't need to count any previous under-delivery (against RSS or earlier LDF/UDP/Local Plan core strategy requirements) as you now have a clear updated new base point of current and future provision and needs/requirements to measure from and calculate your population and household growth and thus housing requirements. But you will obv. need to consider any under-delivery between 2011 and the present, although when setting your requirements in your Plan be realistic about whether that recent under-delivery can reasonably be delivered within the 5yr requirement or simply rolled back into (not added on top of) the overall 15/20/25yr 2011-based plan period requirement. This raises the Sedgefield v Liverpool debate, but note that the housebuilding sector advised Government about a year ago that housebuilding rates could only reasonably be increased by about 5-10% per annum so applying that approach should give a feel about what scale of development and growth may be realistically deliverable in terms of scale of potential catch-up within the next 5yrs and across the whole plan period (which obv. points more likely to a more deliverable back-loading situation rather than unrealistic front-loading).
- There is however, the argument around the recession and perhaps a shortage of allocated deliverable sites in earlier Plans having perhaps curtailed housing demands. So need to consider realistic deliverable housebuilding rates and your SHMA's evidence re. 'concealed households' etc that might suggest additional needs, albeit be careful that some households choose to live together for convenience purposes so don't always generate a need for additional homes numerically (but may affect the balance of house type requirements derived from the SHMA).
- I'd also be careful about solely applying ONS/DCLG projections for SHLAA purposes until you've formally agreed and set your objectively assessed needs in a new (publication draft) Local Plan. While they are a good starting point to determining your OA needs, they will no doubt be just one of a number of scenarios for your OA needs that lead you to a preferred option (which may also take into account the 'get out clause' exceptions for meeting your full OA needs in NPPF's para.14 footnote, plus any DtC cross-boundary sharing of requirements) for what to take forward into your Local Plan. After that you can then reasonably start to monitor SHLAA 5yr and 15yr supply requirements against both your extant adopted Plan and your emerging proposed Plan's OA-needs based requirements.
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsAndrea
Your comments are really interesting, especially about back-loading the plan to be more realistic about delivery.
There seem to be directly opposing views on this and procedurally it would not seem consistent with the messages of the NPPF, however it does seem a pragmatic approach.
As you say, if developrs can only increase construction/delivery by a certain amount then it's not realiastic to try and boost delivery by more than that amount. Planning can only plan a part in boosing housing. It's down to thoise who deliver it to make it happen.
On back-loading, have you any examples of authorities who have successfully argued an approach?
You may be interested in the East Staffordshire examination which has been put on hold pending issues relating to Birmingham's Plan. The Inspector wrote an interim report though saying that ESBC could only demonstrate 4.5 year at adoption as their trajectory was unrealistically front-loaded. The Inspector said that if the trajectory was 'stepped' to back load the supply the 5 year position might be rectified in the early years without detriment to overall delivery.
The Inspector published interim findigns on the East Staffs website in document E19 (para 23)
Andrea King, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsYes, totally agree Jonathan! The issue of plans being realistic and deliverable while meeting OA needs in full does need to be balanced with the front-loading nature of some of its requirements and what projections may suggest is needed, certainly in the short-term. While there has certainly been a greater preference towards the Sedgefield front-loading approach for catching up past under-delivery, this recent PINS and High Court decision clearly favoured the realism of the Liverpool approach over the Sedgefield method - http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/cases-high_court_rules_on_liverpool_vs_sedgefield_and_some_other_nppf_housing_int.aspx and http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-high_court_rules_on_liverpool_vs_sedgefield_and_some_other_nppf_housing_int - a few extracts below...
- "Both methods were well established as means of assessing the supply of housing land."
- "the Liverpool model is a recognised way of calculating housing supply"
- "Neither method is prescribed, or said to be preferable to the other, in government policy in the NPPF."
- "the Liverpool method spreads any shortfall in supply in a given year over the remainder of the plan period, and is an appropriate method to adopt where there is not a severe shortage in supply. ... described the Sedgefield approach as one that seeks to meet any shortfall earlier in the plan period."
