15:36
Okay. Well, good morning everybody. It's now 9:30, so it's time for me to start day two of the stage two um hearings
15:44
into the examination of the South Tinside local plan. Can I just check, can everybody hear me okay? uh in the
15:51
room today. We had a slight issue with speakers yesterday, but hopefully it's being amplified um in the room uh and
15:59
can be heard from those who will be watching this uh separately online. Good. So, if you can hear me, uh just to
16:05
introduce myself, my name is David Spencer. I'm a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to
16:11
carry out the independent uh examination of the South Tinside uh local plan. This
16:16
is the plan that was submitted uh in March 2025 uh and the plan upon which
16:23
representations were made in early 2024.
16:28
Hopefully everybody's here for this morning's session which is to looking at the uh housing various housing policies
16:36
uh within the submitted plan.
16:42
We'll then this afternoon be looking at uh matter nine uh in relation to
16:48
policies on flood risk, water quality, climate change and general burough policies on health and air quality.
16:55
Before I get into some of the further sort of uh introductory remarks and housekeeping, can I just confirm or
17:01
clarify with the council please in terms of just general um housekeeping
17:07
requirements? Thank you. Okay, good morning everybody. Uh, we're
17:13
not expecting any fire alarms today. So, if the alarm does sound, please make your way to the fire exit on the far side of the room and then to the far
17:19
side of the hotel car park to await instruction from staff. The toilets are just in the corridor to the left um
17:26
outside of this room. And please note, there are cables taped to the floor, so please be careful when you're moving
17:32
around the room not to trip on those. And if you have a car um parked in the car park, please can you ensure you've
17:37
entered your registration details at the devices at the hotel reception. Thank you.
17:43
Okay, thank you for that. Uh can I check are any is anybody here from the local
17:49
press this morning?
17:54
No. Okay, thank you. Um these sessions are being recorded uh and uh available
18:01
as per the stage one hearing sessions to view um at a later date online if people
18:06
haven't been able to u make the room or be here in person today. Um I will ask
18:12
at the start of each session whether anybody wishes to make their own uh separate recording uh of these uh of
18:19
these sessions. As I've said at various sessions, um I'm
18:25
being supported in this uh independent examination by the program officer, which is Annette Feny, who's over to my
18:32
left. Um and Annette is your first port of call if you need any kind of assistance or have any queries regarding
18:39
the examination. Annette will assist you with those uh and if you need to find any of the kind of documentation
18:46
uh that's been published as part of the examination. Annette is based in the building while we're sitting here for
18:51
the stage two hearings. Otherwise, her details are on the um examination
18:58
uh website if you need to get in touch with her. We'll start shortly with in terms of the
19:04
introductions for the matter 7 session. As said earlier, these these sessions are being recorded. So, uh I want to be
19:11
seeking people to use the microphones that are se uh placed around um the table. uh and I'll ask people at the
19:18
start of each session just to briefly introduce themselves so that people following the recording uh are aware
19:24
who's participating um for this today's um session just to let
19:32
the room know I am being observed by a couple of uh colleague inspectors who
19:37
have come along to see uh proceedings today. So if you do as you probably be
19:42
aware I'm not engaging with anybody outside of these discussions. So if you other than Annette, so if you do see me
19:48
speaking to anybody today, hopefully it's highly likely to be one of my colleague inspectors, I just want to
19:54
assure the council and others in the room. We are not discussing the details
19:59
of this particular plan examination and I just reassure everybody that uh the
20:05
ultimate report that will be delivered will be solely my own work uh and my own thoughts. So uh just put that um put
20:13
that out there uh for for people to be aware of that for today. Um are there
20:18
any initial questions in terms of just procedure and how these examination
20:23
hearings uh work? I think looking around the table with the exception of councelor Stonehouse I think most people
20:30
have participated at the stage one hearings um so I think most of you are
20:37
familiar with how these how these sessions work but they are intended to be reasonably informal but structured
20:43
discussions I've published an agenda uh it's been available now for some time
20:49
we're going to work through that agenda and various questions that I've got principally for the council but then to
20:55
bring in other people to make their submissions. I should just also finally emphasize whatever I hear in this room
21:03
carries equal weight to whatever has been provided in writing to me previously back in early 2024 when you
21:09
made original representations and then further in your um supplementary um statements. What I'm looking for as part
21:17
of all of these discussions is to understand if there is a soundness issue with the plan, what that is, and whether
21:24
there's a potential change that could be made that could address that um particular uh issue.
21:32
Okay, there are no uh preliminary procedural questions or queries, we'll
21:38
go straight into the first matter of today, which is matter seven. It's issue
21:43
one. and I've described it as securing sustainable residential developments and we're going to be looking at uh a number
21:50
of policies uh in the delivering a mix of homes chapter of the plan. We're not today
21:57
going to be talking about policy SP16 or the windfall uh or density policies. They're going to
22:04
be discussed um tomorrow afternoon when we pick up matter 7. Again, I would
22:09
really describe the policies or the suite of policies we're looking at this morning as the kind of will be the
22:15
development management policies that will intended to shape uh and guide
22:20
housing developments across the burough. So, they're not limited to one specific site or um location necessarily.
22:32
Generally, the evidence for this particular session has been relatively constant. The key documents are going to
22:38
be the strategic housing market assessment. I've tried on the agenda to just to highlight where there are some
22:44
additional documents that I think people need to be aware of. One will be the housing um houses in multiple occupation
22:51
topic paper that the council's prepared and the council's also undertaken a gypsy and traveler uh accommodation
22:57
assessment. And I also wanted people to be aware that the council has done further viability testing since stage
23:04
one or has published further material since the stage one uh session which has looked at uh the issue of affordable
23:11
housing in in relation to first homes. So it'll be helpful for me at this stage
23:17
to understand who I'm going to be hearing from at this morning's session. So if I can turn to my right and start
23:23
with the council's team, please. Yes. So good morning. My name is Paul
23:28
Sheder Revian, Kings Council, acting for the council. I'm Deborah Lamb. I'm the operations
23:35
manager for the spatial planning team at South Tai Council. Rachel Cooper, senior plan and policy
23:40
officer at South Tai Council. Good morning. I'm Anna Dixon. I'm the senior manager for strategic housing and
23:47
regulation at the council. Morning everyone. David Newm from CP Viability. I've undertaken the viability
23:54
to testing on behalf of the council. Morning. Uh Chris Martin from the Homebuilders
24:00
Federation. So we're the main representative body for house builders in England and Wales.
24:06
Morning. I'm Dominic W from Pegasus Group representing Bellway Homes.
24:12
Morning Jack Conroy Sevils Planning representing Lavick Hall family limited and Durham Cathedral.
24:19
Good morning councelor Gerald Dean Kilgawa from the Felgate and Head Ward. Thank you. Uh, good morning Mvin Butler
24:25
from the Clayton East Balden Labor Party. Good morning. I'm Dave Hutchinson from
24:30
East Balden Neighborhood Forum. Good morning. My name is Sue Stonehouse and I'm councelor for Beacon and Ben.
24:40
Thank you everybody. Now I should probably also just mentioned in the introduction obviously sitting for a morning session this morning. I don't
24:46
think it's necessarily going to take us through right till lunchtime. you might be pleased to hear but if we need a midm
24:52
morning adjournment just let you know there will be a break at uh uh a
24:57
suitable uh point. So turning to my agenda then please and
25:02
it's the first item and it's the council's approach to uh the loss or um
25:08
sorry the council's approach to existing housing uh within the burough set out of
25:13
policy 15 and I raised a question at my MIQ 7.1. I would describe this as a
25:20
quite a kind of spatial policy. It's kind of setting out things for the council and its kind of various partners
25:26
in terms of what um it's seeking to do in terms of the um the quality of the
25:32
housing stock um within the burough. But in terms of one particular aspect, it's
25:38
the final part of the policy and part seven uh in relation to uh where uh
25:45
proposals that would come forward that result would result in a net loss of existing housing stock. whether the
25:51
criteria that are set out in the policy uh are justified in terms of what the
25:57
council wishes to speak uh wishes to seek. So if I invite the council to my MIQ 7.1 in terms of the justification
26:05
for that final part of the policy please. Yeah. So the intention with that part of
26:11
the policy was to ensure that where there's stock that doesn't meet kind of modern safety
26:18
standards or accessibility or energy efficiency standards then there is a mechanism there for that stock to be
26:24
replaced. Um and obviously a net loss would not be ideal but the policy kind
26:31
of ensures that where there is going to be a net loss that the development must
26:37
demonstrate that that is kind of necessary and it wouldn't be viable to sort of retrofit the existing stock um
26:44
or or appropriate to kind of retain that stock. Um there is an element of demolitions factored into the trajectory
26:50
which kind of supports that part of the policy.
26:59
Thank you. So from the council's perspective in this terms of this part of the policy, is it driven by or
27:04
informed by if I can call them sort of environmental objectives in terms of ensuring you're not going to lose stock
27:12
of a sufficient, you know, sufficient quality or is it a um more as a potent a character issue in
27:20
terms of losing particular types of housing? Um it it's both essentially. So
27:27
paragraph 2.9 in the strategic housing market assessment highlights that a number of dwellings in the burough are
27:34
likely to fall beneath the minimum standards of decent homes. And that kind of captures like you say character um
27:41
and and sort of other issues such as energy efficiency that feed into stock being decent and modern.
28:02
Thank you. So the pol. Let the council confer.
28:09
No, you could just give me one minute. Yep.
28:16
Before
28:27
Miss Beanie tells me off, I was simply going to simply going to um identify
28:34
that the criteria in policy is uh not in the alternative. It all has
28:41
to be fulfilled. That's the first point. Uh and the second point is um it's
28:47
important to identify that in criterion three um the applicant would have to
28:52
demonstrate that the locality and character of the surroundings are no longer appropriate for residential use.
