• Written Statement – Contents
• Proposals Maps
• Copyright Notice
• Local Plan Help

Chapter 4 Sustainable and Affordable Housing

Aim: To meet the housing needs of the whole community in a sustainable way

Strategic Objectives:

• ensure the provision of a mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to meet the needs of the whole community, including the particular needs of elderly persons and people with disabilities;

• maximise the provision of affordable housing to meet the identified housing needs of the District; and

• concentrate new housing primarily in Clacton and Harwich where access to jobs, choice of means of transport, shops and other facilities can be maximised and the largest supply of available brownfield land exists.

4.1   Providing new homes contributes to improving people’s lives. However, this provision needs to be achieved in a sustainable manner and recognise the housing needs of all sections of the community; such as people on low incomes seeking an affordable home, those elderly persons requiring sheltered housing or people with disabilities requiring housing with wheelchair access. This is the intention of the policies in this Chapter which reflect one of the key objectives of the Council’s Housing Strategy, namely “to operate the planning system to encourage the provision of good quality housing for all”. The Council’s Housing Strategy complements the Local Plan, addressing housing needs and the supply and management of the District’s housing stock. To obtain a comprehensive picture of housing policy in Tendring District the two documents should be read together.

 4.2   The policies and proposals in this Chapter are intended to achieve the aim and strategic objectives described above. Set out below is a criteria-based policy framework for considering all forms of residential development proposals where necessary to supplement or support Structure Plan policies and core policies in this Plan. These range from policies to enable affordable housing, residential density and design policies, to policies addressing various residential development pressures in the countryside. Importantly this Chapter begins by setting out the District Housing Provision Strategy, identifying the scale of housing to be accommodated and allocating specific sites for housing development or mixed use including housing.

4.3   As with all the policies in this Plan they will not be applied in isolation and should be read in conjunction with other relevant policies in the Plan, especially the core policies, together with the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan.

District Housing Provision Strategy

4.4   The Spatial Strategy for development generally in the District, including the defining of town and village development limits, is set out in core Policy QL1. The policies in this Chapter, particularly the District Housing Provision, build on that development framework in relation to residential development. They reflect the principles set out in current national guidance contained in PPG3 on “Housing” published in March 2000, as well as Replacement Structure Plan policies.

The Replacement Structure Plan Requirement

4.5   Policy H1 of the Replacement Structure Plan provides for a net dwelling stock increase of 6,250 dwellings in the District between 1st April 1996 and 31st March 2011. As at 31 March 2004 2003, the first eight seven years of that period has seen a net dwelling stock increase of 2,925 2,672 dwellings. Therefore required provision for the remaining seven eight year period 2004 2003 to 2011 is 3,325 3,578 dwellings.

4.6   In relation to existing housing commitments, the Essex Residential Land Availability Survey identifies 1,732 1,235 dwellings outstanding in the District from extant planning permissions at April 2004 2003. In addition it identifies potential for 809 948 dwellings on sites without planning permission based on such sources as outstanding previous adopted local plan housing allocations, residential land surveys and lapsed residential new build consents within settlements. Whilst not all of those sites may come forward and be implemented within the Replacement Local Plan Period, equally some suitable unidentified windfall sites will emerge.

4.7   Moreover, there are several recent factors that influence or alter the District’s previous housing land position in relation to the Replacement Structure Plan. These are:

a)  The intention of the new owners of Bathside Bay, Harwich to develop all of that site for port and associated commercial development and not to seek renewal of the planning permission for mixed development including 1,250 dwellings, 630 dwellings of which the Structure Plan had expected to come forward before 2011 (that planning consent lapsed in April 2002).

b)   The need for local planning authorities to take particular account of the revised national guidance on housing in PPG3 and its updates(March 2000), especially the sequential approach to development and criteria to assess potential housing allocation sites against.

c)   The completion of a PPG3 Urban Capacity Study, identifying significant additional dwelling potential in the District’s main urban areas (The Essex Residential Land Availability Survey does not currently cover urban capacity studies.)

d)   Identification of the need to amend allowances for future dwelling completions on unidentified “windfall” sites.

e)   The need to ensure that the Plan’s provision on allocated sites for residential and mixed development including housing, includes a “flexibility” allowance to counter the likelihood of some large housing sites not being implemented or completed within the Plan Period.

Tendring Urban Capacity Study

4.8   In accordance with PPG3 the District Council commissioned an Urban Capacity Study in March 2001 to assess how much additional housing might be accommodated in the District’s main urban areas. The Study is generally compliant with the guidance set out in the DTLR’s best practice advice “Tapping the Potential”. It largely follows a design-based “template” approach to assessing potential dwelling capacity of sites, based on various scenarios. The study was finalised in March 2002 and subsequently published as a background document to this Plan.

4.9   The Urban Capacity Study identified potential capacity for 4,119 dwellings as its “best fit” estimate of net dwelling capacity within the District’s five main urban areas of Clacton, Harwich, Frinton/ Walton, Brightlingsea, and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley. That estimate specifically excluded sites under-construction at the time of the field surveys (June 2001), in addition to sites outside of the Study area, e.g. unimplemented greenfield urban extensions allocated in the previous Adopted Local Plan as well as any additional dwelling capacity within villages. The Urban Capacity Study was a useful starting point for selecting sites for housing allocation but, as a housing potential study only, it could not comprehensively address all necessary factors in that selection decision process.

Sustainability Testing of Large Sites

4.10   Sites specifically allocated in this Plan for housing or mixed-use development including housing comprise suitable sites with an indicative net capacity for 12 or more dwellings. This size threshold matches the current Essex Residential Land Availability Survey monitoring system definition of a “large” site.

4.11   In deciding which sites to allocate on the Proposals Map as suitable for housing development over the Plan Period, the District Council carried out sustainability testing of potential sites. This was achieved through a Housing Comparative Site Assessment Study in accordance with the sequential approach of PPG3 Housing paragraph 30; the sustainability testing comprising detailed assessment of sites against the criteria set out in PPG3 (paragraph 31):

• availability and suitability

• location and accessibility

• infrastructure requirements

• community development

• physical and environmental constraints

4.12   This extensive assessment followed on after the Urban Capacity Study and has also now been published as a background document. As a result of that assessment some large retained sites in the Urban Capacity Study have not been taken forward as housing allocations. This has been principally where, in the District Council’s view, sites are unlikely to be brought forward for development within the Plan Period or have been considered more suitable for other uses. This has included a small number of unimplemented residential commitments.