- "The inspector based his choice of the Liverpool method on his consideration of the relevant facts, including the pattern and pace of housing provision planned for the borough in the core strategy. That was the context here. The inspector plainly took the view that, in the circumstances of this case at the time of his decision, the Liverpool method was the better way to establish what the level of supply really was."
- "The inspector gave significant weight to the core strategy inspector’s relevant conclusions, and, in particular, to his expectation that shortfalls in housing land supply in the early years of the core strategy period would later be overcome when the Sustainable Urban Extensions were developed."
- "The inspector explained why he shared the view of the core strategy inspector about early shortfalls in supply being corrected by large-scale housing development later in the core strategy period. He plainly had in mind the policy in paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which is cast in terms of a need “[to] boost significantly the supply of housing” and says that authorities should “use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs” for housing in the relevant area, and identify a supply of sites “sufficient for provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements …”. He referred to that policy explicitly in paragraph 8, and came back to it in paragraph 11, where he referred to the Council not being “averse to boosting the supply of housing”."
- "conclude that the Liverpool method provided “a reasonable basis for assessing future supply”. It was, in his opinion, a method congruent with the approach in the core strategy, and consistent with the aim of fulfilling the housing requirements identified there."
The Financial Times article “Builders attack Ed Miliband’s ‘wild’ plan for 200,000 new homes” (25 September 2013) is at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfac3eba-25e8-11e3-8ef6-00144feab7de.html#axzz3IxzvCCXj
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsThanks again Andrea. All very useful and interesting. The Liverpool v Sedgefield issue has been ongoing for some time and this recent decision is very interesting. The methodology for calculating a five year supply is not prescribed and is down to the local authority to determine and, if necessary, justify at appeal/examination. Not an ideal situation as we all know that uncertainty is not helpful when trying to wade through the process, but very interesting.
So now we are clear that 5 year supply methodology is unclear!
With the Liverpool v Sedgefield and then the similarly confusing issue of whether to apply a persistent under delivery buffer before or after adding shortfall onto your supply, everything is as clear as mud.
Hopefully 'common sense' will prevail.
Hi,
I just started writing out a response, and it deleted everything. Twice. So an hour later, I am going to keep this very brief. I think it all depends on the defintion of 'housing requirement'. The buffer must be added to the housing requirement as per NPPF. If we think the housing requirement = overall plan target divided by original plan length, then applying the buffer prior to any shortfall has to be in line with NPPF. However, if the housing requirement is fluid, and changes depending on previous delivery, then you would have to add the buffer after the shortfall, because the shortfall is part of the housing requirement. So is your 5 year land supply figure your housing requirement?
If yes, here's what happens if you try to add the buffer before shortfall (using Sedgefield, and assuming 20% buffer for 'easy maths')
15,000 over 15 years = 1,000 per annum
Year 1:
5 year supply = 1,000 per annum. 20% of 5,000 = 1,000. If you never add the shortfall before the buffer, you are saying that for the life of the plan, the buffer is 1,000 houses. That's your housing requirement and it doesn't change so you only calcuate it once.
Year 6
Under delivery of 1,000 in first 5 years, to be added into next 5 years, meaning a total of 6,000
5 year supply = 1,200 per annum. 20% of 6,000 = 1,200
If we say the buffer is added before shortfall, we are saying it is 20% of 5,000 again. This is 1,000 houses. But, adding 1,000 as the buffer against 6,000 houses is only 16.66%. I can't see 16.66% as a buffer in the NPPF anywhere.
We have to keep calculating the 5 year land supply figure taking account of past performance because the NPPF tells us to. So, I think it all depends on how you define housing requirement. If housing requirement = 5 year land supply, then the buffer has to be calculated after the shortfall. If housing requirement = original plan requirement divided by original plan period, then the buffer has to be added before any shortfall.
I want to make one more quick point. Leanne asks if under-delivery from a previous target needs to be taken into account. Not if you have a new SHMA (a proper new one) based on new projections. The quickest explanation is in the Winchester v Zurich Assurance decision. PAS events also clarified this recently. Past performance against RS target will help you decide if you are a 20% or 5% authority, but it doesn't affect the total need you have to provide for, as long as that is based on up to date evidence.