28:59
So the policy doesn't admit a straightforward loss
29:05
of a dwelling or dwellings in these circumstances. There has to be that additional factor which has to be
29:12
proven. Thank you. And in terms of what the council wants to um achieve and we've
29:20
heard it at other sessions um generally um supply to meet the
29:28
housing requirement um is is challenging. And this is a plan
29:35
that's uh found sound is probably going to just about meet its housing requirement with potentially little or
29:42
very little um headroom. Is there a leg is a legitimacy to sort of any of the
29:48
concerns that this policy could inhibit or prevent otherwise sustainable
29:55
development that may see the loss of existing housing stock where there could
30:00
be overall um a kind of a net uplift uh in the overall um supply.
30:10
Could it be uh applied, you know, zealously to kind of inhibit or frustrate otherwise
30:18
sustainable um development? Are you talking to policy seven? Yeah. Are you talking about residential
30:25
development? Yes. Yes.
30:30
Um yeah. So as as Mr. Shadow Ravian have pointed out, I think the policy is quite oh sorry that part of the policy is
30:37
quite sort of rigid in what it would allow in terms of a net loss. Um and I
30:44
think it's so it's there to support genuine
30:49
cases where you know there is sort of stock that is not suitable for for use and the only option really is to
30:56
demolish and rebuild.
31:04
Thank you. And I think the council's referred me in its statement to a couple of examples in the burough recently that
31:10
where that's that has arisen as you say demolitions or an allowance is made for
31:16
um demolitions. I mean is this a significant or widespread issue for the burough or is this
31:24
um more an exception um and largely the how the I mean I've been to other parts of the country where you know demolition
31:30
of existing housing stock is a significant issue um I don't know in case of south timeside whether that's
31:37
largely worked its way through the system and generally housing stock is by and large in a good condition. Um I
31:45
don't know whether it's Mrs. Dixon or Ms. Cooper on that point, please.
31:51
Yes, I I think you're correct in in in the fact that we have undertaken a number of housing renewal schemes over
31:57
the years and actually we're coming to the end of that program now. Um I I
32:03
can't foresee um significant demolition programs occurring certainly during the
32:09
the planning period.
32:25
Thank you. Before I move off item one on my agenda, are there any further points people wish to make in relation to
32:31
policy 15 and existing homes?
32:36
Don't think I've got any suggested modifications in front of me. So I'm going to to move on from that particular
32:42
policy. Thank you to the council. So item two is uh the policy framework in relation to houses in multiple
32:49
occupation often abbreviated to HMOs. I'm afraid one of the many abbreviations
32:55
we're going to slip into. Um the plan presents at policy 16 uh the the
33:02
council's uh planning policy in relation to uh this particular um issue. I've got
33:08
a number of uh MIQs that related to this. I think there were relatively few representations on this, but I
33:15
understand it's not an issue unique to South Tinside. I think a number of
33:20
authorities are uh looking at this um particular issue
33:25
uh and what it means. Obviously houses in multiple occupation um there's a
33:31
different a differentiation to be made in terms of scale uh in terms of small
33:36
uh and larger units. Obviously there are a lawful land use um and I think there's
33:42
evidence correct me if I'm wrong from the council in terms of the schma that there is a role for HMOs uh in meeting
33:50
certain housing needs but I think obviously the council wants through the plan to
33:56
uh uh to manage that in a way that's um responsive to um to South Tinside. So in
34:03
terms of my MIQ um 7.2 two and I think turning to the council in the first instance can I invite them to briefly
34:10
set out why a specific policy on HMOs was considered necessary
34:16
uh in South Tinside and as I referred to earlier you've prepared a a particular topic paper on this which I think
34:24
probably a reflection of the kind of the significance of the issue.
34:30
Yes. So the the the inclusion of the policy is very much to try and strike a
34:35
balance between um allowing um appropriate HMOs in in suitable
34:40
locations but also trying to seek to manage the concentrations of these uses and the potential impacts on the
34:46
community and immunity for existing residents. Um it's recognized as you
34:52
mentioned within the schma that there is a a specific housing need within the burough um which HMOs can provide. Um we
34:59
also acknowledge that this type of accommodation requires further consideration through the planning process and therefore it's considered
35:06
that specific policy was um needed within the plan to address the impacts which are commonly associated with HMOs.
35:13
Um in section three of the the topic paper um we have an overview of the HMO
35:19
context um which as it was at the time of preparing the the regulation 19 local
35:24
plan um it identifies that um although there was a fairly low number of um
35:31
licensed HMOs in the burough at that time that generally tend to be concentrated within the low top um area
35:38
within South Shields um which has historically always been the case due to the the nature of the properties in that
35:44
area and that area has been subject to an article 4 direction since 2014 um in
35:49
attempted to to manage um HMOs in that area from that point. Um but as I say
35:55
the the policy as a whole tries to strike a balance between um ensuring there is
36:03
acceptable development of these uses in appropriate areas but also trying to to manage those impacts as well.
36:14
Thank you. And just from the council's perspective in terms of those kind of impacts or issues in relation to the
36:20
HMOs that the council's seeking through the policy um to to manage in an appropriate way is
36:28
it is it a combination of um amenity living condition issues? It's
36:36
a a character issue in terms of the nature of
36:42
probably looking in the first instance at law top but we'll come on to whether there's a you know more sort of borrow
36:47
wide issue. Yes. So the the the idea is to try and maintain um balanced communities as sort
36:53
of set out in the MPPF. um all sections of the policy try to address um immunity
37:00
and character issues basically for um residents of these users and also for
37:06
the communities as well. Um you'll sort notice within the policy that it's sort
37:11
of um there's two sort of key aims in terms of managing concentration
37:16
um of con of um HMOs burrowwide and also within the law top although there is a
37:22
particular threshold for the law area concentration and taking a judgment on
37:27
um the mix of um H new development process HMOs outside of that area is
37:33
also considered and also in the supporting text um that determined on a
37:38
case-by case basis. Um we also have introduced um the sandwiching effect um
37:43
criteria as well again so that um would basically restrict um HMOs um which
37:50
would be either side of a residential property and that's aimed to try and um mitigate the the immediate impact on um
37:58
residential properties and also um to help try and manage um concentrations
38:04
outside again outside the law area where it may not hit those sort of thresholds.
38:09
um but will sort of accommodate the the the immediate impact on on residential
38:15
properties. Thank thank you for that. I mean in terms of the policy itself, policy 16, I
38:22
mean it sets out a number of um criteria in terms of how the council is going to look at um um HMO
38:29
um uh proposals. Um it's probably sort of item
38:36
two two of my my agenda in terms of the effectiveness of the policy criterion
38:43
one. So part one criterion two refers to kind of not resulting in an overconentration
38:50
uh in any one part of the burough or becoming the development of the dominant um dwelling type. Um
38:59
is the council kind of given thought to how it's going to make that assessment
39:05
um and how it will kind of monitor the policy? I mean what would an overconentration
39:11
look like or what would uh becoming the dominant development type come uh
39:18
dominant development type kind of look like? I mean they they seem obviously very sort of inherently kind of
39:24
requiring a degree of judgment but when does that kind of judgment become
39:30
reasonable and has the council given thought to how it's going to kind of monitor the policy in that that regard?
39:37
Yes. So um the the policy has been informed by the the
39:42
national HMO lobby um um work that suggests that 10% of properties or 20%
39:47
of population is normally a tipping point uh for HMO dominance within a certain area. I think that's quite
39:53
obvious within the um the law top threshold but also um it's al would also
40:00
be sort of a consideration um through the DM process I think for for looking at um properties outside of that area as
40:08
well. Um but also again there is sort of element of plan and judgment um that would be taking place and like you said
40:14
they'll be determined on a sideby-side basis. In terms of monitoring um you'll
40:19
be aware that there has been changes um around HMOs in the virus since this plan was um prepared. Um I think monitoring
40:27
is going to be a key um factor in terms of reviewing this um policy going forward. I think we will be looking at
40:34
um so applications coming forward and monitoring concentrations and um spatial
40:39
distribution of HMOs and seeing whether there is a need for um a change to the policy coming review of the plan at a
40:47
future date and presumably in terms of just general monitoring and performance of policies I
40:53
mean if there were a trend of I don't know decisions being uh approved contrary to officer
41:00
recommendation or how things are performing at the appeals pro if it things went to an appeal process that
41:07
would inform I'm just mindful I mean HMOs can I said at the start I mean they are a lawful planning use but they can
41:14
be an emotive kind of subject people um have have
41:19
concerns and I think there are as you say um through kind of government
41:24
guidance or kind of recognition around potential kind of clustering but it's kind of just where the potential
41:31
potential checks and balances if the policies applied potentially too too
41:36
vigorously against say what's a lawful planning use.
41:43
Inevitably policies like this which are intended to invoke the exercise of planning judgment
41:49
at DM stage give rise for quite a lot of tension and in some cases it's unavoidable
41:57
and this is one such case where that judgment has to be exercised. What what the what the policy does is provide the
42:04
basis for the exercise of that discretion which is important. Um the
42:10
effectiveness of the policy is something which can be monitored over time by looking at the results.
42:18
Um but um um at the end of the day it's very very difficult to formulate a
42:23
policy like this where you are dealing with various parts of the of the bar which may exhibit different tendencies
42:30
over time and where the impact of highly concentrated
42:36
um residential use um does have an impact.
42:41
Um it could have an impact in terms of parking, in terms of the communities of
42:47
people who live in the area. Th those are matters which have to be considered on their merits at the time the
42:52
application is made.
42:58
Thank you. Third part of the policy and Mrs. Lamb you've referred to is this the
43:04
sandwiching effect. So resisting uh scenarios where uh residential
43:11
going to slip into planning jargon again of the C3, you know, normal residential
43:17
use ends up being bordered on both sides by um HMO um proposals or HMO HMO uses.
