Committee Report: Draft Supplementary Planning Document - Recommendations for Amendments Prior to Adoption: Affordable Housing Provision in New Residential Developments

Report to:	Community Protection Panel Environment Panel Planning Committee Cabinet Council
Date:	16 January 2006 25 January 2006 7 February 2006 16 February 2006 1 March 2006
Subject:	Draft Supplementary Planning Document - Recommendations for Amendments Prior to Adoption: Affordable Housing Provision in New Residential Developments
Report of:	Joint Report of Director of Planning and Regeneration and Director of Community Protection
Contact officer:	Martin Stuart - (01942) 404238 Peter Layland - (01942) 404135
Purpose / summary:	To report on the outcome of the public consultation exercise for the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Sustainability Appraisal Report and to seek approval to amendments to the document prior to adoption.
Alternative options considered and reason for selecting the one recommended:	The only alternative is not to adopt a Supplementary Planning Document for Affordable Housing. However, this would mean that Policy R1H of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, dealing with Affordable Housing, could not be put in to operation.
Recommendation /decision:	To endorse the recommendations for amendments to the SPD. Members adopt the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document as a local development document which will be implemented when the UDP is adopted.
Key Decision:	This report involves a key decision within ground 1. The decision made as a result of this report will be published within 48 hours and cannot be actioned until five working days have elapsed after that (making a total of seven working days after the meeting), ie, before 28 February 2006. This item is included in the Forward Plan.
Implications:
Financial:	Within existing resources
Staffing:	Within existing resources
Policy:	Replacement UDP
Equal Opportunities - Has a Diversity Impact Assessment been conducted?	No – but Sustainability Appraisal covers related issues
Wards affected:	All
Special Interest Members – Which have been consulted	None

Tracking/Process:

	Consultation	Ward Members	Partners
	-	-	-
Panel	Overview & Scrutiny	Cabinet	Council
Community Protection - 16.01.06 Environment - 25.01.06 Planning - 07.02.06	-	16.02.06	01.03.06

Consultation

Ward Members

Partners

Panel

Overview & Scrutiny

Cabinet

Council

Community Protection - 16.01.06

Environment - 25.01.06

Planning - 07.02.06

16.02.06

01.03.06

List of Background Papers in accordance with Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972:

Document	Date	File Reference	Place of Inspection
Replacement Unitary Development Plan, Revised Deposit Draft	February 2004	32.21	Planning and Regeneration Department, Civic Buildings, New Market Street, Wigan, WN1 1RP
Local Development Scheme	April 2005	32.21F(i)	Planning and Regeneration Department, Civic Buildings, New Market Street, Wigan, WN1 1RP
Wigan Borough Housing Needs Survey 2003	2003		Community Protection Department, Unity House, Wigan
Wigan Borough Housing Needs Survey Up-date 2005	2005		Community Protection Department, Unity House, Wigan
Report to Planning Committee	16.08.05	Min No 25	Chief Executive’s Department, Town Hall, Wigan

Proper Officer	Martin Kimber/Bob Saunders
Date	10 January 2006

1.0 Background

1.1 Members may recall the report to Planning Committee on 16 August 2005, subsequently considered by Council on 7 September 2005, which dealt with the draft Supplementary Planning Document entitled Affordable Housing Provision in New Residential Development. As a result of this report, Council approved the draft document as a basis for public consultation.

1.2 The public consultation exercise covered a 6 week period from 10 October to 21 November 2005.

2.0 Proposals

2.1 Part 1 – Consideration of Responses

A total of 13 responses were received. Of the responses received, most were supportive of the principle of affordable housing provision.

In accordance with Government regulations, the main issues raised in representations together with the Council’s responses are summarised in the table at Appendix 1. In addition, changes that affect the substance of the SPD are shown underlined in the attached copy of the SPD.

Part 2 – Consideration of Responses to the Conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal

The aim of conducting the sustainability appraisal of the SPD was to discover how, if at all, the introduction of the SPD might influence the sustainability assessments made in 2003 of the relevant UDP policy. The conclusion was that the SPD was found to have no negative impact on sustainability and to improve the score in a positive direction on 2 parts of the appraisal of UDP Policy R1H. No responses were received on the conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal.