Don't know whether this now settles the matter definitively, but doubt it (each case on its own merits and all that)!!!!
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsThanks Adam N and Adam D.
I think it's a good point Adam D makes about the definition of 'requirement'.
The case Adam N points to is also interesting. Inspectors do seem to be taking a more pragmatic approach now rather than the possibly less helpful academic approach. Using a purely academic approach to these calculations is just goig gto lead to endless debates about methodology.
In terms of shortfall isn't there some sense in asking the question WHY? Why have you got a shortfall? This is something the NPPF and PPG dont really consider. If it is because you have constrained supply by not allocating land or granting permissions then maybe you should be forced to make amends. However, as a local authority if the shortfall is because of market/economic/viability matters or in other words 'things outside your control', then surely it's not logical or reasonable to add a buffer onto shortfall?
If an LA is making up that shortfall within 5 years and adding the buffer to the rest of the 5 year component is that not reasonable? If not, then local authorities are put in a position where they may never have a five year supply but through no fault of their own.
Given that some Inspectors are now allowing the Liverpool method and advocating phased/back loaded trajectories becasue if the reality of the situation, surely if you have compelling evidence, then as long as you can meet needs over the plan period the five year supply seems to have less weight.
Tim Dawson, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
New Member Posts: 15 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsHi Tim,
Sorry for the delay, I was on a secondment and not really picking up PAS emails. Here's a link which I hope will work:
Paragraph 94 is perhaps the 'killer' paragraph, but that section starts at paragraph 92.
The case number appears to be:
|
|
||
|
|
Oops! That's weird formatting, sorry!
Adam
John Halton, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
New Member Posts: 11 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsI appreciate that this thread has been quiet for some time, but the following appeal decision from the Secretary of State may be of interest. It confirms at paragraph 14 that that in the calculation of a five-year housing land supply figure, that the backlog should be added after the 20% buffer is applied.
The relevant text states:
"The Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s approach of including the allowances for each year’s backlog in the overall sum to which the buffer should be applied as he sees this as double-counting. He considers that it would be more appropriate to add the figures for the backlog once the figure for each year’s need has been adjusted to include the buffer. This would result in a slightly lower total requirement for each year but, nevertheless, one to which he considers that a 20% backlog should be applied."
Thanks John,
It's actually a shame the term 'backlog' is used at all, as I'm assuming this relates to a shortfall in the current plan period, rather than a backlog from a previous plan period (in the absence of an up to date plan and/or SHMA).
However, that's a minor point as long as we all understand what is being said.
Just to be clear then, what we are saying is that the buffer should always be calculated against the original annual figure, regardless of supply? So you calculate it before you add any shortfall. Would you also calculate it before you 'remove' any over-supply?
If you ignore shortfall, you're ignoring one of the main reasons for having the buffer in the first place aren't you? Namely providing choice and competition in the market. If the market is not delivering, surely a greater choice of sites (through applying the buffer) would be better?
I refer back to my point about what the 'requirement' actually is, because the NPPF says you calculate the buffer against the requirement. If this decision shows that the requirement never changes regardless of supply, then that has been answered. But if someone asks you what your current requirement is, I'd guess that most of you would say it is the residual of your original plan figure minus what has already been delivered.
I would genuinely welcome a clear explanation of who or what is being double counted as well.
At last a degree of common sense. This Secretary of State decision chimes with the way we have calculated our 5 year supply and we still await the outome of a recovered appeal. I hope that the current focus on this issue eases and we get back to consistent decisions based on up to date plans.
Andrea King, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsJonathan P, you appear to have turned it around from what it says in John's quote. The recommendation/decision is clearly that you only add on any backlog/shortfall of provision/delivery (from within your current plan period) at the end, not before your add the buffer.