4.13   PPG3 requires identification of sites for housing and buildings for conversion and re-use sufficient to meet housing requirements after making an allowance for windfalls. However, large housing site commitments at the Local Plan’s base date of April 2004 2003 have not been specifically identified on the Proposals Map as it would quickly date it. Instead those large housing site commitments that do not conflict with any of this Plan’s proposals for the development or use of land are listed in Appendix 1. These total some 1,301 903 dwellings in Table 1. Proposals for the subsequent renewal of planning permission for any of those sites would be considered against the above PPG3 criteria and other provisions of this Plan, such as affordable housing.

Windfalls

4.14   As is explained in the supporting Housing Technical Paper Update 2005, the Urban Capacity Study identified considerably greater potential capacity on “small” sites (with a net dwelling capacity of 11 dwellings or less), within the main urban areas than previous housing land availability estimates by the local authorities. When combined with housing land availability estimates of small sites within villages and recent trends in dwelling production on small sites, it was clear that the 1998 based Replacement Structure Plan estimate of 700 dwelling completions between 2001 and 2011 (70 per annum) on small sites within the District was now unrealistically low. The District Council’s revised estimate of small sites completions for the period of this Plan 2004 2003-2011 is 810 860 dwellings; (130 120 per annum 2004 2003-2006 and 110 100 per annum 2006-2011). A separate small windfall allowance of 20 dwellings is also estimated in relation to Rural Exception Schemes.

4.15   The Housing Technical Paper Update also explains why, notwithstanding the comprehensiveness of the Urban Capacity Study, a small residual allowance of 290 215 dwellings is considered appropriate for large unidentified sites likely to emerge on previously developed land within the main urban areas or larger villages within the period  20042003-2011. Relatively speaking this is the most uncertain component of the Plan’s housing provision and will need to be closely monitored as part of the “plan, monitor, manage” approach, but is likely to be established as modest. Similarly, should any of the few large housing site commitments extant at April 2004 2003 that are not in accordance with the proposed land use provisions of this Plan be implemented, this would need to be taken account of in any review.

Notes:

1.   General housing is intended to refer to the provision of any additional residential units not specifically covered by the exceptions of policies HG5 or HG18 which relate to rural exception local need and agricultural need respectively.

2.   “Unidentified” or “windfall” sites are those mainly small sites for residential or mixed use development including housing which may emerge through the development control process.

3.   “Previously developed land” is as defined in Annex C of PPG3 Housing (March 2000).

• Notes:

All dwelling estimates are in net terms, i.e. taking account of any existing dwelling losses through redevelopment or conversion.

The geographical areas comprise the five urban areas plus the remainder of the District (Rural Areas). Clacton includes Holland-on-Sea and Jaywick. Frinton/Walton includes Kirby Cross but excludes Great Holland and Kirby-le-Soken. Harwich includes Dovercourt, Little Oakley and part of Ramsey and Parkeston.

Net dwelling stock change 1996-2004 2003 is from ECC and TDC residential land availability annual monitoring results, including site checks. All years in Table 1 are April to March inclusive.

Large sites, whether identified or unidentified, have capacity for 12 or more dwellings, whilst small sites are for 11 dwellings or less.

Rolled forward commitments on large sites, as set out in Appendix 1, include dwellings to be completed on commenced large sites at 1.4.2004 2003.

Flexibility Allowance

4.16   It is considered that the potential dwelling supply of 6,470 6,526 dwellings set out in Table 1 is necessary to achieve the Replacement Structure Plan provision of 6,250 dwellings. This is because whilst the District Council has considered site developability in an effort to discount those large sites unlikely to come forward and deliver completed dwellings in settlements during the Plan Period, the Council considers that an additional “flexibility” allowance of 10% of the large sites provision would be appropriate to cover the likelihood that some allocated and rolled forward committed large housing sites will nevertheless fail to come forward or be completed for one reason or another. That allowance, amounting to some 220 250 dwellings through additional site allocations, is accordingly contained within the allocated large sites provision figure in Table 1.

A Sequential and Sustainable Approach

4.17   The distribution of allocated sites in Table 1, as set out in the Appendix 2 schedule, reflects the Spatial Strategy of the Plan, Policy H2 of the Replacement Structure Plan and PPG3 guidance. Policy H2 provides for residential development to be located on sites which can provide good access to employment, shopping, education and other community facilities and which are accessible by a choice of means of transport, especially non-car modes. It provides for a sequential approach to the location of new housing provision, with the largest amount to be located within existing large urban areas in the first instance. If sufficient provision cannot be made within urban areas, then planned peripheral development on the edge of large urban areas should be the next choice. Only if peripheral development of large urban areas cannot be provided, should expansion of other settlements then be considered. It is for local plans to determine whether small-scale housing provision consistent with local community needs is appropriate in small towns and villages where it can take place in accordance with sustainability principles. Sporadic development in the countryside is to be resisted. (The Replacement Structure Plan defines a “large urban area” as having an existing population of over 20,000 people and providing for a concentration of shopping, education and other community facilities as well as a wide choice of transport provision).

4.18   Having applied the search sequence In accordance with Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2, PPG3, sustainability principles and the Plan’s Spatial Strategy, most of the allocated sites are therefore located in the two large urban areas of Clacton and Harwich, with 2001 Census estimated resident populations of 55,900 and 20,800 respectively. However a substantial dwelling supply is also identified on previously developed land in the urban areas of Frinton/Walton, Brightlingsea, and Lawford/Manningtree/Mistley from a combination of rolled forward existing commitments and proposed allocated sites. When combined with additional windfall urban intensification sites likely to come forward, especially on small sites, this will be consistent with sustainability principles and local community needs in those urban areas.