43:27
Is that something that's um been informed by the evidence in terms of you
43:33
referred to the HMO or the the HMO lobby or is that something that um a policy
43:40
approach that the council itself has kind of developed and identified uh off
43:45
its own off its own bat in terms of coming up with that particular uh
43:50
approach? I I don't think it's something else identified by the the HMO lobby, but it
43:56
is an an additional tool that we have in terms of being able to manage um HMO users like I say in the circumstances
44:03
where um a threshold particularly low top isn't met in terms of um the the
44:10
number of HMOs within the 100 meter radius but that may could still result
44:15
in two HMOs with a residential property in the middle. So it is an extra tool and a a planning and mechanism of trying
44:23
to reduce those impacts. That's why I thought it was important to to do that because although um it might not be
44:30
tipping the balance in terms of the wider area, it's those immediate impacts on residential properties that that
44:36
element of the the policy is trying to address.
44:58
Thank you. And just in terms of the implementation and effectiveness of the policy, if somebody's coming forward with a proposal for an HMO,
45:07
um is there any way through the council?
45:12
I'm assume obviously HMOs are licensed to are licensed that an appella so an
45:18
applicant can understand whether they're going to kind of trigger this potentially trigger this policy or that
45:26
that sandwiching is there a way they know or can find out that there are HMOs in that vicinity
45:32
I suppose the main route for for that would be through preapp advice um from the council to to get an understanding
45:38
of what um the the the plan Considerations would be for a development proposal.
46:06
Thank you. And then in terms of dealing just with the last two points of the agenda on HMO together,
46:12
uh as you mentioned Miss Lamb, the policy then applies a particular
46:18
approach to the lawtop area. I think based on the council's view that is a that is a cluster as we sit here now
46:25
this particular um use um in terms of
46:30
the potential kind of thresholds and percentages referred to policy refers to 10% I think you mentioned there are
46:36
potentially alternatives could did the council look at or as part of
46:41
sustainability appraisal kind of optionering for the policy whether there is an alternative um policy threshold
46:48
whether it's 20% of properties just to kind of understand the re
46:54
reasonleness and the effectiveness of of going for the sort of the 10% figure and then obviously then applying that within
47:00
a 100 meter radius. Yes. So the policy like I've mentioned
47:06
is informed by the national HMO lobby. there there wasn't any specific sort of reasonable um test op testing of options
47:14
around this as it was informed by that and also um sort of draws on um other
47:19
policies and um other local authorities plans and SPD documents in terms of
47:25
applying similar thresholds. Um the we did um take uh do an exercise within the
47:33
topic paper which looked at how um the application of these thresholds would um
47:39
could work within the low top area. Um and there set out an appendix one. Um it
47:44
shows that um example five would already exceed the 10% um threshold um within
47:51
the maps that are showing um but example two um one more HMO in that area would
47:57
um exceed the 10% as well. Um so we felt that off that exercise that we did it
48:04
was showing that 10% received a reasonable amount. I think any lower would have been um too restrictive. As
48:10
we've said, there is a need for um for these uses in the burough and anything higher than that would have questioned
48:18
the effectiveness of the policy as we we know there's already concentrations um in that area. So 10% felt like the the
48:26
right um percentage to go for in that circumstance.
48:32
Thank you for that. I appreciate there's kind of a a balance needs to be struck. You obviously
48:39
keep coming back to emphasizing law lawful land use. So it's any kind of control or regulation needs to be carefully kind of considered and have
48:46
particular um uh justification. Uh and I'll I'll again revisit those
48:52
appendices. So thank you for that reference. In terms of the approach that's applied to law top, it it may in
48:59
particular circumstances not rule out further HMOs entirely. So there may be
49:05
um schemes that can progress through that um that policy framework. But is
49:11
there um a a potential issue or is this now
49:18
manifesting itself that in implying a particular approach to law top there's
49:23
then potentially a or could be a displacement effect or the pressure for HMOs arises
49:31
in other parts of the burough if there comes a point where the cluster has kind of reached its its capacity in in the
49:39
law top area is that something you're seeing and leading on from that the council I think advised through um a
49:46
helpful um note in October on I think it's called um associated matters update
49:53
that the council has been thinking about an a wider um article 4 um direction. So
49:59
perhaps if I invite um yes that's right. So um on the 19th of November um last year the council
50:06
took um a cabinet decision to approve uh the implementation of an immediate article 4 um which is burrowwide across
50:14
um Southside which requires any development proposal for a new HMO regardless of size um would require
50:21
planner permission. Um this is sort of on the back of sort of a growing sort of
50:27
um theme that there are more HMOs um occurring across the burough outside of
50:32
the traditional lawtop area. Um so I say that was um implemented in November last
50:38
year and I think um as a result of that I think we've got approximately 20 plan applications um um that we currently
50:46
have which are dealing with four HMOs at this point. Um so as I've sort of said
50:52
that the policy was prepared um at the time it was and based on the evidence that we had at that time. Um so
51:00
at that time the evidence was a low top was the the key area for HMOs in the burrow and that's why the policy was
51:07
written as it was to specifically identify that area but I think the policy does have um sort of flexibility
51:13
to deal with um HMOs in other areas. it has that flexibility in terms of um you
51:18
know dealing with concentrations outside of the area based on planning judgment on a sight by sight basis and also the
51:25
sandwiching effect as well. It's also I suppose important to note that it's not just this policy will be in play in
51:31
terms of determining plan applications will also be relevant um highways
51:36
policies uh design policies etc which also help um determine the plan
51:41
application at that point in time. Thank you. I hadn't perhaps appreciated.
51:48
So that's an immediate uh imposition. It hasn't been a non- immediate. So there has been no
51:55
So it's not been subject to kind of consultation. It's in it's in effect and in in force now. Um it's presumably
52:01
that's you say the decision was made in no was it 19th of November. So it's
52:07
presuming there has been a a period if anybody wants to challenge that that
52:13
direction that that period has presumably now elapsed.
52:18
Okay. I think you make the valid point Mrs. L. Obviously this I'm examining the plan as as submitted and based on the
52:24
evidence um at that time. I just before I sort of move off the HMO issue, I mean
52:32
given that that kind of change in circumstance, is there any necessity or need for
52:38
soundness reasons to amend the policy to refer to there as a now a wider
52:44
article four? Or is it a case of well the policy needs to be specific and
52:49
bespoke to the law top area and and the alternative is notwithstanding there's a wider article for the other parts of the
52:56
policy would apply to that. I wasn't sure if the council would then want to say well part two also would apply to
53:02
the new borrowwide article 4.
53:08
Um I think um we could um make a change to the supporting text to make um to
53:14
highlight the fact this article 4 is now in place which obviously the the current support text does not do that. Um I
53:21
think in terms of um limited with the policy applying berwide I think I think
53:27
as we've talked about monitoring um and going forward we don't know what the concentrations are going to to to be
53:34
like obviously we say we've got a number of applications in but we don't know what the outcome of those are going to
53:39
be. So at the minute we don't have the evidence still of the concentration levels as we do in the lower top across
53:46
the burough. So I think um from our point of view it would be very much a case of monitoring and seeing how this
53:51
progresses going forward and like you say in next plan reviews then if we feel we need to extend that that would be the
53:58
opportunity to do so.
54:03
Thank you. I think um as I sit here now as I'm looking at the
54:10
wider plan I don't recall many representations on this policy although I appreciate it is um a significant kind
54:16
of local issue. I think given the circumstances in I'm not sitting here now thinking instinctively that there's
54:22
a main modification um to the policy. I think if the council wants to provide sort of a factual update uh in terms of
54:29
supporting text that's probably helpful to the implementation of the plan. Um
54:34
again I'm not sure I'm going to need to recommend that specifically for soundness but when we come to the final
54:41
session next week I'm going to sort of just go through the kind of various changes. will be the main modifications
54:47
that I'll be looking to recommend but also be a separate schedule of things you know reasonably the council could
54:53
look to do. I think there's a fact if it's genuinely a factual update and it's something to assist users of the
54:59
document in terms of bringing that to their attention probably falls more into the a change that could be done without
55:07
me necessarily having to recommend it. But um I make a note of I've made a note
55:12
of that that kind of factual um change. As I say, I don't recall many representations on this policy. I see
55:18
councelor Kilgore, your name plate is up. I'm going to generously allow the kind of discussion to widen if there's a
55:25
particular point you wish to bring to my attention then councelor um is it stone
55:31
house for the green party. Thank you sir. I think um you know Mrs.
55:36
Lam has very um well um spoken around the um the increase in applications and
55:44
I think certainly from from my perspective I would like to see um more detail that has now come to light around
55:52
those concentrations that have um if you like moved the problem because of the um
55:58
particular attention that was needed at the low top. Um so I think what we're finding now is that larger older
56:05
properties are um at risk of such applications and they have been many um
56:12
within the last few weeks really in the Jarrow and Heaven area. Um, and I really
56:17
do think the not strictly I I wouldn't rule it out as being unsound if it
56:24
wasn't included, but I do think there needs to be some further detailed um
56:31
descriptors in the policy. And the reason I say that is that um it mentions
56:38
so for example um on page 90 of the draft policy um of of 4.4 for there um
56:47
of of policy 16 that um should it not have a detrimental impact on amenities
56:53
of surrounding properties by causing excessive noise and disturbance and I know we're going into the detail but
57:00
unless you are examining that application you can't assume that there's going to
57:06
be disturbance and noise and you know an impact on amenity
57:12
and and policy doesn't allow us to demonstrate that. It's more a a learned
57:18
something. It's a bit like a a monitoring process. And I'll be honest, I don't want us to risk um having a
57:26
monitoring period because I think the law has already told us that we needed this policy. The article for that is
57:34
borough wide is only a temporary measure as well. So it's not it's not permanent,
57:39
is it? is is it because my understanding was it was going to be reviewed in six months.