So for your plan period (say 2006-2026), you take your adopted development plan's allocation requirement and calculate from within that the requirement for delivery in the next 5yrs (2015-2020), bring forward a 5% or 20% buffer to that 5yr requirement from what's already required in your overall plan period (ie. to ensure a supply equivalent to 6yrs worth within the next 5yrs based on a 20% buffer, thus offering the greater market choice) - this isn't additional to your overall plan period requirement, just a short-term supply/allocation requirement brought forward from later in the plan period (ie. with a corresponding reduction in your post-2020 supply requirement), otherwise that'd be double-counting -, and only then add on any shortfall/backlog into that 5yr supply requirement of what residual wasn't delivered against your plan's requirement during 2006-15. But you don't need to add in any under-provision from before your current plan period (ie. from pre-2006) as that's already factored into your plan period requirement 2006 onwards, and would also result in double-counting.
Similarly, in the absence of an adopted plan requirement or if wishing to monitor against an emerging new draft plan requirement, you need to work out your OAN (eg. taking the 2011 census position as the baseline for determining future needs and applying ONS/DCLG and other alternative local projections, eg. from your SHMA), adjust it as necessary (eg. to reflect exception allowances in NPPF para.14) to determine your agreed overall (realistic/achievable/deliverable) plan period requirement, say 2011-31. Then, having worked out your next 5yrs requirement from within that and brought forward a 5% or 20% uplift, when considering any backlog/shortfall you only need to add on the shortfall 2011-15 and can disregard any under-delivery/under-provision pre-2011 against your old plan period as that's built in to your projected OAN projection-based requirement from 2011 onwards, otherwise that would result in double-counting.
Supply doesn't affect of change your plan requirement, you've just gotta find the sites through your SHLAA to make up that supply and assess that potential supply against your requirement for the next 5yrs and next 15yrs. Unless of course your requirement is adjusted downwards due to exception supply constraints arising from NPPF para.14 (or perhaps a strategic sub-regional housing market area decision), in which case your neighbouring LAs will need to be negotiated with to pick up any residual need between your OAN-based requirement and your constrained requirement, and then add that into their overall increased plan requirement!
Hope that makes some logical sense and hasn't confused things further!
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsAndrea..and all...
Andrea, yes, you are absolutley right. I have been arguing with various people that the buffer should NOT be added to shortfall which has built up from the start of the plan for so long that when the SOS finally clarified it in a decision I was obviosuly so delerious with joy that in my response I got it back to front. Many apologies if it caused further confusion. I shall put myself on bread and water for a week.
Just to clarify - the 5% or 20% buffer for persistent under delivery does NOT apply to any shortfall that has built up since the start of the Plan period. It only applies to the annualised plan requirement for the 5 year period.
Many thanks to John for sharing the decision. It was also very useful in considering how much weight should be given to 'green gaps' in the absence of a 5 year supply.
I REALLY hope this is put to bed now and we dont get another Inspector's decison or SOS decision which reverts back. We really need some consistency.
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent Posts-
The third suggestion is that the Council has failed to add 20% to the 1300 shortfall as well as to the 5-year supply based on the annualised housing requirement figure. It is accepted that this is a planning judgment but it is totally unwarranted. There is no suggestion in Planning Practice Guidance or the Framework that this should occur. The 20% figure is only applied where there is a shortfall and is designed to increase the choice of sites available to help make up the shortfall as quickly as possible i.e. by bringing sites forward from later in the plan period. The Sedgefield approach (which does appear to be encouraged by PPG) is also trying to achieve the same purpose – requiring the shortfall to be made up in the next 5 years rather than over the whole plan period. To argue that the requirement figure then incorporates the shortfall figure and that the 20% should be applied to the whole revised requirement makes no sense. The “5 year requirement” figure (or rather the 5-year supply figure in paragraph 47 Framework) is the figure you end up with after applying the 20% buffer and adding in the Sedgefield figure. It is not just the Plan Requirement figure annualised and multiplied by 5; nor is it that figure plus the shortfall; it is the final figure you arrive at when you have taken any buffer into account and when the shortfall figure has been added in.