4.19   Notwithstanding the constraints of the number of dwellings to be built in the time frame of the Replacement Local Plan, it is anticipated to support the strategic land allocation in Policy QL5 at the A120/A133 junction a further sustainable housing allocation may be made post 2005 when the Regional Spatial Strategy is likely to roll forward an additional housing allocation to 2021.

4.20   The Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2 search sequence, when applied to the circumstances of the District having five main urban areas, including two “large” urban areas, effectively rules out expansion of villages for general housing (see “Urban Extensions” below). In a national context PPG3 states that only a limited amount of housing can be expected in expanded villages. Also, in relation to the sequential approach, that the search for housing land within a local authority’s area should not be extended further than needed to meet the agreed housing requirement. The PPG3 sequential approach is the foundation for Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2.

4.21   However, Policy HG5 of this Plan additionally provides for affordable housing to meet the needs of local people in rural areas in accordance with the exception policy of PPG3 (Annex B). Furthermore, existing housing commitments in villages and future infilling, redevelopment and conversion proposals that come forward through the development control process within village development boundaries should ensure a continuing supply of appropriate small scale residential development consistent with sustainability principles. This is especially taking into account the overall position of much more limited facilities, employment and choice of means of transport available in villages compared to the District’s towns that act as the primary service centres within the District. Most of the housing completed in the District’s villages in recent years has been on appropriate small sites.

4.22   In assessing the suitability of sites in relation to the PPG3 criteria referred to above and the PPG3 sequential approach to development, starting with the reuse of previously developed land in urban areas, the Plan identifies potential for 689  695 dwellings to be built on suitable large sites allocated in this Plan that comprise previously developed land or buildings for conversion within the five main urban areas. This comprises 192 181 dwellings in Clacton, 128 215 dwellings in Harwich and a total of 369 299 dwellings on large brownfield sites in Frinton/Walton, Brightlingsea and Lawford/Manningtree/ Mistley. This is in addition to the rolled forward large site commitments in Table 1 and listed in Appendix 1.

4.23   Left over undeveloped greenfield sites within urban areas but not in urban greenspace use were also assessed and, as a result, two one further allocation sites in Harwich were was identified potentially for 36 30 dwellings.

Urban Extensions

4.24   The Plan’s strategy, reflecting PPG3, is to seek to meet as much of the District housing requirement as possible within settlements on suitable previously developed sites accessible to facilities and at appropriate densities making efficient use of urban land. However, there still remains a need to then release some additional greenfield land. Provision for some 399

 1,151 dwellings has been identified as urban extension sites as part of the Table 1 allocated large sites, in order to achieve the Replacement Structure Plan housing requirement. This includes some 356 1,114 dwellings on greenfield sites (see Table 2 and Appendix 2). Those greenfield urban extension sites will be phased for release as set out in Policy HG2.

4.25   In accordance with the search sequence of Replacement Structure Plan Policy H2 this greenfield requirement will be met by planned peripheral development of the “large urban areas” of Clacton and Harwich rather than the expansion of other smaller settlements. Sufficient suitable sites have been identified on the edges of Clacton and Harwich, such that a search for potential peripheral development sites on the edges of other settlements with less employment, facilities and services has not been necessary. Whilst Harwich is also a “large urban area”, Clacton is a significantly larger settlement with greater general housing market demand and need for affordable housing but lower level of committed supply of housing than Harwich.  Accordingly strategically it was not considered appropriate to allocate any of the fairly modest required level of urban extension housing allocations to Harwich, given equally suitable sites in PPG3 terms on the edge of Clacton.

Recycling Target

4.26   Whilst the national target, set in PPG3, is that by 2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously-developed land and through conversions of existing buildings (“brownfield” sites), the proportion achieved in individual local authority areas will clearly vary according to local circumstances. Within the District over 60% was achieved for each of the years ending March 2000 to March 2004 2003. The Plan’s target is to achieve 80 65% of housing provision between April 2004 2003 and March 2011 on brownfield sites. That target is based upon an assessment of the Table 1 proposed housing land supply, of which the Urban Capacity Study has been a major contributing component. That assessment is set out below as Table 2.

4.27   From Table 2, allowing for possible slight differential take-up, it is considered that an 80%  a 65% recycling target on previously developed land is achievable as a minimum over the Plan Period 2004 2003  -2011. Appendices 1 and 2 clarify the brownfield or greenfield status of rolled forward large committed and allocated housing sites respectively to facilitate monitoring as part of the PPG3 “plan, monitor, manage” approach, including phasing.

Phasing of Housing Sites

4.28   PPG3 emphasises that, in accordance with the sequential approach and sustainability testing, previously developed sites (or buildings for re-use or conversion) should be developed before greenfield sites unless a previously developed site performs so poorly as to preclude its use for housing before a particular greenfield site.

4.29   Accordingly Policy HG2 divides the Plan into two “four – year” phases 2004-2008 2003-2007 and 2008 2007-2011, anticipating when sites would be developed, subject to other material considerations, as set out in Table 3. In accordance with the PPG3 sequential approach it then goes on to specifically limit release of greenfield urban extension sites to Phase 2. However, in order to maximise delivery on those sites within the Plan Period, the policy accepts the need to allow the grant of planning permissions from April 2007 2006 onwards.

4.30   Assessed constraints and likely take-up rates in relation to previously developed land are such that unfortunately at least half is not likely to deliver completed dwellings until the second phase of the Plan. With the release of urban extension sites for that phase, this means that slightly under halfonly about one third of the Plan’s overall remaining provision to meet Structure Plan requirements, at April 2004 2003, will be delivered by completed dwellings in Phase 1, rather than a more desirable balance between the two phases. Given the relatively short time-scale of the Plan and its phases, it is considered that there are no practical mechanisms that would make a meaningful difference to this position in the short-term to bring further sites forward to deliver completions in Phase 1.

4.31   In accordance with the PPG3 approach to the release of land for housing development, those housing allocations set out in Appendix 2 that comprise greenfield sites as urban extensions to Clacton-on-Sea and Harwich urban areas will not be permitted for residential development before April 2007 2006. This is in order for those sites to deliver completed dwellings during the period 2008 2007- 2011 as part of Phase 2 of the Plan.