57:46
So I'd like some clarity on that. If it is permanent, that's great. But I think
57:51
I I really do think we need to look at the sandwiching effect as well. So um if
57:57
we're looking at that that um 100 meter radius. So for example, you know, we've
58:02
got a street of five, I'll name sorry street. It's just been rejected um or
58:08
recommended refusal by officers. very gratefully so we are as a community for
58:13
the right reasons. We believe that that row is very tiny and and to have even a
58:21
sandwich um of one on either side of the row of five or six or seven properties
58:27
would would be an overconentration. So just to say that one either side of of
58:33
an individual family home would be too much. I don't think that goes far
58:39
enough. And I think when you're looking at the size of the properties that you know are lending themselves to these
58:46
applications um there aren't many of them in a row by
58:52
virtue of their size. So if this article for direction has changed and I'm you know I'm misunderstanding that. My
58:58
understanding was that it was to come back for review. If that's been changed, that's great. But that because of the
59:05
permanency of that, that needs to be, in my opinion, reflected um in order
59:10
because we're going to go somewhere down the line before we have an opportunity to formally amend this policy again. And
59:17
I think it needs to be now when we're realizing the um the scattering of of
59:24
this impact of the low top policy as well. Thank you.
59:30
Thank you for that council. So if I interpret that correctly, you want a kind of a more kind of stringent policy
59:36
that goes further than what's before me in terms of policy 16 in terms of um
59:42
potentially restricting this use that the policy doesn't go far enough.
59:48
So I think it's more um it it I think it is appropriate but I don't think by way
59:54
of um area it goes far enough so it does very much concentrate and rightly so at
1:00:00
the time on the low top area I think it needs to be really clear that this is
1:00:06
borwide um and that it's not just a monitoring process because if we get to a point say
1:00:12
a year down the line and you know um you know Deborah there's just mentioned around 20 applications. That's a lot,
1:00:20
you know, and and that has come as a result of the low top being really, you know, strictly enforced. Um it is
1:00:28
concerning. We've got some in kind of, you know, the narrow terraces if you
1:00:34
like of Jon with the old um Victorian buildings. We've got them kind of at
1:00:39
either ends of of one road. So I think we need to be really careful and around
1:00:44
as well as you move on to the next policy around you know residential accommodations such as you know nursing
1:00:50
homes and children's homes and things like that. I think it all very much comes into the mix in those areas lend
1:00:58
themsel and are to new developments of extra care facilities and things like
1:01:03
that. So we need to be really careful around the multiple occupancy of those
1:01:08
various types of of tenure. Thank you. Can I just briefly come back
1:01:14
to the council before I hear from um councelor Stonehouse? Um I'm not sure to
1:01:20
the extent it kind of I need to think about it in terms of plan soundness but the the recent article 4 direction it's
1:01:28
it's its basis long longevity is it is it in effect permanent the kind of
1:01:34
review mechanisms that yes be invoked it is a permanent article 4 and the the
1:01:42
six months that's been mentioned is basically to confirm that the the article 4 is in
1:01:58
I see I should I should brush up on my article 4 uh legal knowledge. So there's
1:02:04
uh so the decision is taken the article 4 direction is um is put in place and
1:02:12
then after six months there's been no objections or no particular issue is effectively kind of confirmed with with
1:02:20
or without modification. Yeah. Okay. And in terms of the kind of the issues that have been I mean sort of indicated
1:02:27
um earlier whether the kind of the the policy approach to law top would kind of lead to displacement and whether that's
1:02:33
something the policy is going to be um effective in kind of dealing with. Um I
1:02:39
suppose over time that will be further um understood.
1:02:44
Obviously there's not just this policy there are other policies that apply to living conditions, people's amenities.
1:02:50
in terms of the implementation of of part four of the policy. Um not quite
1:02:56
sure I understand the point but um that seems to me one of sort of the the cornerstones of kind of planning
1:03:03
judgment is around kind of effects on people's living conditions. Um I don't know if the council's got a
1:03:09
view on just how you know the potential effectiveness of of that. It's I say it's it strikes me as a as a well
1:03:16
recognized and understood kind of criteria. Uh again, you have to provide the policy
1:03:23
foundation for the exercise of le discretion. Um and it does that um by reference to
1:03:31
the issues of noise and disturbance. Um there's not much more one could do
1:03:36
because of course the circumstances would vary quite considerably between one um example and and another.
1:03:47
Thank you. Um, councelor Stonehouse next please. If you use microphone to help.
1:03:53
Absolutely. Thank you very much, sir. Um,
1:04:00
we're talking about a balanced community here. Okay. Now, on on my discussion, I
1:04:07
want to give some examples. Um I've been a counselor and a candidate um for about
1:04:15
seven years around a beach road and my ward. So I I really know quite a lot
1:04:22
about the issues that uh residents permanent residents have had. So we'll
1:04:28
start off by talking about the HMO properties. Now
1:04:34
um the policy should not count the
1:04:40
buildings at all but the occupants um there are you know um HMOs all over
1:04:47
the town. Um one has actually 71 residents in them in it but it's not in
1:04:53
our ward. So in our ward in Beach Road alone, now this is a a chain of
1:05:01
beautiful um town houses. You know uh the history of the townhouse was the
1:05:08
fact that um affluent uh families but later on it was converted into uh guest
1:05:15
houses. Now the guest houses have depleted obviously and um so um the
1:05:23
actual area has changed considerably.
1:05:28
So in Beach Road alone there are nine HMO public homes totaling 98 adults.
1:05:37
supporting lives which are five beat uh properties in beach road for people
1:05:43
facing homelessness 50 adults pathways care group which are two houses
1:05:50
knocked in to one they have 22 adults
1:05:55
tine housing which is 55 beach road and seven Belgrave Terrace which is 5 meters
1:06:03
away from beach road they have 21 adults. So in total we have 17 HMOS
1:06:12
totaling 191 adults. Okay.
1:06:17
So we have not put this proposal hastily. It's not a case of nimiism. It's a
1:06:25
result of looking at the negative impacts on Southside which on which I
1:06:32
will go through and examining the problems behind the current planning
1:06:37
methodology of HMOs. The 10% figure
1:06:42
cannot hope to adequately meet this aim. The compromise we have settled on
1:06:49
reducing the figure to 5% rather than the number of buildings
1:06:55
rather than asking for entirely new methodology to be introduced um changing
1:07:02
the figure from the number of buildings to the total number of residents or
1:07:08
tailoring it to demographic uh figures for the area.
1:07:14
Overall, we agree with the general premise of policy 16.
1:07:20
This is that HMOs are problematic, that their planning and use needs to be
1:07:26
further regulated. Our proposal is simply a more logical means of achieving
1:07:32
this aim in a short time. Now, Beacon and Ben's ward, my ward
1:07:39
as a postcode, NE33 and NE332.
1:07:46
NE33 holds 85.5%
1:07:51
of the licensed HMO occupants in the burough. NE332 holds 24%.
1:07:59
Beach Road alone owns all holds 17.5%.
1:08:07
Now for nearly six years I've seen the issues on the wards deteriorate.
1:08:14
I've seen Brawls between residents from two separate HMOs.
1:08:20
Some of these vulnerable um residents have complex and mental needs and
1:08:26
addictions. They do not have the support of staff or management, which is one of my issues as
1:08:33
well. They are literally set out. They roam the building, the the towns,
1:08:41
and obviously they're angry. They've got no support. Some would intimidate
1:08:48
um residents in the town for money.
1:08:54
Um they lie in the road in Beach Road. I've
1:08:59
actually seen this high on drugs. Permission was granted to build an HMO
1:09:06
next to a nursery which later the nursery staff thankfully found drug
1:09:13
paraphernalia in the play area. All these incidents have been reported
1:09:20
by, you know, either from the police or to the police.
1:09:26
It's caused many residents to sell their homes at a loss just to get out of the
1:09:33
area. They know that, you know, um if you live next to an HMO, um you know,
1:09:39
your property goes down. They lo um businesses are losing money
1:09:44
from shoplifting. not to mention police hours.
1:09:52
September 23, the residents asked South Einside Council to undertake a housing
1:09:59
intensity study to confirm the number of HMO occupants in the ward. South Einside
1:10:05
Council declined. The community have repeatedly asked outside town council
1:10:12
um to amend the HMO policy to stop granting permission for more HMOs to be
1:10:18
built in the ward. Despite objections from the police, the residents and
1:10:23
ourselves, the counselors, Southside Council stated that there is nothing
1:10:30
they can do as the secretary of state will overturn the decision and Southside
1:10:36
Council will be fined. Um, our local MP Emil has raised an HMO
1:10:45
petition showing the wider strength of feeling to stop the overload of HMO
1:10:51
approval, strengthen the constituency.
1:10:56
As it stands, policy 16 is weak in legal terms. The topic paper is out of date.
1:11:05
Policy 16 needs improvement in planning terms. and um where licensed HMO or exempt HMO
1:11:16
such as housing style housing association style properties will be in
1:11:22
closing given an annual increase of 21%
1:11:28
in licensed HMOs over the last three years.
1:11:33
So it's increasing as of the 8th of July 2381
1:11:42
HMO maxlicicensed occupants as of the 15th of January 18 months
1:11:49
later 539 occupants.
1:11:56
On the 25th of September, we had 560
1:12:01
maxlic licensed occupants. This equates to an annual increase of
1:12:06
21.7 or an average of 6.9 HMO additional
1:12:13
licensed occupants per month, which translates to an average increase of 82
1:12:20
new licensed HMO occupants.
1:12:26
On average, I believe the problem here, we have HMOs that
1:12:33
actually have people who work, they just can can't get on the property ladder.
1:12:39
That's not a problem and we respect that and we respect the people for looking
1:12:44
after them. My issue is with um that a
1:12:50
lot of the residents have got severe mental addict, you know, mental health
1:12:56
or addictions. They need looking after. They're not looked after. But the people who have
1:13:04
these HMOs, some of the HMOs are laughing all the way to the bank.
1:13:10
they're not given any um support at all. Some of them, you know, they are. So, we
1:13:19
need to find out these people who are not supporting them and we need to have
1:13:25
concures in. We need to have 247 staff and that would that would help and
1:13:32
support them and also our residents. Now the the main I I'll keep talking about
1:13:38
Beach Road because that is where the houses have been converted all the way
1:13:44
along. Now I gave stats there of licensed premises. I think we have a
1:13:50
number as as I don't have the number of unlicensed premises but you can talk
1:13:57
about the majority of Beach Road not being that lovely pleasant
1:14:03
um drive down to the beach. It's just all people who need help.