One from Cheshire West Jan 2015 and Sec of State endorsed -I have attached the file for information but can also be found at CLG Recovered appeal: land at Well Meadow, Well Street, Malpas, Cheshire (ref: 2214400, 7 January 2015). We are not getting the add the buffer to shortfall at appeals now and this has been confirmed by the the Gresty Road, Cheshire East decision.
Attachments:
Gill,
Thanks for this. There are some rather puzzling statements in that paragraph you have highlighted.
"The 20% figure is only applied where there is a shortfall". This is not what the NPPF says. The 20% figure is only applied where there is persistent under delivery. It would be entirely possible to have a shortfall but not have persistent under delivery.
"To argue that the requirement figure then incorporates the shortfall figure and that the 20% should be applied to the whole revised requirement makes no sense." Whether or not one believes this makes no sense, it is what I understand the NPPF to say. The NPPF is rather clear about the buffer being added to the requirement. If you define the requirement as 'original requirement plus shortfall', then that's what you add the buffer to. Isn't it?
"identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land."
I have said this all through my posts on this thread. It's about how you define 'housing requirements'. So, work out your requirements, add your buffer. I don't think it could be much clearer. The buffer, as the NPPF tells us, is added to the requirements. It is not calculated once at the start of the plan period. It is calculated against the supply of sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing. No one seems to argue that these requirements move according to delivery, so why doesn't the buffer also move to remain 5 or 20% of the requirement now, not the requirement at the start of the plan period.
If someone wants to come back on my definition of 'requirement', then please do. I am absolutely not trying to be awkward. I am trying to make sure we are all talking about the same thing.
Andrew Chalmers, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 169 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsAgree absolutely on this one Adam with you. The paragraph cited is full of as puzzling comments as ever from DCLG and possibly mixes up requirements and supply. In my view it adds more confusion than certainty to the debate.
Like you I have no idea what is meant by "double counting". Once again it is quite possibly the muddling of requirement and supply. The statement that applying 20% to the residual requirement "makes no sense" is of course questionable.
In the debate we need to step back and look at the purpose of the buffer which is perfectly clearly set out in NPPF. The 5 and 20% buffers are not to ensure greater delivery but to ensure that the plan delivers what it needs to by ensuring a larger pool of sites is available for developers to draw on. It is about certainty (!) of meeting the target which is of course changing each year.
Any under-delivery means that the 5 year residual requirement will rise, taking into account NPPG and Sedgefield, with under-delivery being met within the next 5 years.
To then add a buffer based on a one-off outdated/historic plan requirement figure is obviously attractive since it will lower figures but doing this is slightly perverse. An authority could be massively under-delivering which surely would suggest you need a larger not smaller pool of sites to draw from because identified site are not coming forward. Relying on a buffer based on an initial annualised development plan figure which is no longer the annual target and which makes no reference to what is happening on the ground makes no sense to me at all. So I agree with you that the requirement figure is your current figure adjusted for under-achievement and it is to this total figure (inclusive of backlog) that the 5% or 20% is added.
Quite why DCLG will not simply issue an amendment to NPPG to say how it should be calculated once and for all is beyond me, after all this has rumbled on for years!
So how does this all work for a theoretical scenario where an authority has a recently adoped Allocations Local Plan meeting its full OAN over the Plan period, but with no phasing of sites at all? If some of the allocated sites are big ones, where part of the delivery is outside the 5-year window (and therefore cannot practicably brought forward), wouldn't adding 20% (or even 5%, come to that) inevitably mean non-allocated sites coming forward...which would be contrary to the recently adopted Local Plan?
A recent appeal decision from Somerset makes interesting viewing: http://cip.southsomerset.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf;jsessionid=1D1B3FB7A2DFBCF19138FC86A768B3DF?DocNo=7500710&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf
I agree with the comments by Adam D and Andrew C about calculating the buffer against the 5 year requirements. However, there was a recent SoS Decision at Gresty Lane in Crewe that clarified when the buffer should be applied and this may deal with Andrew's double counting issue.