Residential Development within Settlement Development Boundaries

4.32   Development boundaries are defined on the relevant Proposals Map Inset around each of the towns and villages listed in Policy QL1 which sets out this Plan’s Development Spatial Strategy. The general concept of settlement development boundaries is fundamental to achieving the Government’s intentions to create more sustainable patterns of development, make more efficient use of urban land, and follow a sequential approach to the location of new housing development.

4.33   However, as part of a sustainable approach, clearly all land within settlement development boundaries is not appropriate for residential development as a mix of uses is necessary to meet a community’s needs. Accordingly Policy HG3 not only sets out general criteria for the consideration of residential development proposals within settlement development boundaries, but also makes it clear that residential development of sites protected for non-residential uses will not be permitted except in the circumstances described in the policy. This applies not just to locations specifically allocated or safeguarded for non-residential uses on the Proposals Map but also where policies in the plan provide blanket policy protection, such as Policy COM3 in relation to existing community facilities and local services.

4.34   As this is primarily a general policy, potential applicants are especially advised to refer to more detailed policies in this Plan dealing with the criteria listed in Policy HG3, such as Policies QL9, QL10 and EN12 HG8 on design or the policies which deal with particular forms of residential proposals or locations such as conversions to flats and bedsits, backland residential development, or development in conservation areas.

4.35   The District Council, through various policies in this Plan, supports the Government’s aims at making best use of urban land but that local planning authorities should reject residential proposals of poor design or layout. In the latter respect, residential “infilling”, that is the filling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage, should not appear cramped or otherwise incongruous and out of character in the street scene.

Affordable Housing

4.36   Tendring is an area with a proven high need and demand for decent affordable housing. The term affordable housing describes a range of accommodation of different tenures that is available at below market values, in perpetuity, to meet the needs of those people who cannot otherwise afford to buy or rent their own homes. The properties are normally rented, although shared equity schemes may also play a role. Circular 6/98 also refers to low cost housing for sale as falling within the definition of affordable. However, the Housing Needs Survey (HNS) has shown that affordable housing locally will almost certainly have to be in the form of social renting because a large number of residents cannot afford low cost market housing. Moreover, the HNS showed that shared ownership might only be able to help a very small fraction of households in need (around 0.9%). For the remainder, social rented housing will be the only option.

4.37   There are a variety of local factors that contribute to this situation including pockets of high deprivation, low average incomes, rising house prices and above average levels of statutory homelessness. The situation is further exacerbated by a poor existing supply of affordable housing with less than 9% of approximately 60,000 dwellings in the district being considered as affordable. The Council as at 1 April 2004 2003 had 3,508 2,847 households registered for affordable housing, an increase of 230% over the previous year.

4.38   The seriousness of this situation was further quantified when the Council received the results of the comprehensive HNS, commissioned in 2002. Those results, in conjunction with up-to-date stock condition surveys for both public and private sector housing, have been important drivers in the development of the Council’s housing and planning policies and strategies.

4.39   The Council, in its Corporate Strategy, identifies securing affordable and decent housing for the people of Tendring as one of its key priorities. has recognised that the shortage of affordable housing must be addressed and the Corporate Plan identifies 4 key priorities, one of which is to secure decent and affordable housing for the people of Tendring. This is complemented by the Community Strategy developed by the Local Strategic Partnership which includes Sustainable and Affordable Housing as a key theme with a stated aim to ensure that an adequate supply of decent, affordable and sustainable housing is available in the public and private sectors.

4.40   The need to increase the supply of sustainable affordable housing is also recognised regionally within the East Of England Regional Housing Strategy, nationally through the Government’s sustainable communities plan “Building for the Future” and through the Government’s revisions to its policy advice for planning new housing set out in PPG3.

4.41   PPG3 specifically states that a community’s need for a mix of housing types, including affordable housing, is a material planning consideration. It also emphasises the need for local authorities to carry out surveys and studies to assess whether there is a local need for additional affordable housing and, where such a need is identified, to include a local plan policy seeking affordable housing in suitable housing developments. This would normally involve providing part of a housing site at no cost or at a discounted value which would enable affordable housing to be built specifically for persons in identified housing need.

4.42   The “2002 Housing Needs Survey June 2003 Final Report” provides a District wide housing needs assessment and general basis for seeking affordable housing in Tendring. It identified a level of need for some 1,232 new affordable dwellings per annum (Table 9.1 of the HNS), far higher than can possibly be met by the likely supply of new affordable housing through the proposals in this Plan. In fact the identified annual need for affordable dwellings is considerably greater than the implied annual building rate of 445 475 dwellings for the period 20043-2011 from all forms of housing supply in the Plan Period to meet the Replacement Structure Plan housing requirement. Thus there is a strong case for affordable housing through the planning system in Tendring, to apply to all suitable housing developments, including windfall sites. In addition, in rural areas, PPG3 Annex B allows an exception to be made to permit, on small sites adjoining existing villages, affordable housing to meet local needs where private housing would normally be refused.

Affordable Housing In New Developments

4.43   Where a need for affordable housing is demonstrated, Government advice (Circular 6/98) provides specific guidance on thresholds for adoption in local plans that, effectively, defines what the Government regards as suitable sites on which affordable housing will be sought. This advises that, in settlements of more than 3,000 population, the local planning authority may negotiate for a proportion of affordable housing on sites for 25 or more dwellings, or of an area of 1 hectare or greater, irrespective of the number of dwellings. However, where local planning authorities are able to demonstrate exceptional local constraints, the Circular provides flexibility to adopt lower thresholds of 15 or more dwellings or residential sites of 0.5 hectares or more. The HNS provides that case for Tendring in comparing the relatively very high identified need for affordable housing against the much smaller anticipated supply of affordable units from different combinations of target proportion and site size threshold (HNS Appendix 5). The 2001 data, suggests that a 40% target and uniform site size threshold of 25+ dwellings could potentially deliver a total of no more than 650 affordable housing units over the ten year period 2001-2011. However, lowering the threshold to 15+dwellings could potentially generate a further 235 dwellings. Accordingly the HNS suggested adoption of that lower threshold in settlements over 3,000 population.

