|
|
|
Affordable HousingAffordable Housing project update - 11 October 2011Affordable Housing Project - Subcommittee report to the Parish Council, August 2011 [extract from parish council meeting minutes of 11 October 2011]: This report is composed of an analysis of the comments received at the Consultation and Communication meetings held on the 1st & 2nd April plus various letters and emails during March and April 2011. It also includes actions and issues arising since that meeting and some general comments about the process for consideration by the Parish Council. Analysis of the comments received at the Consultation and Communication meetings held on the 1 & 2 April NB: Although numbers of cards and comments were counted, this should not be taken as an accurate reflection of the parish as a whole but as an indicator of the issues which need to be considered and are of concern to one or more residents. No weighting should be inferred. Written comments were made at the meetings in the following categories which were colour coded and transcribed by Jane Rukin, the Rural Housing Enabler and Subcommittee members (see Appendix A): General Comments (White cards ) - Appendix A [for details contact the Clerk of the parish council] Site 0 - Bell’s Field (Green cards) Site 1 - Bourne Hill, Roman Road (Orange cards) Site 2 - Behind Denham Terrace , SE of Batsford (Yellow cards) (Site 3 - Land to South East of Primary School was not presented at the meeting, but considered in the planning officers’ report) Site 4 - Behind the Rank & SE of School (Blue cards) The comments were analysed by frequency of similar comment, whether generally positive or showing specific concerns, and those that raised issues in the following areas: Access, Flooding, Service, Landscape and Site. Not all comments have been included in this report, but all are available either in Appendix 1 or in the original form. The numbers of comments should be considered in relation to the total attendance at the meeting which approached 150 residents over the two days. General Comments 75 cards with 117 comments A significant number questioned the need for any more affordable housing in the parish and some commented that there is more than the national average already. It was clear from several questions that the housing needs assessment must be reviewed regularly to provide proof of need. Some queried the nature of the ‘need’ and wanted more evidence of need and assurance that only locals would be allocated the houses. A smaller number of comments showed concern for the effect on the landscape of the village and several asked whether there could be several sites with a few houses built on each one rather than one larger development. A considerable number questioned the adequacy of the drainage and sewers and showed concern about the risk of flooding. There were some concerns about increased traffic within the village particularly relating to sites nearer the school or on the normal routes to school. Site 0 ‘Bells’s Field’ (North End) 53 cards with 124 comments This was the only site which had been discussed before the subcommittee was formed and had been considered in discussions between Parish Council members and the Rural Housing Enabler, John Lancaster in 2010. Access 25 comments were made, 15 being generally positive and 10 less than positive. Concerns are raised about safety, the area being close to the road junction and the war memorial. Flooding 23 notes show concern about the risk of flooding. Services 8 are concerned about services, particularly the drains. Landscape Comments are equally divided between those that believe it a suitable site and those that are concerned about the impact of the landscape and outlook for existing homeowners adjacent to the site. Site More comments favour this site thaN not, with positive comments about its closeness to the ‘heart’ of the village, the shop, pub, church and sports facilities. Site 1 Bourne Hill, Roman Road 46 cards with 82 comments Access Several comments suggest this site has good traffic access, but there are concerns about the general access issues and raised the issue of the introduction of traffic calming measures. Flooding A few comments were about the site not being likely to flood or about the surface run off down Bourne Hill Services Comments showed concerns about the sewerage system capacity and pressure on the doctors and school. Landscape Several comments were made regarding this site being outside the current Settlement Policy Boundary and significantly affecting views coming into the village and from the Test Way. Others commented that trees and landscaping could minimise impact on views, and that it has little visual impact on nearby houses. The question of how much this site would affect the Test Way and access to the current walk to school route was raised. Site There were many comments about the sites’ suitability, equally divided for and against. Site 2 Behind Denham Terrace, Land to the SE of Batsford 48 cards, 70 comments Access The greatest number of notes indicate concern for the effect on the school and the Test Way. Access through Batsford was believed by some to be impractical and even if this was resolved then there would be increased parking and congestion around the school entrance area and Batsford. The possibility of creating parking for Denham Terrace houses was suggested by several. Flooding & Services There were several negative comments about flood risk and that this area has been known to be swampy in the past. Services There were several negative comments about the impact on existing services and the distance from the road. Landscape There were a significant number of comments about the negative effect on the existing houses. Site Most comments