1:14:11
Thank you. Thank you. Just want to pick out a couple of the issues that have been raised there for
1:14:16
for the council's um assistance, please. Um I've been invited there in terms of
1:14:23
policy H16. Another way of looking at the issue would be on an occupancy basis in terms of the number of of residents.
1:14:31
I mean I can see some practical difficulties or issues with such an
1:14:36
approach. Um I appreciate small in land use terms obviously small HMOs
1:14:43
which is the use class that if there wasn't an article 4 is generally is it three to six persons and then anything
1:14:50
above that would need planning permission anyway as a larger um HMO. Um
1:14:58
I say I mean my my my instinctive feel is occupancy would be very difficult to
1:15:04
to embed in a policy and kind of monitor effectively given potential comingings
1:15:10
and going and just fluidity in the occupancy of of stock.
1:15:16
Yes, we would agree with that. uh we we understand the issues and it's with the
1:15:24
greatest of respect that I think we must stick with the policy as it's drafted and the approach which has been taken as
1:15:30
providing a sound basis for planning control
1:15:36
and then councelor Stonehouse also referred to um well is there an alternative say 5% as being say the
1:15:44
threshold um we raised earlier that you know your options potentially around 20 or 10% I
1:15:49
mean is is 5% in effect likely to result in a a blanket ban when
1:15:55
you go down to that kind of threshold uh within the law top area probably yes
1:16:01
it would be quite restrictive um outside of that area um like we don't have
1:16:07
evidence for for concentrations that that would make a difference. Now the plan itself is applied to land
1:16:13
use. It um that's it's it its function and task. I think obviously councelor
1:16:20
Stonehouse has referred to other kind of issues. Presumably there are other regimes and other
1:16:26
um legislation that applies in terms of the the management of the HMO
1:16:35
stock. I appreciate some will be licensed and will be operating very effectively but in just in terms of I'm
1:16:42
just thinking about you know the boundaries and scope of this document and what it can do versus I'm probably
1:16:48
looking at Mrs. Dixon in terms of more widely what the council can do in terms of this this issue just very briefly
1:16:54
because I'm I'm mindful we need to go on to other issues. All we can do through this document is
1:17:00
regulate land use in terms of the council's ability either to grant
1:17:08
planning permission or to refuse planning permission and to some extent um deal with the way
1:17:18
in which uh permissions are implemented and thereafter carried out. Um there's
1:17:24
not much more we can do at this stage to regulate some of the issues which are common
1:17:32
place and which have been referred to which are the subject of other regimes including the licensing regime and also
1:17:39
common law regimes as well uh which deal with matters of nuisance for example.
1:17:48
Thank you. Has Mr. Shadraven covered what you were going to I turn to you Mr. Dixon. But
1:17:54
yes, I mean quite quickly just to say that yeah, obviously from a from a wider
1:18:00
council approach in addition to the to the local plan and the planning policies that we're talking about, obviously we
1:18:06
have other enforcement and support and strategies that would uh try and support some of the issues that councelor
1:18:12
Stonehouse has raised. Thank you. I made a note of the particular points you raised there,
1:18:19
councelor Stonehouse. I'll reflect on them further. Um, there are other other
1:18:24
issues other than HMOs we need to discuss this morning, but do you feel that you've had that you've said what
1:18:29
you wanted to sort of bring to my attention this morning? Yeah, I mean, sorry.
1:18:36
Yes, sir. Um, we suggested the 5% rule for the low top. That's fair enough. But
1:18:42
in hindsight, I would not like a repeat of these issues whereby the residents are not
1:18:50
thought about. It's all money. It's where can we put these people in and you
1:18:56
know that will be fine, but it's the impact that these people have and the
1:19:01
impact that they're not getting the support they require. Okay. So, thank
1:19:08
you. Thank you for that. If there's nothing further then on HMOs I'm going to move
1:19:13
on uh in terms of the agenda. It's item three um housing for uh older uh people.
1:19:26
Obviously the national planning policy framework um requires planning to
1:19:31
consider the needs of different groups in the community including older persons.
1:19:37
um often brought to my attention other appeal case work that the planning
1:19:43
practice guidance talks about the need of older persons um housing being critical.
1:19:50
Obviously we live in a a time of an aging um population. It's probably
1:19:55
likely that older age cohorts are going to kind of grow over the plan um period
1:20:01
um and therefore is there going to be um an effective kind of policy framework
1:20:07
that's going to help meet the needs of older persons. That was my MIQ
1:20:13
um 7.5. It's picked up at policy uh 17 in terms
1:20:19
of the uh of the plan itself. So in terms of the council first in terms of you know the effectiveness of policy 17
1:20:27
supporting proposals for older person's accommodation when they come forward please.
1:20:35
Yeah. So the the schma clearly evidence evidences a need and a demand for specialist and adaptable housing. Um and
1:20:42
it highlights an increasing need for residential care bed spaces, extra care units and specialist older persons
1:20:48
accommodation. Um, policy 17 aims to meet that housing need by supporting
1:20:54
extra care and supported housing coming forward sort of in the right locations in sustainable locations and where they
1:21:01
can integrate into the into the residential community. Um, and it sort of ensures that
1:21:08
sorry just distracted um where that that those developments come forward that
1:21:14
they're in the right place. They've got access to community facilities to sustainable um
1:21:19
and accessible public transport. Thank you. I don't Is anybody else
1:21:26
struggling to hit with this? I mean, I don't know what it seems to be getting louder.
1:21:31
Yeah, having too much fun next door. Sorry.
1:21:52
I think we are we're about an hour or so in. It's probably slightly earlier than I was anticipating taking a break, but I
1:21:59
think I'm I'm being distracted as well by the the volume of noise and presumably
1:22:04
people who are sitting on the back row are probably more more exposed to what's going on behind you than than we are out
1:22:09
here. So what I'm going to suggest is if we take the midm morning adjournment slightly earlier. Uh it's coming up to
1:22:16
25 to 11. If I can ask people to be back in this room at 102 and hopefully that'll give the hotel sufficient time
1:22:22
to seal us in. Thank you.
1:36:07
Okay, it's 10 to 11. So, time to resume this uh hearing into the examination of
1:36:12
the South Tide local plan. I understand we are we are now uh soundproofed and
1:36:17
sealed in um to this room. Hopefully uh people can kind of follow um the
1:36:22
proceedings both uh online and uh in the room. So um thank you for getting uh
1:36:29
that uh that resolved. Before we took the break, we just started the discussion on item three of the agenda
1:36:36
um housing for older people. Um and I'd heard from the council in terms of their
1:36:41
view on the um the effectiveness of policy um 17 in the plan on specialist
1:36:48
housing, extra care and supported housing in terms of the scope or the
1:36:54
remit of this policy for the council before I bring in um other people. Is it intended? I mean, older person's housing
1:37:01
can cover a vast uh spectrum of kind of house types. Um,
1:37:08
can often be a a naughty issue as to whether something falls within uh a
1:37:13
residential use or whether it's in the um the kind of the um extra care
1:37:19
institutional type land use. The way I'm looking at this policy, I can certainly see it applying more to towards the kind
1:37:26
of the extra care, more supported living kind of spectrum. Is it a policy that would also be intended to apply to those
1:37:33
who are coming forward with say what commonly described as kind of retirement living scheme? So there might be an age
1:37:38
occupancy condition and there may be an element of on-site
1:37:44
kind of support or um an on-site manager. or is it intended to also apply to that type of development?
1:37:52
Yeah, so the policy is intended to support any type of specialist housing or supported housing. So whether that's
1:37:58
on a wider residential scheme or a specific extra care scheme,
1:38:07
excuse me, in terms of my agenda and and the MIQ's MIQ 7.6 and then I will bring
1:38:13
in uh other people. We discussed this also yesterday when we were looking at specific site delivery. So the plan
1:38:20
makes some positive identification in terms of allocations for uh older
1:38:25
persons um accommodation at various various um sites and I think I heard
1:38:31
yesterday uh they're now most of those are now actually coming to to fruition fairly
1:38:38
fairly quickly. Um obviously that's part of the um potential um um delivery. Uh
1:38:49
are there any other sites or areas that the council's kind of positively um
1:38:54
identified or any of the other allocations anticipated to bring forward an element
1:39:00
of um specialist housing provision? Um, so as the plan was being prepared, the
1:39:06
three sites that are identified in the plan has been for extra care with the only sites that are sort of specifically
1:39:13
identified. But as we picked up on yesterday, a lot of the sites in SP4 are
1:39:18
council owned. So that's not to say that they can't come forward for that type of use or they won't come forward. Um and I
1:39:25
think you know we've seen that the apartments at Tutor Reed have got permission and um apartments at Heaven
1:39:31
have been new town and I think that just shows that the council does work proactively to bring these sites forward
1:39:40
and in terms of delivery I mean it's it's um as you refer to Miss Miss Cooper
1:39:46
I mean the council could have control over certain sites particular if it's in its ownership in my experience a lot of
1:39:53
um older person's housing comes forward from the market. They tend to prefer
1:39:59
not exclusively but certainly will take on kind of windfall sites that they want to see um re redeveloped. Um, in my
1:40:09
reading of the policy, there's nothing to preclude if somebody came forward with a scheme on one of the allocated
1:40:14
sites within the plan for housing. Um, that would, I say, stop or prevent an
1:40:21
old person's housing scheme being part of that and presumably subject to the
1:40:26
precise form it takes contributing positively to the overall housing numbers. If a if a proposal came forward
1:40:34
on one of the allocated sites um housing sites um this policy would
1:40:41
support that. Thank you. If I can bring in um other
1:40:48
people on this. I'm going to start with um on my left the East Balden um
1:40:54
community. I'll start with Mr. Hutcherson and then Mr. Butler in terms of your representations and I think you
1:41:00
are seeking a sort of a positive identification or positive um allowance
1:41:07
for kind of older persons housing within your community. Yes, thank you sir. Um that's correct.