4.44   In settlements under 3,000 population Circular 6/98 flexibly allows local planning authorities to adopt appropriate thresholds, based on assessments of local need and the available supply of land for housing, and does not set any minimum threshold size. The Rural White Paper (DETR 2000, Paragraph 5.4.5) suggests that in small villages Councils could seek to match every new market house with an affordable home, subject to evidence of need and financial viability. This, combined with the HNS findings of a likely very limited yield of affordable housing in small settlements relative to the identified need, suggested, as one conclusion of the HNS, that a threshold of two or more dwellings would be justifiable in small settlements. However, the policy threshold has instead been set at three dwellings or more in small settlements. This is because a threshold of two or more dwellings would imply a target of 50% in schemes of two dwellings, a target which the Council considers may be excessive on such a small site in relation to financial viability.

4.45   On the issue of the Affordable Housing Target (an indicative target of the proportion of affordable homes as a basis for negotiation on suitable housing sites), the HNS suggested a target of 40%. This reflects the very high need for affordable housing, (that is considerably greater than in nearby authorities). In relation to both the towns of Clacton and Harwich where the demand for affordable housing is highest, the Council will apply the 40% affordable housing target as a minimum. , based on custom and practice, as discussed in the HNS (Chapter 13). This showed that targets have risen considerably from 5-10% a decade ago to 40-50% now. This is on the basis both of considerable demonstrated levels of housing need, due to lack of Government funding and to Right to Buy losses of social rented housing, and to the fact that affordable housing policies seldom achieve anything like their headline target. Thus a target of 40% will in practice probably not yield more than 30% over all allocations. Some allocations will fall below the site-size threshold and others will be unable to provide the full 40% for the types of reasons described below. Nevertheless, given that the identified need for affordable housing in Tendring District is greatly in excess of what is likely to be provided either on allocated or windfall sites above the site-size threshold, there is a strong case for maximising delivery of affordable housing through a combination of low threshold levels, a 40% Affordable Housing Target, and density.

4.46   Through negotiation at the planning application stage, the Council will take account of  any material considerations that may indicate that the affordable housing site target is not appropriate or capable of being met for the proposed development.  Such considerations will include whether there is primary financial evidence of exceptional costs demonstrating that the development could not, in viability terms, bear such an affordable housing contribution.  There may also be issues of site suitability or reasons related to creating sustainable mixed communities, eg where a site already adjoins an existing estate of social rented housing, that would make the rigid application of the 40% target inappropriate.  Further guidance is to be prepared initially as a Supplementary Planning Interim Document (SPID), later to become a Supplementary Planning Document under the 2004 Planning Regulations.  This will provide more detailed guidance on affordable housing provision and will support the implementation of the local plan policies. “Local Circumstances” in the context of the policy refers to various possible reasons for which the 40% Affordable Housing Target might not be capable of being met. These include that the site is suitable for some affordable housing, but not as much as would be implied by a 40% target, e.g. because of an adjacent estate of social rented housing. It could also refer to the “exceptional costs” mentioned in Circular 6/98, which mean that the site cannot reasonably afford such a contribution. Such a circumstance is expected to be rare in the market context of Tendring.

4.47   Even with the successful maximisation of Policy HG4, there would only be a yield of some 434 727 affordable housing units from allocated sites above the 15+ dwelling threshold within the Plan Period, (see Appendix 2), an average of only 62 91 affordable homes per annum over the period 20032004-2011. With, among other factors, the demise of local authority social housing grant and the decision of the Housing Corporation to allocate funding according to regional investment themes rather than housing need, there are no large Registered Social Landlord (RSL) developments currently in the pipeline locally. Accordingly it is not practicable to judge whether or not any of the allocated sites may become 100% RSL schemes to increase the supply of affordable units.

4.48   Some further affordable homes are expected from some existing commitments, windfall sites, including within villages as a result of the small settlements site threshold, and via Policy HG5 on rural “exception” sites. Whilst overall it is not practicable to accurately predict total affordable housing supply from these sources, it would appear unlikely that more than 650 900 additional affordable homes will be achieved in the District between 2003 2004-2011, (an average of 93 112 dwellings per annum), through the affordable housing policies in this Plan. This represents a small fraction of the HNS identified need.

4.49   Policy HG4 emphasises that affordable housing should preferably be provided on site. However, Circular 6/98 makes it clear that if the local planning authority and the developer both consider that, on particular sites where a requirement for an element of affordable housing is required, it is nonetheless beneficial to the aim of providing the affordable housing that a financial or other contribution should be made towards the provision of the element of affordable housing on another site or sites in the local planning authority’s area, the authority may accept a contribution. This is provided that it is of such a level that it would result in the provision of the affordable housing which would otherwise be required on site. However, these arrangements should not be used in respect of application sites which are inherently unsuitable for the provision of an element of affordable housing.

4.50   In assessing affordability, for existing households the HNS (Chapter 5) adopted a combined affordability test to assess whether they could afford either a mortgage or rent for a property of suitable size. Only if a household could not afford either were they considered to be unable to afford. The combined affordability measure used was that a household is unable to afford private sector housing if it has a gross household income less than one third its mortgage requirement and renting privately would take up more than 30% of its net household income. The affordability of potential households was assessed using the judgements of respondents; an approach in line with DTLR guidance.

4.51   In order to ensure that affordable housing remains available in perpetuity it will normally be provided by an RSL, such as a housing association. Although Circular 6/98 allows for the possibility of providing affordable housing other than through RSLs, experience has shown that this is unlikely to lead to genuinely affordable housing to meet local needs. In negotiating to secure affordable housing through appropriate S.106 planning obligations, the Council’s baseline position is for fully serviced dwellings let through a registered social landlord with no additional public subsidy requirement. The District Council will consider the withdrawal of permitted development rights for extensions in order to retain the long-term supply of small low-cost units.

4.52   For information, the list of settlements with Defined Development Boundaries is set out in Policy QL1. Those settlements which have a population of over 3,000 comprise the towns listed in that Policy.