opposed this site (35) primarily because of the impact on existing houses and access issues. Some supporting comments (5) showed interest in the idea of giving parking access to Denham Terrace residents. Site 3 Land to the South east of the Primary School This site was not presented at the meeting as the owners had not been contacted. The Planning officer’s comments are included in Appendix 2. Site 4 Behind the Rank and SE of Primary School 50 cards, 67 comments Access Most concern was for the lack of current access and that any future access would need to cross the Test Way and possibly use a strip of the school playing field. Other concerns focussed on the access to the main road and the increase of traffic near to the school. Flooding This site was thought not in the flood plain though some were still concerned. Services Concern was shown about connecting to the main sewerage system some distance away. Landscape Concern was shown about the visual impact on the few houses affected. Others commented that the site was tucked away and shielded to the south by the hill. Site There were some positive comments but many are concerned about the access issues, traffic and the effect on the school. The position is believed by some to be quite hidden away so in general the impact on landscape was thought to be minimal by others. One comment stated that a pre-school may be built on part of this site. The long term future of the school adjacent to this site was also commented on as was the possibility of helping with the school’s parking problems. Another noted that this site was nearest to the most used village facility, the school. Further general comments There has been considerable pressure from some via notes, emails and letters to investigate further the possibility of considering those sites that haven’t yet been offered namely, ‘Black Garden, Egbury Road’ and above Fishers Field. The Rural Housing Enabler has contacted the owners to ask them if they would consider making them available for consideration but has not had a response. The committee now think that these sites cannot be pursued further at this time. There were also many comments made about the need to protect the character of St Mary Bourne. Several comments urged that the affordable housing should be of various sizes and be for rent only and by local people only. It was clear from many of the comments and questions that there are a range of misconceptions or a lack of knowledge about the proposed nature of this possible AF build and of the definition and scope of Affordable Housing and the concept of Rural Exception sites. Others commented on the need to consult more widely about the project as a whole and to have a transparent process, which would inform and consult more widely. It is understood that Southern Water are investigating the issue of drainage and how a new housing development would affect the current drainage capacity. Offer of additional sites , subsequent to the Consultation and Communication meeting
This site is about one acre with part taken up by the access road. Adjacent to this are two fields totalling about 4 acres, and the owners of both areas have said they are willing to discuss the use of them for affordable housing. We have asked for planning reports on both the sites but the initial view is that there would be no problems with access or flooding. There is a public right of way to the north from these sites which allows footpath access to the centre of the village. Subcommittee recommendations to progress this project
Appendices:
(Appendices attached at end of council meeting minutes) - [for details contact the Clerk of the parish council] 5.4.2 Next steps: Jane Rukin (RHE), BDBC Cllr Horace Mitchell and members of the AHC to be invited to an EXTRA meeting of the PC to take AH forward based on the Final Report. The clerk to identify a date (preferably a Tuesday) when all (or most attendees) can attend. Either: 25 October (following the scheduled Planning Meeting), 1 November, 15 November, 22 November (following the scheduled Planning Meeting), 6 December. The clerk was asked to write the PCs Thanks for all the work and time put into the AHC by the committee. Public Notice
In view of the public interest and Cllr Mitchell’s briefing and explanation of the ‘affordable housing process’, it was agreed at the following parish council meeting on 11 May 2010 to progress this with a view to engaging the informed involvement of the parish council and parishioners. Rural Exception HousingA brief for residents by Councillor Horace Mitchell Note: This was provided by Cllr Horace Mitchell for local residents in St Mary Bourne to answer questions he had been asked by residents in connection with the possibility of a rural exception site here. For clarity, planning and housing jargon has either been avoided or explained. This should please be treated as an explanatory note and not as a legally definitive statement! Cllr Mitchell welcomes further questions, preferably by email to cllr.horace.mitchell@basingstoke.gov.uk - see phone and postal details below. 1. What is rural exception housing? The ‘exception’ is that in appropriate circumstances so-called ‘affordable’ houses can be built where a normal commercial development of houses would not be permitted. Most usually this means in or at the edge of a village but outside the ‘settlement policy boundary’ (see below). 2. What is ‘affordable’ housing In general ‘affordable’ housing means houses, flats etc that are to be rented or sold outside the normal commercial market. It can include:
There are other variations but these are the usual options for rural exception sites. In the particular case of a rural exception site, there is usually an arrangement whereby only people with a strong ‘local connection’ may rent or buy into the houses. This continues, so that, for example, when the first tenant moves on the next tenant must also have a strong local connection. Equally if a shared equity buyer moves on the house can only be sold to a new buyer who has a strong local connection. 3. Why have rural exception sites? Because our villages are such great places to live, whatever small parcels of land become available for development are snapped up at full market price and the developments are such that relatively few local young people have much chance of affording their own home at or close to where they’ve been brought up. There is always a waiting list for the relatively small numbers of social rented houses and no availability at all of houses that people can start to buy. If there is a relatively large commercial development, policy can require that a proportion of ‘affordable’ homes are included, but such developments are few and far between outside the larger towns. The finances available to support ‘affordable’ housing do not allow the housing associations to acquire land at market price and develop affordable housing on that land. A rural exception site provides land at below market price that would usually be paid for development land (see below) on the basis that commercial development would not be permitted. What is the process? The Hampshire councils (county and borough councils) subscribe to the costs of employing a ‘rural housing enabler’, whose role is to find suitable sites, research their suitability, and start the process of exploring the possibilities for a rural exception development. In this case the ‘enabler’ is Mr John Lancaster, who has extensive experience of the process and has worked with parish councils and communities (in Basingstoke & Deane as well as other authority areas) to work through the process. A key point is that the process does not necessarily result in a development taking place. In outline the process includes the following stages: (a) identifying villages where there is a ‘need’ for affordable homes, usually established by the number of qualified candidates on the local authority’s housing list and whether their needs are likely to be met in the foreseeable future (b) undertaking a preliminary ‘trawl’ for possible sites, based on a set of established criteria (c) identifying sites that may be capable of being developed, including whether a landowner is prepared to release the land at sufficiently below market price for affordable homes to become a reasonable proposition (d) working with officers of the planning authority to understand whether an application for rural exception housing has a reasonable possibility of meeting all relevant planning criteria (see below) (e) working with the parish council and borough and county councillors to consult with the local community (f) if the site is still a realistic proposition at this stage, bringing forward a formal planning application (g) the proposal is then subject to the normal planning process; all the usual policies apply, except that the site may be outwith the settlement policy boundary 4. What is the status of proposals for St Mary Bourne? The rural housing enabler has worked through stages (a) through (d) above. Although there are still some unresolved questions being assessed by planning officers, the rural housing enabler has initiated stage (e), starting with a presentation to a meeting of the parish council (16th March 2010), thereby making public the possibility that a rural exception proposal may be in the wind. If the remaining issues being assessed by planning officers are resolved, there will be a more formal consultation process with the local community. 5. What is a ‘settlement policy boundary’? For towns and some villages, this boundary (a line of the map) defines the area within which developments may be permitted (mark: may not will be permitted). Outwith the boundary development will not normally be permitted. In planning jargon, outwith the boundary there is a prejudice against development. Areas outside such boundaries are referred to (again in planning jargon) as ‘countryside’, even though in some cases it may be a small village or hamlet. For example Binley, Crux Easton, Ashmansworth do not have settlement policy boundaries. 6. Other questions (a) What is the value of land at ‘below market value’? My understanding is that up to in the region of £10,000 per house can be paid for a rural exception site. At commercial rates the equivalent ranges between £50,000 and several hundred thousands per dwelling. The market is uncertain at present but historically developers have talked of the land value being in the region of one third of the eventual house price for commercial developments. (b) Does the assessment by planning officers mean the application has in effect been pre-approved? No. It’s quite normal for any prospective applicant to discuss their proposals with planning officers, whether it’s for a large scale development or a hut in the garden of a listed building. If an application does come forward it will be subject to all the normal processes. In the case of rural exception sites, because there is a clear public interest at stake, officers may (and usually will) take the same kind of care with a proposal for (say) six or eight dwellings as we might expect them to take with a commercial proposal on a larger scale. (c) Does the earlier (16th March) presentation to the parish council count as community consultation? No. This was just a preliminary briefing. There are no hard and fast rules for this but I would expect community consultation (should it get to that stage) to be widely promoted and to be timed such