3.0 Alternative Options Considered and Reason for the Recommended Option

The only alternative is not to adopt a Supplementary Planning Document for Affordable Housing. However, this would mean that Policy R1H of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan, dealing with Affordable Housing, could not be put in to operation.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1 Members are requested to consider the views expressed by consultees, as set out in Appendix 1, and the proposed amendments to the draft SPD.

4.2 It is recommended that the Affordable Housing SPD be adopted pending the adoption of the Replacement UDP. (It is not possible to adopt Supplementary Planning Documents in advance of the adoption of the Plan in which the policies to which they are supplementary reside.)

Return to Agenda

Appendix 1 — Table of Consultation Responses

Name of Consultee	Summary of Comments	Proposed Response	Change to Document
HOW Planning for Morris Homes	1. The SPD can only be adopted after the UDP has been adopted.	Agree.	None.
	2. Requirement for affordable housing should not be imposed in all areas of Borough.	No. Requirement is on all sites.	None.
	3. Inconsistency between affordable housing requirement in SPD and in Housing Needs Survey.	Agree.	Change to reflect latest figure.
	4. Delete "exceptional" in paragraph 4.5.	No. Would encourage evasion.	None.
	5. Clarification of definition of affordable housing required.	Agree.	Reword paragraphs 5.2, 8.6 and 8.7.
	6. Seeks variable approach to provision on different sites.	No. Requirement applies to all sites.	None.
	7. Document should not pre-empt type of tenure.	It does not.	None.
	8. Document should not prescribe who delivers affordable housing with developer.	It doesn’t.	None.
	9. Housing should not be built to RSL specification.	Agree.	Reword.
	10. Should not restrict the range of households who can occupy affordable housing.	No. Policy restricts to those on low incomes.	None.
	11. Should not require affordable housing off-site where no local affordability problem.	Disagree. The policy requires provision on all suitable sites.	None.
Broadway Malayan for Westbury Homes	1. Support SPD but are concerned that further developer contributions would make development unviable.	Disagree. Only affordable needs as demonstrated in Needs Survey are being fulfilled.	None
	2. Would like to see variation in amount of affordable housing required at different sites.	Disagree. Requirement is on all sites.	None.
	3. Object to the provision of off-site affordable housing.	Disagree. Useful aspect of SPD.	None.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive	1. Makes points about the need for new development to be accessible to public transport .	Not specific to affordable housing.	None.
North West Regional Assembly	1. Need to qualify the extent to which design standards may be reduced.	Agree.	Amend wording.
Government Office for the North West	1. May wish to review the thresholds for affordable housing provision in the light of consultation draft PPS3.	Cannot change thresholds without changing UDP policy.	None.
	2. Would be helpful to relate affordable need to annual housing requirement and present supply.	Not considered necessary and changeable over time.	None.
	3. Should not be adopted before UDP is adopted.	Agree.	None.
Hepher Dixon for Bett Homes	1. Should relate more closely to findings of Housing Need Update.	It does relate to those findings.	None.
	2. 20% provision target should vary across the Borough.	Disagree. Not feasible.	None.
	3. SPD should specify how often the needs study will be updated.	Not appropriate matter for SPD.	None.
	4. Inconsistency between affordable housing requirement in SPD and in Housing Needs Survey.	Agree.	Change to reflect latest figure.
	5. Support waiving or reduction of affordable housing requirement where there are particular costs.	Document specifies this.	None.
English Nature.	1. No comments.
Environment Agency	1. No comments.
United Utilities.	1. Need to have infrastructure capacity at sites and to check for the presence of underground services.	Not specific to affordable housing.	None.
Adactus Housing Group	Supports the SPD.
Councillor Jim Ellis	1. Should we not give an indication of the percentage discount sought on market housing. 2. We should define what affordable is.	These are both detailed matters which it would not be appropriate to deal with in the SPD.	None.
Lancashire County Council	1. No comments.
Manchester Airport	1. No comments.