4.53   Clause (i)c) makes it clear that individual planning applications which relate to a potentially larger site are not exempt from the requirement to provide affordable housing merely because the application falls below the policy thresholds.  An example would be an application relating to part of an allocated site for housing, where that allocation in total is above the site-size threshold.The word “potential” is embodied in the site thresholds as it is intended that the policy should also apply to subdivided schemes of that potential capacity, such as a potential 15 dwelling scheme submitted in the form of two planning applications which together make up that amount of capacity. In such circumstances a comprehensive solution on housing mix for the whole site would be sought. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that individual schemes submitted at different times forming part of a potentially larger site shall not be free of the requirement to provide affordable housing merely because the scope of the individual application falls below the policy thresholds. Where the adjoining or nearby land In addition, where the adjoining land, considered by the Council to form part of a negotiable potentially larger development, is in the control or ownership of the applicant or a related individual or company, planning obligations will be sought to bind that land to the percentage of affordable housing.  the adjoining or nearby land This is intended  so as to ensure that the proper the full quota of affordable housing is achieved in the event that residential development proceeds on the land in question.that land.

4.54   Given the extent of identified need, any schemes on suitable sites exceeding the target 40% provision will generally be welcomed, such as a scheme wholly for affordable housing managed by an RSL, unless this would create an excessive concentration and local imbalance of affordable housing with adjacent existing social rented stock. Furthermore, Circular 6/98 does not preclude developers from providing affordable housing on sites which are below the size threshold. Also for clarification, as PPG3 favours mixed and inclusive communities with different types of housing and tenure, it is intended that the policy should apply to open market housing schemes which are wholly to meet special housing needs such as sheltered housing for older people, people with disabilities or other vulnerable people who require supported housing (see also paras 4.64 - 4.66 on key worker housing).

Affordable Village Housing on “Exception” Sites

4.55   Policy HG5 provides a policy framework for considering “affordable” rural housing schemes under what is known as the rural “exceptions” scheme in accordance with Annex B of PPG3 Housing. Such schemes, on suitable small sites abutting the development boundaries of villages, are intended to meet the housing needs, both now and in the long-term, of local people unable to afford accommodation in the villages where they live or where they have close local family or employment ties. The exceptional release of such sites, where housing would not normally be permitted, is only to meet the special local housing need described in the policy.

4.56   Policy HG5 identifies the broad categories of people in housing need that the District Planning Authority considers should form the client groups for whom special housing provision may exceptionally be permitted. It also defines the area within which housing needs will be considered “local”. The “2002 Housing Needs Survey June 2003 Final Report” provides a District wide housing needs assessment and general basis for seeking affordable housing in Tendring. That is on the basis that the level of need shown, for some 1,232 new affordable dwellings per annum (Table 9.1 of the HNS) is far higher than can possibly be met by the likely supply of new affordable housing. Thus, although rural “exceptions” policy is not designed to provide mainstream housing, the underlying justification for affordable housing on exceptions sites is the overall housing needs position. This provides the overall justification for such schemes, while local parish surveys indicate whether there is a perceived local need for such housing. The justification for a valid rural exceptions scheme depends on three things: the overall housing need, the locally perceived need, and the Council’s assessment, in co-ordination with other key stakeholders, of the sustainability of new affordable housing in the particular location.

4.57   In order to meet the local housing needs of a parish, as assessed following a household questionnaire survey, Policy HG5 allows for schemes to come forward within and adjoining those existing small rural communities defined in the Government’s Statutory Instrument 1997 No.623 and listed in Appendix 2A to this Plan.in any free standing village which has a defined development boundary. However, the District Planning Authority also accepts that in a small number of cases, especially involving a parish of modest population size, the identified local need of a single parish may be too small to render a scheme viable or, for sustainable development reasons, the parish may be without a defined settlement with a development boundary. Accordingly, in such circumstances the policy framework flexibly provides the opportunity for small groups of contiguous parishes to co-operate to achieve a sustainable joint scheme. In all cases however, it will be important to ensure that the chosen village location is appropriate in relation to the scheme proposed. For rural settlements with defined development boundaries the site should abut the settlement development boundary.  In those few cases where smaller rural settlements without development boundaries are listed in Appendix 2A, if a sufficient need is identified an appropriate site should abut the main housing settlement to maximise opportunities for integration with the local community.

4.58     For the purposes of Policy HG5, a rural parish is any civil parish excluding parts of a parish contained within the development boundaries of a town. In addition, the free-standing villages of Great Holland and Kirby-le-Soken, with their rural hinterlands in Holland and Kirby Ward, are each considered as rural parishes. The policy will not apply to schemes described as “low-cost” or “local needs” housing which abut the development boundaries of towns. Such proposals will be judged in relation to countryside and other relevant Local Plan policies. For larger settlements which would not qualify for “rural exception housing”, and for those villages not covered by S.I. 1997 No.623, (being in unparished areas),including villages which are now physically attached to towns, Policy HG4 provides an appropriate alternative for delivering affordable housing.

4.59   Policy HG5 below provides details of the policy criteria and arrangements, all of which have to be met, if a planning application for affordable village housing is to be shown to be sufficiently special to warrant an exception being made to normal planning policy. It is most important that applicants appreciate that the specified policy criteria and arrangements form a total package required by the District Planning Authority in all cases. Any relaxation of the policy on one or more criteria would significantly reduce its credibility and undermine its strength on appeal. Only applicants intending to provide genuinely affordable housing to meet proven local needs over the long term should therefore contemplate putting forward a proposal.

4.60   In considering planning applications for affordable local needs housing, it will be essential for the District Planning Authority to be provided with sufficient evidence additional to the District housing needs survey, to show that a proposed scheme will meet a demonstrated local need. Such evidence should clearly define the local client group which would genuinely require dwellings in the scheme together with their specific housing requirements, what they can afford in housing costs, and how they meet the local need criteria.

4.61   In addition information detailing the number, size and tenure of dwellings proposed (e.g. rental units or shared ownership) will be required. Otherwise the exceptional need for a proposal, in particular the key issue of whether a scheme will specifically meet or contribute to the identified local need, cannot be established. Accordingly in such circumstances a detailed planning application will normally be needed.