that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see, question and comment on the proposals – for example an afternoon / evening Friday session and a Saturday session. If it reaches this stage I would expect to work with the rural housing enabler and the parish council to ensure the validity of the consultation. (d) What is meant by ‘all relevant policies’? Just what it says. Every planning application is assessed against a wide range of policies, including those in the Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents, and national and regional guidance. The only ‘exception’ is that a rural exception site may be outwith the settlement policy boundary. (e) What weight is attached to local community opinion? Almost all planning applications encounter some local objections. In general, objections are regarded as ‘material’ to the extent that they invoke an appropriate stated policy. In general, your or my view that ‘this is a very good proposal, I like it’ or ‘this is a thoroughly bad proposal, I don’t want it to happen’, have little weight. In the case of a rural exception site however, the weight of public opinion can itself be a material consideration. It will be readily appreciated that if an overwhelming majority of the community like a proposal while a handful are opposed, the opponents’ case would need to be very clearly rooted in policy considerations. Equally if an overwhelming majority are strongly opposed and can cite relevant policy reasons it would be difficult for a minority’s view in favour to be supported. Note that in many cases the interpretation of some important aspects of policy can be subjective. For example one expert may say a particular proposal is ‘harmful to the landscape’, another may say the proposal improves the landscape! (f) What is the role of the parish council? A parish council reviews and may comment on any and all applications in its area. As with any other ‘consultee’ the parish council may object to an application, giving its reasons in policy terms (including any perceived harm to the community), or may ‘not object’, expressing no opinion either way, or it may ‘support’ an application, again giving its reasons, which can of course include community benefit. St Mary Bourne parish council has an excellent track record in its handling of planning applications. However it should be noted that individual views expressed in a parish council meeting are just that – individual views. Only at a later stage, when a planning application has been made, will the parish council have an opportunity to properly consider (and if necessary vote) before submitting its formal views. The parish council would, at that stage, also have had an opportunity to hear local community views as expressed through and following the consultation process. (g) What is / are the unresolved matters being assessed by the planning officers? The Government has very recently updated some of its planning policy guidance, notably through a document Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (29 March 2010). Although some aspects of this have been known for some time, when relevant policy was cited at a recent Development Control Committee meeting I and other councillors raised questions that officers were unable to answer to our satisfaction. Some of this is now being hammered out by officers with the Environment Agency and the outcome is awaited. Flood risk is of course highly relevant in our valley. (h) Why were discussions between the rural housing enabler and officers held in confidence until the parish council meeting of 16th March? This again is quite normal for any development application; indeed in the normal way of things officers are not allowed to disclose the fact that such discussion is taking place, let alone any of the details. In the case of a rural exception site there is little point in any public discussion until the rural housing enabler is reasonably confident that at least stage 6 (d) as described above is likely to be passed. What we in the community need to be confident of is that we will have full and proper consultation as the next stage, if stage (d) is indeed passed, which is still uncertain. (i) What other sites were considered and why is this site preferred? That will be among the aspects to be reviewed if the proposal goes to the community consultation stage. (j) What can I do now if I wish to support or object to the proposal? As a personal opinion it is premature to raise any issues at this stage, although there is nothing to stop anyone who has a rooted objection from beginning to marshal their arguments. (k) What is your opinion as my borough councillor? I won’t express an opinion until after I’ve heard local views during and following the community consultation and, assuming it gets to that stage, heard arguments and objections in relation to whatever planning application may emerge following the consultation. My role through this stage of the process it to provide advice about the process and to listen. In general, I’m in favour of rural exception proposals that are of a high quality, can be seen to meet demonstrated local needs, and have local community support. This one is clearly too early to judge. Also, if I express an opinion now it would be classed as prejudicial and would prevent me from sitting on, and speaking and voting at the development control committee should any application get to that stage. It’s therefore in the interests of the community that at this stage I keep my powder dry. Further questions or comments are welcome, preferably by email (cllr.horace.mitchell@basingstoke.gov.uk). Cllr Horace Mitchell - Tile Barn House, Woolton Hill, near Newbury RG20 9UZ - 01635 254677 This page was last edited on 19 Oct 2011 |
Home 
Affordable Housing