1:41:14
I'd like to start though by um making a general point that was put forward by
1:41:19
the Fabian Society in a document called a vision of aging at home which I think
1:41:25
sets you know an interesting background for what we're discussing this morning. Um the report stated that building the
1:41:33
right homes in the right places helps people to live independently for longer.
1:41:39
More suitable housing delays the onset of care needs and at the same time as promoting independence.
1:41:46
Building the right homes in the right places by offering more appropriate new build options frees up existing housing.
1:41:54
Very often larger properties much sought after by younger families. Increasing
1:41:59
proportion of owner occer owner occupiers who move each year has many
1:42:05
benefits. However, if this is to be achieved, not only must there be suitable new build options, but those
1:42:11
properties must be built where people actually want them. Very often, this
1:42:16
will be within their existing community where they have family ties and friendships. And that's why ensuring
1:42:23
that suitable accommodation for the elderly is directed to where it is needed on a sightby-sight basis is so
1:42:32
important. Now to specifically um respond to the to
1:42:38
your question in relation to paragraph 7.11
1:42:43
um the South China side 2023 strategic
1:42:50
strategic housing market assessment report in its final comments identifies
1:42:56
that ensuring that housing and support needs of older people are met going forward as one of the three main
1:43:02
challenges. And I think that's a really important point and it's key to the whole issue that we're debating this
1:43:08
morning. The report provides clear evidence base for the type of housing required and the
1:43:15
scope of the provision needed for older people. Paragraph 8 of the draft local
1:43:21
plan identifies the difficulties that the local authority has. This says while
1:43:27
most of the development within the planned period will be carried out by private developers, it is still
1:43:33
important that an appropriate mix of housing is developed to meet the housing need. East Ben Forum contends that while
1:43:42
policies 17 and 19 are very well intentioned, without further amendment,
1:43:48
they will be ineffective in meeting the challenge identified by the strategic housing market assessment. it will not
1:43:56
secure the housing ident the identified housing need for the elderly.
1:44:01
The council's response to the inspector's question 7.5 and 7.6 does
1:44:08
not demonstrate how the extent of need that is being identified will be met in
1:44:13
a tangible way. It's it provides more of a general approach to this issue.
1:44:19
Planning practice guidance is also very clear when it addresses this question and again I'm quoting here. Do plans
1:44:27
need to allocate sites for specialist housing for older people? It states it
1:44:34
is up to the planning making body to decide whether to allocate sites for specialist housing for older people.
1:44:41
Allocating sites can provide greater certainty for developers and encourage
1:44:46
the provision of sites in suitable locations. It adds this may be appropriate where
1:44:51
there is an identified unmet need for specialist housing.
1:44:56
East Ben Forum believes that policy 17 and 19 need to be amended so that they
1:45:03
are more directional and signal where and what is needed.
1:45:08
Policy 19, for example, could include the requirement that accommodation for
1:45:13
the elderly be provided as identified in policies listed under the strategic
1:45:19
allocations. In its regulation 19 response, East
1:45:24
Balden Forum suggested that policy SP7 be expanded to include the
1:45:30
identification of suitable sites where appropriate accommodation for the elderly could be provided. and this be
1:45:37
included as a key consideration for the respective site.
1:45:45
In its statement to the inspector, the forums made the point that evidence seems to suggest that windfall sites are
1:45:51
becoming smaller and it's the case that these sites tend to be in areas where the council owns the h own where the
1:45:59
council owns housing stock or the land. In areas such as Cle in East Balden,
1:46:06
it's unlikely that opportunities will present themselves which would allow specialist housing to come forward by
1:46:12
this means and therefore the sites identified in the local plan represent
1:46:17
the best and perhaps only chance of addressing the housing identified need.
1:46:24
Now finally to answer your specific question 3.3
1:46:30
the forum argues that specific provision for older housing older person's housing
1:46:35
is needed at any bolden and could be provided on site GA2 land at North Farm.
1:46:43
Thank you. Thank you. I will hear from Mr. Butler
1:46:48
next and then bring some of those points back um to the council. Mr. Butler, please. Uh thank you sir. Um in in the
1:46:56
response uh from the news and labor party um to uh policy 19 uh we consider
1:47:04
that it did not meet identified needs for the accommodation of people in the burough and we believe that is our view
1:47:11
that this also applies to policy 17. U you've uh directed us to paragraph 62 of
1:47:18
the MPPF and we've also had reference to the planning policy guidance. It's clear
1:47:23
to us uh that the plan is not doing enough to provide uh accommodation for
1:47:28
older people. The evidence in the strategic housing market assessment is clear. At table 5.4, it sets out an
1:47:36
assessment of need of different point types of older persons accommodation. In total, it recognizes the projected
1:47:43
shortfall of 3,361 units across all classes of
1:47:48
accommodation for the elderly by 2040. There's a real unmet need in this
1:47:53
burough and and we believe uh that it it
1:47:59
should be uh looked at further. In terms of our own ward, uh we have uh a number
1:48:05
of what you've termed retirement living schemes which are successful. Uh they
1:48:11
have very few vacancies. Two of them in East Balden are very close to the uh
1:48:17
metro station and the uh shopping area. Yet we found uh with the proposed
1:48:22
developers at Cleven Lane that we could not persuade them in our consultation with them to look at provision for older
1:48:30
people despite the evidence uh of successful schemes nearby and and in
1:48:36
answer again uh to your question. We believe uh that uh the site there and if
1:48:45
you do allocate the site at North Farm that provision for older person's
1:48:50
accommodation should very much be part of the key consideration and we don't feel uh the council is doing enough to
1:48:57
direct the market towards this uh area. You've heard the benefits of bringing
1:49:03
forward accommodation. Uh people uh in the older population look to downsize
1:49:10
and release their larger properties for family use. This helps uh the housing problem in the burough. So from those
1:49:17
points of view uh we don't consider policy 17 to be effective, justified or positively prepared uh as it stands and
1:49:24
would like to see uh those amendments. Thank you.
1:49:30
Thank you. I'll bring in others um shortly, but if I can turn to the council on some of those points um that
1:49:36
have been raised that were raised in uh respective kind of statements and original representations and appreciate
1:49:42
notwithstanding what I heard at stage one hearings about concerns about the proposed allocations
1:49:50
at um East Balden uh and Cleon. um if those
1:49:56
sites were to go forward, you know, could there be a more positive uh approach uh in terms of what could be
1:50:03
provided uh on those sites from the perspective of kind of local communities in terms of
1:50:08
a modification to identify within the key considerations for those certainly
1:50:14
for the Balden site something that reflected um the need for
1:50:19
older um persons accommodation. Would that be necessary for soundness?
1:50:27
Um, the council considers that policies 17, 19, and 20 all kind of work together
1:50:33
to ensure that older person's accommodation and accessible accommodation will be delivered where
1:50:39
it's needed on a sort of sightby-sight basis. Um, so we don't consider it necessary for SAS to include that in
1:50:45
their key considerations. I think those policies quite strong, especially when they're looked at together.
1:50:53
Thank you. I mean the council's approach to some extent
1:51:02
reflects kind of the national planning policies I've been referred to in terms of you know considering whether sites should be allocated and some have where
1:51:09
the council's in control. One of the other modifications that's been um suggested to me in that exchange is
1:51:16
perhaps a sort of more direct cross reference or signpost within either policy 19
1:51:23
potentially policy 17 that the proposed allocations within the plan could be
1:51:32
I appreciate the council might tell me it's it's kind of in there anyway and it would be you know one of the one of the
1:51:37
allocations in the plan would invariably meet all the criteria or certainly the criterion um
1:51:44
part one of policy 17, but whether it would be necessary or effective to kind
1:51:50
of have a more kind of um overt cross reference to say the site
1:51:55
allocations in the plan are an opportunity to make provision for
1:52:01
some of this this identified need.
1:52:06
Um I think in terms of the key considerations we were obviously mindful not to just repeat the policies that are
1:52:14
already in the plan. Um and sort of look at site specific issues such as you know
1:52:19
flood risk. Um so I don't think we'd sort of wanted to go down the road of
1:52:25
just putting in key considerations that are already picked up within the policies elsewhere in the plan.
1:52:33
I wondered if it was more from what I'm hearing from um the forum and from the Labor Party.
1:52:40
Obviously, their correct me if I'm wrong, but I think their their sort of sequence is they
1:52:46
would like to see something within policy G2 for Balden or G um potentially
1:52:52
G4 for u around this is provision of older
1:52:58
person's housing will be one of the key um considerations and I think hear from the council. Well, we might we don't
1:53:03
need to do that for soundness. There are other policies. There's the other way of looking at it under policy 17 to say,
1:53:10
you know, explicitly we would support if it came forward
1:53:15
subject to obviously all the other kind of policy criteria, but nonetheless, we would positively support
1:53:21
older persons accommodation as part of the mix of housing on any of the kind of
1:53:27
the allocated sites.
1:53:35
I think a modification like that could be introduced without the necessity actually to identify that particular use
1:53:42
within the allocations itself. we could do that and that would also provide a
1:53:49
degree of discretion as to um the amount to be brought forward on those sites,
1:53:54
the number of developments of that type to be be brought forward on those sites rather than trying to ascertain what it
1:54:00
might be at this stage. So we could certainly do that. Um and that could
1:54:07
actually be incorporated into either policy 17 or 19. So let us give it some thought. I'm not
1:54:14
going to volunteer a mod at this moment, but let's let's give that some thought.
1:54:21
The point was put to me, I mean, policy 17 uh and I I referred to kind of, you
1:54:26
know, this kind of provision has historically come forward through sort of the windfall um route. I think the
1:54:33
point that's been put to me is I think this is a uh an issue for this plan and the
1:54:39
particular circumstances that windfall um
1:54:46
given the kind of various uh other factors, it's perhaps not as um generous
1:54:52
as it could be in other lo locations uh in terms of how can housing be delivered
1:54:59
outside of potential allocations. I think kind of have various sessions now. I think it was referenced yesterday, you
1:55:05
know, the council to quote Mr. Eton has kind of squeezed pips of kind of what you can get out of the main kind of
1:55:11
urban areas. um it's kind of what what tools are left and it does seem that the allocations
1:55:18
are one potential avenue um that's available. So I think I am
1:55:23
looking to the council for some that that kind of signpost and I think having regard to the fact
1:55:29
that the allocations are being identified as as a means of moving this
1:55:34
forward um policy 19 would be the better policy in which to deal with that.