Basically the approach mentioned by Adam: (calculate requirement over next 5 years + shortfall) x 5/20% = 5 year supply requirement.
This approach is considered to result in double counting according to the SoS (see para 14) because the buffer is not additional requirement but additional supply moved forward. Thus, the buffer should be applied before the shortfall which would have the effect of a slightly lower 5 year supply requirement: (calculate requirement over next 5 years x 5/20%) + shortfall = 5 year supply requirement.
To comment on Adam N's point about additional supply being contrary to a recently adopted Local Plan, including a contingency (i.e. the plan delivers more than actually required) in the plan would resolve this, although this probably won't help Adam!
Attachments:
Andrew Chalmers, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 169 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsJohn thanks for a very useful and straightforward summary of the two different approaches.
Unfortunately (and perhaps sensibly) the June 2015 Somerset appeal decision cited by previous contributor, published well after the SoS decision, sides firmly and squarely with a more orthodox view and straightforward reading of NPPG.
"42. The Council suggests that the 20% buffer should not be applied to the backlog as this would result in additional housing. That is incorrect. All it would do is bring forward housing provision from later in the plan period to allow the backlog to be dealt with effectively in the first five years. The buffer affects the supply side; it does not alter the requirement."
The inspector makes it very clear that the buffer is about supply not requirement. Over the life of the plan the total requirement remains the same and so does the supply needed to meet that requirement.
At root I think there is misunderstanding from DCLG about the role of the buffer. It is not to increase build rates above residual requirements (taking into account backlog) but ensure sufficient land is available to offer choice, competition and to make achievement of planned “supply” more likely (NPPF paragraph 47). You are not aiming to complete 120% of what you should within the 5 year period but a pool of sites to ensure 100% is built.
I am still very unclear what DCLG means by double counting. Is it from the idea that double counting arises because the same 20% of identified supply is theoretically required in both the 5 year and brought forward from the later period? This is not the case. The buffer is only required when demonstrating the 5 year supply, not the overall plan provision or achievement.
It still seems perverse to me to adopt the DCLG approach where the absolute size of the buffer is fixed upfront. This bears no relationship to the scale of under-delivery. Surely the logical response to under-provision is to identify a bigger pool for developers to go at and this should be proportional to the scale of the challenge.
Of course if under-delivery has more to do with the housing market or economic situation rather than identified land itself you are still hit by having to play catch up plus demonstrating the buffer which taken together imply build rates up into fantasy land…as has always been the case with the residual method!
Andrew,
I totally agree. The quote from para 42 you provide is most helpful.
Adam (N), the point you make is an interesting one. But remember that it's not only allocated sites that count towards supply, it's 'identified' sites. So you will have your SHLAA sites that can and will contribute to supply. You would be looking at your 'developable' sites to see if any of them can be made 'deliverable'. If your allocations are not likely to contribute 100% within the plan period then you would presumably only have included the total they are expected to deliver?
The point about phasing is probably a whole discussion in itself! But if you have a strategy legitimately relying on a few large sites to meet (most of) the plan total, can you phase your trajectory so that you have a lower requirement in the early part of the plan, and a much higher one once those sites get started? I believe this is being examined at Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury (and I am using a very broad and loose description of the issue). Is there anywhere else where this has already been examined and found sound?
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsAdam
I think some of the Nottingham authorities have been found sound with phased delivery to effectively backload delivery. I'm fairly sure Nottingham City had an approach where they tranched their delivery over their entire plan period gradually increasing delivery and they were found sound. I think a couple of other Nottingham authorities did this too but would need to check.
I might have mentioned this previously but I recall the Inspector considering the East Staffs Plan suspended the Examination. The main reason was relating to the housing needs of Birmingham I think. In his letter though I recall he said that the authority could not establish a 5 year supply and that they should explore/consider backloading their delivery so that they could get a 5 year supply. This was very interesting reading.
I am therefore pretty sure that phasing/backloading has been allowed. I'm not sure if East Staffs have moved on since that, it was a while ago.