4.62   It is essential, in demonstrating the exceptional nature of a scheme to justify the land release, that the proposed housing realistically meets or contributes to the identified local need and will be exclusively reserved and managed in perpetuity as affordable housing for the long-term benefit of the local community. Therefore, secure arrangements which will achieve these long-term safeguards need to be in place before planning permission is granted and when the rental values or selling prices are accurately predicted. These would normally take the form of voluntary planning obligations and covenants offered by the agency involved in managing the scheme and agreed by the landowner, the developer and the District Planning Authority. Management of the scheme by a housing association, charitable trust or similar organisation will generally offer the assurances that are needed on long-term management and control of occupation. Restricting the occupation of property to people falling within the identified categories of local need should help to ensure that units remain affordable.

4.63   Rural exception schemes, either at the instigation or supported by a parish council, have a far greater chance of being successful and being integrated into a village. This is important given that schemes are specifically intended to benefit the local rural community over the long term by meeting particular local housing needs both currently and into the future. It is hoped that arrangements would normally include the developer consulting the Parish Council on the selection of tenants including in relation to any subsequent vacancy of dwellings in the scheme. Key enabling contacts, such as the Rural Housing Trust, can helpfully aid parish Councils with local housing needs surveys and subsequently progressing schemes. The District Council also has a pro-active commitment to enabling additional rural exception housing schemes including supporting appropriate bids to the Housing Corporation for Social Housing Grant.

Key Worker Housing

4.64   PPG3 requiresd that assessments should be made of, among other groups, key workers (para 13). The 2002 HNS carried out such an evaluation. It established (para 14.8) that, depending on the precise definition, between 3,000 and 6,000 households in Tendring could be considered to contain key workers (there is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes a key worker). Key workers can be considered to comprise those employed in the public sector; employees in a frontline role delivering an essential public service; or those in a sector where there are serious recruitment and retention problems. However tThe HNS also established that such key worker households did not appear to suffer undue housing problems in Tendring. Indeed the evidence suggests that Tendring, being cheaper than many surrounding areas, provides homes for key workers who work in other districts. There is therefore at present no general justification for a key worker policy.

4.65   However there is a strong temptation, illustrated nationally in many planning appeals, for landowners/ developers to promote key worker housing as an alternative to affordable housing. The reason for this is that land values/profits can be much higher in a key worker housing scheme as compared with an affordable housing one. It is therefore important that key worker housing be kept separate from affordable housing in the sense of Policy HG4. There is no difficulty in distinguishing the two groups: those in ODPM defined housing need are in unsuitable housing and in general can afford only social rented housing. The 2002 HNS demonstrates (Table 12.4) that hardly any of those in housing need can afford even shared ownership housing: 99% of them can only afford social rented housing. On the other hand the main solution for those who require “intermediate” housing, as those in key worker need are sometimes described, is shared ownership housing (where the applicant buys part and rents part of the equity of the dwelling, normally from a Registered Social Landlord).

4.66   It is therefore clear that any proposal seeking provision of key worker housing should not be viewed as an alternative to affordable housing sought under Policy HG4.

Dwelling Size and Type

4.67   The Council in responding to the demand for affordable housing is also aware of the need to balance its housing market across all tenures so as to ensure the right mix of new homes in the right place and at the right time. To assist in achieving a balanced housing market, an additional body of work was commissioned as part of the Housing Needs Survey to enable the balance of affordable housing to be monitored on a regular basis over the Plan Period.

4.68   Government advice in PPG3 is that housing sites should include a mix of house types and sizes to meet the needs of the local community. Such an approach is also aimed at achieving more balanced communities, avoiding social polarisation, and contributing to the creation of more attractive residential environments by enabling a greater diversity of building forms and scales.

4.69   For securing an appropriate mix of dwelling size and type, a threshold of 10 dwellings or 0.3 hectare site area has been specified in this Plan in Policy HG6. Below this level it may not be practical in all circumstances to provide such a mix particularly as the surrounding character, and the need to conform to it, may determine the appropriate dwelling size and type. Where it is considered this is not an issue, a mix of dwelling size and type will be sought on these smaller sites. The Policy is intended to apply to both new development and conversions, reflecting Government guidance. Sheltered or supported housing may by necessity contain a preponderance of one dwelling type.

4.70   The 2003 Housing Needs Survey showed (Table 10.3) that nearly all the locally generated demand for new market housing is for small units: 1 or 2 beds (mainly the former). With due allowance for the economics of provision, it is unlikely that many 1 bed developments will arise in the market context, other than in town centres. As a result the wording of Policy HG6 refers to at least 50% of the market units on any development having no more than two bedrooms. To help maintain this type of accommodation once it is built, the conversion of integral garages into additional bedrooms will not be allowed.

4.71   Unless the purpose of an allocation is specifically to house in-comers to the District, the appropriate mix of dwellings sizes will be heavily towards the smaller sizes. In general larger house types are more profitable, and so developers will, acting purely in relation to market forces, build predominantly 3 bed and larger unit schemes. As a result, in the context of the HNS evidence, they will be building for in-comers to the district. There is a substantial district generated market demand for smaller dwellings. This is a recognised social need and should not be ignored. In relation to new build market housing, therefore, the terms of Policy HG6 means that at least half of the new market housing will, from a size point of view, meet locally generated new demand. The remainder will address either transfers among the existing owner occupied stock in Tendring or in-comer demand.

Residential Densities

4.72   Encouraging housing development at densities that make more efficient use of land, typically between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net, or greater at locations with good public transport accessibility, is now an important facet in the Government’s pursuit of more sustainable patterns of development nationally (PPG3 Housing). Firstly, this should reduce development pressures on the countryside through the creation of greater housing capacity on brownfield sites in urban areas, aiming for the national target of at least 60% of new capacity on brownfield land. Secondly, by seeking greater intensity of development at locations with good accessibility to public transport, shops, services and employment, such development is more likely to help to create an urban population sufficient to sustain local services and public transport whilst reducing the need for car- borne travel.