1:55:54
Okay. Just thank you Mr. Butler again, please. Uh, yes. Thank you, sir, and thank you
1:56:00
for for that direction and thank you to the council for for being able to now uh
1:56:05
some flexibility. I think our communities feel that if they're going to have the amount of housing brought to
1:56:12
them that this plan would allocate and we're talking here of 420 houses in the
1:56:17
ward in and then we have the issue of uh
1:56:23
what happens with with Cleven Lane as well. um that um the type of housing uh
1:56:29
that the market at the moment uh wants to bring to communities doesn't reflect
1:56:35
the need in the communities and therefore we want to see more direction taken and I think if it can be done via
1:56:41
this policy that would be very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. If I can bring in others now.
1:56:48
So uh Mr. Martin with a new hat I think.
1:56:56
Yes sir. Um I think as the HBF we do support housing
1:57:01
that meets the needs of the elderly. Um but I think if you start directing
1:57:08
specific requirements for the elderly to existing allocations, it could have a bit more of
1:57:15
an outsized effect than anticipated because it may well ch change overall
1:57:20
site capacities. It could be viability implications because you're talking about a slightly different product here.
1:57:26
And if you've got a a plan where the headroom is quite limited in terms of the requirements versus um the uh the
1:57:34
allocations and the other sources of supply, any change in things like site capacities could be quite
1:57:42
detrimental to the plan being able to meet its needs over over the period. Um
1:57:49
I think really the the the PPG is quite
1:57:54
clear on this that if there's um a need for this type of housing it should be
1:57:59
specific site should be al identified for it for that specific use um and that
1:58:06
will provide great certainty for those developers to bring those sites forward. I think putting them into an existing
1:58:13
allocation could create deliverability issues with those with those operators.
1:58:19
Um so it would be something a policy I think that would facilitate potentially
1:58:24
elderly accommodation would add flexibility but mandating it on certain sites I think could be quite
1:58:31
problematic. Thank you. I mean I wasn't thinking around the lines of potentially
1:58:37
mandating. It's just a a signal that if somebody did come forward on one of the
1:58:42
allocated sites and felt well we've looked at the situation maybe they've spoken as part of preapp
1:58:49
but initial discussions to East Balden and other communities and there's a real sense that um there's a scheme here um
1:58:57
that could include an element of um specialist housing there's an extra layer somewhere within the plan that
1:59:03
would say if there would be a policy to to support I'm I'm slightly curious about this
1:59:10
point that it might affect site capacities and overall viability. Um
1:59:16
obviously the person's accommodation can be built in a kind of a relatively kind
1:59:22
of dense form. It may provide another kind of um revenue stream um for that particular
1:59:29
site. um you might be closer to kind of site and development economics, but my
1:59:34
my instinct was it may not necessarily harm site delivery numbers or viability.
1:59:42
Um it depends, doesn't it? Because I mean, as we've mentioned earlier, the accommodation, elderly accommodation is
1:59:50
a wide spectrum. If you've got specific um house types like that are need that
1:59:57
are there for elderly elderly people that could be things like bungalows which are a lot more land hungry than um
2:00:04
for instance a house. Um if you're building some flats, normal residential
2:00:09
flats, you would probably be able to get more um more in there than uh ones that
2:00:15
are specifically elderly people because they tend to be need to be a bit larger to uh accommodate the needs of those
2:00:21
people. So it fundamentally it can change quite dramatically how a site
2:00:27
works and how a site functions. Um and in a viability terms, you're you're sort
2:00:33
of narrowing the market as the kind of people who might well take up those
2:00:38
those um those those units. So it is it's it's a difficult one. Uh and it's
2:00:45
one that I think could be quite detrimental to the plan. But yeah, it was a an answer to the 7.6 because I
2:00:51
know it was mentioned about putting it on allocated sites. So, as I said, my
2:00:56
our view was I think a policy to facilitate elderly accommodation. I think that's has its merits and I don't
2:01:02
think there's necessarily anything in the plan that would prevent an operator doing that anyway. Uh, but putting that
2:01:09
clarity in is is good. It's it's it's just the the um make you know insisting
2:01:15
that a certain percentage for instance is on the site would be something we couldn't support.
2:01:20
Thank you. Understood. um come back to Mr. Butler then I will
2:01:26
bring in councelor Kilgore
2:01:37
housing mix sorry I can't agree with Mr. Martin uh about this situation. We're going to come on to discuss the housing
2:01:42
mix later. Um but we can have a situation certainly take your point on
2:01:49
density. I mean we're looking at the type of u retirement apartment blocks that we have in uh the ward threetory uh
2:01:57
high density. Yes, they require some landscaping and and parking around them. And I would I would direct anyone to
2:02:03
look at a scheme at the close in Balden Lane and Cleon where you have very uh uh
2:02:10
good um uh types of housing alongside
2:02:15
this uh apartment block and and the scheme works very well indeed. And I can't see the reason why uh the
2:02:23
development industry isn't looking at this type of thing. they're they're single-minded in looking at uh their
2:02:30
type of family executive housing and not looking at the the uh requirements of
2:02:36
the local communities. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Kilgore. Next,
2:02:43
please. Thank you, sir. Um I I couldn't agree more with my colleagues to the right there. Um I think SP8 um does not tick
2:02:52
any of the boxes that we're looking at in in these subsequent policies this morning. Um with regards to older
2:02:59
persons accommodation, we've seen the need in the draft local plan and and the mention of you know how many residents
2:03:05
we have 70 um you know years and over. Um there is no provision in that site
2:03:13
and actually you know to be quite bold about it I would like to see some mandation. I'm not so sure how we could
2:03:19
do that but I don't think um it is strong enough to facilitate the needs of
2:03:26
of the housing of the demand for our communities and certainly not to the detriment of losing uh green belt space
2:03:34
as a result of that. Um if we look at the policies as we go through and I know Mr. has mentioned about the the housing
2:03:41
type and tenure etc. there is there is a huge railing against on SP8 um to meet
2:03:48
the 25% affordable housing let alone um the looking at the accommodation with
2:03:55
regards to wheelchair access for the first homes etc etc so I would
2:04:02
absolutely welcome um further mandation on that we can't have um a local plan
2:04:09
that's fit for the future if it doesn't recognize the needs of now and the
2:04:14
future and and unfortunately site SP8 um does not recognize that need at all in
2:04:22
my opinion and it doesn't promote inclusivity. You can't have um bespoke
2:04:29
elements of a site particularly that large whereas you know the the the
2:04:35
shopping area is in a distinct area. the um the hub if you like is on the edge of
2:04:43
that um provision. It's it's not inclusive. It's not opened up. We see um
2:04:49
developments like this all of the time where the um affordable rent and the
2:04:55
affordable to buy are in separate parts of those estates. They are distinctive.
2:05:00
They are not inclusive. They are not collective. And I don't think in any
2:05:06
which way um shape or form this should be also allowed to be um devolved by way
2:05:12
of 106 monies. I think the need is categorically there. We see also the
2:05:18
need of residents wanting to remain at home. So not necessarily in specialist
2:05:23
accommodation but maybe remain in their own home um on a development. We need to
2:05:30
be able to facilitate that by way of accessibility. It mentions as well about
2:05:36
the 20% of vacancies in residential care and nursing care. We need to be
2:05:42
providing accommodation not only of that nature to a high uh spec but also to the
2:05:50
individual homes and yes I understand um bungalows are land hungry but this is
2:05:55
about the need of the community and not profit. Thank you.
2:06:01
Thank you. Um I'll bring in M. Is it Mr. Conroy? And then I'll hear from others, please.
2:06:07
I'll go back to the council. Thank you, sir. Um I think there was a
2:06:12
slight conflation there between discussing housing for older people and then slightly verging into affordable housing, which I'll I'll park that
2:06:19
matter for now and we'll we'll discuss that in uh in matter for shortly. Just turning to uh the points raised by
2:06:25
councelor Kilgawa. I just raised that criterion five part I of SP8 does make
2:06:31
reference to the provision of a wider mix of house types and sizes and then
2:06:37
there is explicit reference to policies 19 and 20 within policy SP8 there. Now
2:06:43
of course when an application does come forward on on SP8 in the future that
2:06:48
application would not simply be assessed against SP8 of course it would be assessed against a wider range of DM
2:06:55
policies. So we consider the wording that is currently in SP8 to be sufficient uh and flexible enough to
2:07:01
allow for changes to future need which may come forward as part of future schmars for example.
2:07:07
Thank you Mr. com discussing with the council a moment ago a potential modification that they're
2:07:12
going to go away and think about in terms of within I think council's looking potentially at policy 19 sort of
2:07:18
a cross reference back that if a proposal comes forward that contains an element of um older person's housing it
2:07:25
will be supported on particular um sites if that's part of an an
2:07:31
appropriate kind of mix for that site I mentioned kind of just loosely allocations I probably had in my mind
2:07:37
the sites that are in SP 7 and SP7A and SP8
2:07:45
uh in terms of the larger
2:07:50
um your comments have just reflected something I've just discussed.
2:07:55
Um can I thank you. Um, so what what's going through my mind at
2:08:03
the moment is um a modification to policy 19 for the
2:08:09
reasons I've already expressed by adding a further criterion at the bottom of that policy.
2:08:16
It would need refinement and would need also f further consideration to consider what
2:08:22
the implications of it might be. Um but
2:08:27
um a provision which um provides that in relation to accommodation for the
2:08:33
elderly including the provision of extra care accommodation.