I do recall reading something (maybe an Inspector's report) that said that 'boosting significantly the supply of housing' did not mean bringing delivery forward. it meant boosting deliver 'across the plan period.' and therfore phasing could be acceptable
If backloading/phasing is allowed, it pretty much kicks into touch all of the discussion in this thread about persistent under delivery and how you apply it because the premise of this is to bring forward and speed up delivery in the immediate years.
The area is obviously in a complete and utter mess. There are clearly Inspector and SOS decisions both ways and if you can phase the delivery anyway, what's the point?
For anyone out there with any energy left to look at this issue one more time, you may be interested in the recent S78 Appeal decision APP/G2713/A/14/2218137 Land off Station Road, in Hambleton.
At para 32, the Inspector says the following:
"I note the recent Secretary of State decision that states that the buffer should not be applied to the shortfall from previous years’ under-delivery. I also note that my colleague in the Huby decision adopts this approach. However, with the greatest of respect, the purpose of the buffer is to increase the supply of land in the first five year period; it is not to alter the demand side of the equation. The housing requirement, ie. the demand, is the FOAN plus the shortfall from previous years. The Framework states that authorities are required to identify a five year supply against their housing requirement plus a buffer of 5%. Consequently, the buffer can only be added to the requirement once the shortfall has been added on. To do otherwise would be to ignore a part of the requirement (the shortfall) in ensuring that there is a sufficient supply to meet that requirement, plus an additional 5%."
This seems to actually define what is meant by 'housingn requirement' in the NPPF, and I have highlighted that definition. For those of you seeking clarity on the issue, what this does highlight is that the SoS decision is not definitive. You will know from my previous posts that I agree with this decision, but I would ask you to focus on the definition of what the housing requirement is. If you agree with this definition, then you simply cannot apply the buffer before the shortfall. If you don't agree with it, I'd welcome your thoughts on what that definition should be.
Andrew Chalmers, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 169 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent PostsAgree absolutely with you Adam and the Inspector.
Now DCLG should simply include the inspector's clear definition of housing requirement (post adoption of a plan) in NPPG...then it would be job done and we would not have inconsistent appeal decisions. Of course this should have been picked up when NPPF was drafted in the first place.
Jonathan Pheasant, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Advocate Posts: 158 Join Date: 23/05/11 Recent PostsThis is just getting silly now. Way too much time spent on pedantic detail and nothing on common sencse. If you want to be pedantic and get bogged in DETAIL the Inspector is wrong for a start with the bit in BOLD. Your 'housing requirement' is NOT necessarily your FOAN or your Demand. My authority cannot meet its FOAN or its Demand so its REQUIREMENT is NOT its FOAN. Our plan REQUIREMENT (which we measure 5YS against) is what we can sustainably deliver in the city in the plan period. The rest of our FOAN will be met in adjacent authorities through DtC. You must meet in full your FOAN but not necessarily in your own plan/area...that's why DtC exists.
Secondly, if you do NOT apply the buffer to the shortfall you WILL still be REQUIRING more DELIVEABLE sites in the next 5 years to allow for choice and competition in the market (which is what the NPPF says the buffer is for).
At any time you calculate the 5YS through Sedgefield you will set out a 5 year requirement to calculate against...
You will REQUIRE over the next 5 years :
Your annualised plan REQUIREMENT (Plan Target/years in plan) is met for EVERY YEAR of the next 5 years
PLUS
A 5% or 20% Buffer to allow choice and competition in the market)
PLUS
Any shortfall since the start of the plan is made up
You will therefore be requiring enough DELIVERABLE SITES to make up any shortfall AND meet your annual requirement AND have a buffer. Your 5 year supply WILL require a larger pool of sites than you need.
I'm sorry but this completely academic approach is nonsense, especially given the confusion and uncertainty and lack of consistency of Inspectors and the SOS.
Why not use a bit of good old common seense here? What is it that we are trying to achieve? To make sure that your housing requirement is delivered whicle meeting the objectives of your forward plan.
This whole 5YS thing is actually SLOWING down the delivery of housing by leading to long and complex appeal debates and Examination discussions.