4.73   The Council would generally support this range of density for new housing development or conversion to residential use for those reasons. However, appropriate density for a site will depend on a number of factors, as set out in Policy HG7 below, and the Council recognises that there needs to be some degree of flexibility:

a)   on large sites there could be a greater range of densities across a site to suit community needs, but where the overall average net site density would be at least 30 dwellings per hectare.

b)   where, exceptionally, it is more appropriate for the site to be developed at a lower density. This may be, for example, due to the need to conserve landscape features, a Listed Building in its setting, or other on-site features of interest, or an otherwise appropriate backland site, or to avoid development of an infill site appearing out of character with its surroundings, particularly in rural areas, conservation areas, or residential areas of arcadian character.

4.74   However, in general, developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net will not be permitted and for many urban sites in the District a minimum density in the range of 30 to 40 dwellings per hectare net will be appropriate. Densities above 40 dwellings per hectare will generally be sought at sites within district and local centres and close to main public transport nodes providing good public transport accessibility, whilst densities of 50 dwellings per hectare or more will generally be appropriate within town centres or immediately adjoining railway stations within the main urban areas. High density solutions may also be appropriate for housing to meet special local needs such as small unit sheltered accommodation for elderly or disabled people, although accessibility remains an issue with such developments.

4.75   High density developments are, however, clearly not appropriate in some locations. In particular, apart from issues of compatibility with local surroundings, high density residential development in locations that do not enjoy good accessibility to shops, services and jobs by non-car modes would be likely to intensify private car usage whilst contributing to social exclusion for those without access to private vehicle transport.

4.76   In the light of Policy HG7 below, and PPG3 guidance, there will be no automatic presumption in favour of the renewal of previous residential planning permissions at the same density.

*Net site density is as described in PPG3 Housing Annex C Paras 8.19-8.22.

Design and Layout of New Housing Development

4.77   The layout and design of new housing development is an essential element of creating successful communities. It is also an essential element of creating communities where It serves to ensure that residents have good pedestrian access to local services, such as shops, education establishments, places to work and alternatives to the motor car as a means of local transport. Carefully considered design and layout can also help to minimise the opportunities for crime by creating defensible space. PPS1 emphasises the importance of design as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. In this section, design refers to detailed appearance, scale and massing of all new houses whereas layout means the relationship individual buildings have to one and another, and the broader street scene they create.

4.78   The Council is very keen to ensure that some of the past examples of poor quality urban sprawl that have characterised some estate development are not repeated. It is recognised however that it is not for the Council to impose its own taste or preference on detailed building design, but instead it actively encourages imaginative design solutions that are best for each locality. This section considers the broad principles that must be adhered to when preparing development proposals for larger housing development.

4.79   PPG1 confirms that the appearance of a proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are important material considerations in determining planning applications. The policy guidance further indicates that applicants for planning permission should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design in their development proposals and that they have had regard to relevant development plan policies and supplementary design guidance. The Council will expect applicants to demonstrate that the advice in Annex A of PPG1 has been followed in respect of design issues. PPG3 reinforces the point that good design and layout of new development can help to achieve the best use of previously developed land and improve the quality and attractiveness of residential areas. Developers should think imaginatively about designs and layouts that make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment.

4.80   Policy HG7 above sets out the Council’s approach to the density of new development. Good design in housing layouts does not preclude high density development. Imaginative design and layout can achieve more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the built environment.

4.81   The Replacement Essex Structure Plan also requires a high standard of design in new residential development. Policy H4 sets out a list of criteria that should be considered when determining planning applications and these will form an importantpart of the Council’s assessment of housing design and layout.

4.82   The Council considers that a further important material consideration in determining housing design and layout is crime prevention. The Community Strategy aims to create healthier and safer communities and this is reflected in Policy COM2 of this Plan. Circular 5/94 - Planning Out Crime, encourages a proactive approach in the design and layout of development. The Essex Police Architectural Liaison Officers are able to give specialist advice on both housing and other schemes.

4.83   To help promote good, high quality design in new housing the Council has adopted the Essex Design Guide for Residential and Mixed-Use Areas (1997) as SPG and considers that this provides the starting point for any developer considering a new housing scheme.

4.84   This section does not include a policy specifically listing elements of housing design and layout that applicants should address. However, applicants are directed to the core policies of this Plan, in particular QL9 and QL10 to meet Functional Needs, which will form a basis for determining planning applications for new housing development. Policy EN12 of this Plan requires a design statement to be submitted for residential proposals involving sites greater than 0.3ha or where 10 or more dwellings are planned. The Design Statement will provide a rationale demonstrating how the various design and layout problems have been dealt with in the proposed scheme. More detail of what is required from a design statement is included in the paragraphs supporting Policy EN12. For some sites, the Council has prepared development briefs and these will be further material considerations when determining planning applications on those sites.

4.85   As previously stated, it will be for an applicant to demonstrate that a proposed scheme meets the policy requirement for good design. Furthermore, Annex A to PPG1 emphasises that applicants should, as a minimum, produce a short written statement setting out the design principles adopted as well as illustrative material. This level of detail is unlikely to be necessary for small-scale proposals unless they relate to sensitive sites. Accordingly, the Council will expect applicants to prepare and submit, for all housing development of 10 units or more, or 0.3 hectare or more, a design statement at the same time as the planning application. These statements should include the following:-

• a site analysis comprising a factual account of the site and its surroundings. It should include details of adjoining buildings and space, an explanation of the site constraints, such as features worthy of retention or important views, other physical, environmental or ecological features that may impact upon the scope for development.

• a statement of design principles. This can start with the elements critical to an application, such as minimum number of units required. It will include relevant development plan policies; important site features that will be retained, such as preserved tree and important features of urban design that must be achieved, such as the need for built development to certain frontages.

• a design solution. It is important that the design solution should incorporate the principles which in turn can be justified by the site analysis.

·4.86   A feasibility scheme or indicative layout may be a sufficient alternative to a design statement where an application for outline planning permission is considered appropriate by the District Council in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

4.87   In due course, the Council will prepare SPG for consultation that will develop further advice on the preparation of Design Statements.

< Prev | ^ Top | Next >