To cap it all, if you grant planning npermission for a site because you have not got a 5YS there is no need to make sure that site you are granting is deliverable. You can be forced to grant permission for an application which cant be delivered because you dont have a supply of deliverable sites!
Your plan can be found SOUND at Examination and the week after you could not have a 5YS and therefore your policies for the supply of housing are out of date.
Completely bonkers.
Andrea King, modified 8 Years ago.
RE: Persistent Under Delivery and the NPPG
Enthusiast Posts: 76 Join Date: 19/08/13 Recent PostsHi Adam, I agree that the key is how you define the OAN requirement. Let's take for example a simple 15yr Local Plan requirement from 2011-2026 of 1,500 dwellings at 100 dwellings pa. The 1,500 is your full OAN for the plan period and that doesn't change, and the basic OAN for the next 5yrs 2015-2020 is 500. Let's then say that your LA actually only saw 300 dwellings delivered instead of 400 over the 4yrs between 2011-2015, which then means that your remaining full OAN or housing requirement for the remaining 11yrs of plan period is 1,200 (not 1,100) as you've still got to make up the 100 shortfall in delivery from the start of the plan period. It's not 1,500 + 100 as your plan's overall OAN (ie. demand-based housing requirement subject to any policy-on amendments for seeking higher growth or curtailment under NPPF para.14 exceptions, and/or adjusted as a result of DtC agreements with neighbouring LAs for more or less housing) for the plan period doesn't change. The requirement for allocation/delivery over the next 5yrs is what does change and is what the 5% or 20% buffer applies to!
So the Hambleton S78 inspector appears to be applying the Sedgefield method in saying the requirement over the next 5yrs is the basic 500 plus the 100 shortfall/backlog in delivery from previous years of the plan period, and then the 5% or 20% buffer is then applied to that 600 requirement (ie. 630 or 720) - rather than the Liverpool method seemingly advocated by the SoS and Huby inspector of not also applying the buffer to the shortfall and being able to spread the catching up of that backlog/shortfall over the full remaining plan period (which would mean the next 5yrs requirement is simply the basic 500 plus the 5% or 20% buffer = 525 or 600).
Remember that this buffer allowance is brought forward from the later years of your plan period, thus effectively reducing your residual housing requirement for the latter part (2020-26 in my example), and the full OAN for the whole plan period is unchanged (still 1,500 over 15yrs in my example).
Seems to me it's a bit of pot luck which approach is taken and which inspector you get! Both do the job of increasing the supply of land in the first 5yr period simply by applying the 5% or 20% buffer. Perhaps also partly depends on the LA's situation in terms of having a 5yr housing land supply or not, and how up-to-date their Local Plan is. The problem I see is one of realistic delivery and the prospect of catching up the backlog within 5yrs rather than over the full plan period - ie. if it's unrealistic based on past underdelivery by the housebuilding sector to be able to fully catch up that shortfall/backlog within the next 5yrs, then that shortfall's just going to increase all the more for subsequent 5yr periods, with the 5% or 20% buffer allowance enhancing the 5yr requirement all the more, and thus the Sedgefield approach makes it even less likely to achieve than the Liverpool method! Fair enough allocate and manage the release of sufficient potentially deliverable sites to meet the needs (incl. shortfall and buffer) over the next 5yrs, but if the housebuilding sector doesn't or isn't capable of delivering on that then it really doesn't seem to be right to penalise the LA for underdelivery that's out of their control, and if they're not going to build on the supply of deliverable sites then what's the point of bringing forward even more sites just for the hell of it!
PS. I also understand that the inspector for neighbouring NewcastleGateshead's joint Core Strategy (recently adopted) recommended removing their phased release policy for their now former Green Belt sites (I think because they didn't have a 5yr supply of deliverable sites) which has effectively meant a free-for-all for developers over the whole plan period in an attempt to increase delivery prospects over the shorter-term rather than the LAs being able to manage the release of sites in a more sustainable way while prioritising development of urban brownfield sites. Kinda defeats the object of proper sustainable planning!