2:08:39
Such accommodation will be encouraged on sites allocated in the plan and again we can actually focus that if we need to
2:08:48
um in the plan for residential development even if the notional dwelling capacity of the allocated site
2:08:54
this is important um is higher than indicated in the relevant
2:09:01
policy. I'll explain why I've put that in. Um, and the criteria of policy 17 and other
2:09:09
relevant policies in the plan are satisfied. The reason I put that in, of course, is because the density implications of
2:09:18
including extra care, for example, might push the number up beyond the
2:09:24
notional capacity as identified in the allocation. And we don't want that to act as some
2:09:31
kind of unnecessary restriction in circumstances where the um additional
2:09:38
dwellings would be acceptable. So that's what we're thinking about at the moment, but it needs a bit of
2:09:43
refinement. We need to think it through. So I can't on behalf of a local planning authority make any promises about it,
2:09:50
but it's it's a way forward. Thank you,
2:09:58
Mr. Conroy. You're looking quizzical. Thank you, sir. Um, we'd be encouraged
2:10:03
to see any draft wording that the council will put forwards, I assume, as part of a modification to to policy 19.
2:10:09
In that respect, again, I' I'd be slightly cautious to mandate a requirement, particularly within within
2:10:15
SP8, as you'll be aware, being the largest allocation in the plan, being a phased allocation, which is going to
2:10:20
come forward over a number of years, to mandate uh an exact amount at this stage
2:10:25
when this site may be 10, 15 years in the making. um we feel that would be unduly prescriptive and arguably
2:10:32
unjustified and as my colleague Mr. Martin points out there may be associated viability constraints delays
2:10:39
to to the you know the preparation and and the the future adoption of the plan in that respect which uh given we're at
2:10:44
stage two I'm sure we're all keen to avoid so for that reason I think the wording is sufficient for the for the
2:10:49
time being thank you and the word viability has been raised a couple times Mr. you you
2:10:55
had your name play up a while ago. I don't know if the moment's passed and it's kind of whether there's just a
2:11:00
brief point you wanted to bring in on on this particular issue. Yeah, it was the word viability it sort of stirred me.
2:11:07
Um I it was really just just to make the point that in the original viability
2:11:12
testing from December 2021, there was some viability testing done for
2:11:17
retirement departments that was factored into the modeling and it did show some vi positive viability outcomes. Again it
2:11:24
depended on dependent on the assumptions which we'll go into shortly I'm sure but it was just if that was helpful from
2:11:30
your perspective. Just um keen to move the discussion
2:11:36
along so it's a brief point again councelor Kilgore. Thank you sir. Um I would just refer
2:11:43
back to um the response um from Saviles at matter 7 with regards to um the real
2:11:52
um problems that they um seem to suggest about viability on um providing the 25%
2:11:59
affordable housing let alone um any other provision. And of course, we're
2:12:05
looking at not only older person's accommodation, but specialist accommodation by way of children's homes
2:12:12
and children's facilities and things like that. So, it's much broader than that. And I think um we absolutely do
2:12:20
need to see a requirement particularly um on a scale of 1,200 homes, you know,
2:12:27
um muttered for that particular site. And I would just you know ask um sir that that you look at again which I know
2:12:36
you you will have digested the statement from um Saviles on that around all of
2:12:42
the different viability concerns that they have at this very late stage and
2:12:48
there has to be room um for consideration of those very much needed.
2:12:54
it it's it's got to be fit for purpose and I'm afraid it's not fit for purpose
2:12:59
if it's structured around unaffordable um homes of a certain type that doesn't
2:13:06
meet the criteria that could well be um mitigated by a 106 agreement that
2:13:11
doesn't have the infrastructure or that is not inclusive. Okay, we're probably sort of slightly widening out from probably where I
2:13:18
wanted to be for for this session. Um so hold those thoughts. We're obviously
2:13:23
going to pick up fellgate tomorrow morning and there'll be an issue around I think the final point on that is around deliverability. We've also got
2:13:30
plan viabil more plan viability discussion more generally uh next week as part of the final week and I expect
2:13:37
it will also be raised on Friday when we look at inf infrastructure. Casa Kilgore did raise a further point
2:13:43
that I do want to pick up in terms of the final part of policy 17 in terms of accommodation
2:13:49
um seeking to deliver and promote independent living. My understanding was there very much a kind of a sequence
2:13:55
that policies beyond planning will seek to kind of encourage or enable people to
2:14:02
live at home uh and independently for as long as possible. The way I'd read
2:14:07
policy two, uh, so criterion two of policy 17 is that people want to adapt
2:14:14
and and amend their properties, there's generally a positive framework, um, to
2:14:19
do that. I think there was a slight concern I think in some of the representations that policy the final
2:14:25
part of policy 2 could be used to secure developer contributions
2:14:30
um for that aim and objective in terms of um if there's any kind of program to adapt existing homes
2:14:38
terms of the council in the first instance in terms of have I read the final parts policy two is kind of final
2:14:46
criterion two of policy 17 being about supporting ing people to adapt their
2:14:51
homes or is or is the council looking at developer contributions?
2:14:58
Sorry, no, you you're correct in assuming the policy sort of seeking to promote people adapting their homes or
2:15:05
pro development providing adaptable homes on site.
2:15:11
Thank you. Are there any further points people wish to raise on policy 17 before I move on?
2:15:18
No. Which case come to policy 18. It's affordable housing. Item four on the
2:15:24
agenda. Um the council's put forward uh a policy that sets out
2:15:31
uh various requirements. uh I think as a
2:15:37
starting point um in terms of where the policy or the
2:15:43
thresholds upon which the the policy seeking provision accord with national planning policy
2:15:49
um is probably part three of the policy that um introduces the more kind of
2:15:56
local uh aspect or flavor to this um this policy and I just ask from the council
2:16:03
in followup to my MIQs 7.7 and 7.8 as to whether policy 18
2:16:09
strikes the kind of the appropriate balance. I'm looking at the need for affordable housing viability
2:16:16
um considerations um that it's going to support wider
2:16:21
housing delivery and an appropriate level of affordable housing by these different areas which I assume reflect
2:16:28
kind of um market values um across the burough. So if we can invite the council
2:16:35
first whe it's Mr. New or Yeah. Yeah. I'll jump in if that's okay. Um so so
2:16:42
yeah there's there's two elements really to to this for consideration in from my perspective and that is first about the
2:16:50
um the splitting the areas into different value zones. So that's one part of this and then the second part
2:16:56
which is your MIQ 7.8 eight is are the level of those affordable housing uh
2:17:02
provisions are they suitable? Um before I answer both of those I just wanted to
2:17:08
give an overview to yourself and to everyone in in the room about the viability testing process and what it
2:17:13
involves and I'll try and be very quick and I know this can be quite detailed um but the first thing to just stress the
2:17:21
approach involves primarily typology testing that's what we have to look at. So we cannot test every single site
2:17:28
that's obviously going to come forward in the future. We have to make an assumption about the type of development
2:17:34
that is likely to come forward. So we're making a reasonable judgment as to what those typologies in include. For
2:17:40
example, we've looked at a site of 30 dwellings. We've looked at a development of 80 dwellings. So we've tried to
2:17:48
change the typologies reflective of quantum. So have that in your mind. The
2:17:53
second point is that the viability review process itself is iterative. So
2:17:58
we we start at we make assumptions, we engage with stakeholders and we move
2:18:03
through the process and we make what we consider to be reasonable adjustments as as we go through the process. So the
2:18:09
initial viability testing as part of this wider process, the plan plan viability testing dates back to December
2:18:16
2021 and that's P25 in in the in the library.
2:18:21
So that's the first stab at viability if you like and when I say stab I mean a bit flippantly because it was a 100 odd
2:18:28
page report so there's a lot of detail in there. The other point to make so I'm
2:18:33
sorry just going back so we 2021 we did some testing updated in 2023 and then as
2:18:39
the inspector um stated from the outset we've also done some uh testing in 2025
2:18:45
after the initial stage one examination. Um the third point just to make is that
2:18:52
any viability testing any valuation exercise is a snapshot in time. So it's reflective of the market conditions at
2:19:00
that point. We cannot predict the future in terms of whether the market will get better or worse. We have to reflect
2:19:06
what's on the ground at that moment in time. And that again that's really important to have in in your mind. There
2:19:12
are market challenges out there at the moment and there have been for for a few years now. So that is in the back of the
2:19:18
council's mind when they're looking to set policy. Clearly an affordable housing policy has to be deliverable and
2:19:25
justified, but it also cannot be set too high and cannot be set too low. It has to be reasonably balanced over the
2:19:31
lifetime of the plan. So that was again something something to to to bear in mind.
2:19:37
Um the other point I just wanted to make before I answer the two the two elements of the questions the assumptions that go
2:19:43
into the viability of test testing have to be reasonable and they have to be based on some for form of evidence but
2:19:50
also from my perspective we have to adopt what what we consider to be a cautious approach. We have to build in
2:19:57
buffers if you like into the modeling to allow some stress for different market
2:20:02
conditions going forward. So just taking some examples. So in the typologies
2:20:08
we've got a density assumption of 35 dwellings per net hectare. Clearly that will fluctuate from site to site when
2:20:15
sites come forward and it may be that higher densities can be delivered. It may be lower densities with with larger
2:20:21
houses etc. So we have to make an assumption but I think there is some flex there on the densities that could
2:20:27
help viability. Just wanted to stress as well, we I think that we're going to pick up this
2:20:32
point later on, but the accessibility and adaptability standard that's in the base typology modeling at the moment is
2:20:40
actually more ownorous than what the current policy is saying. So, we've assumed M43, which is the um of the
2:20:49
accessibility and adaptability standards. We've assumed that this applies to 13% of the dwellings on the
2:20:55
scheme. Well, actually the council's policy is at 5%. So, so we've we've been
2:21:01
overly cautious in that assumption in the typology testing. Um, we've also
2:21:06
assumed in the modeling the most policies that are available to go into
2:21:13
the into the testing. So, for example, we've got education, we've got open space, we've got the suds are in there.
2:21:20
We we've tried to maximize the policy assumptions in the testing again to
2:21:25
stress test those. In reality when each site comes forward it will be on a sight
2:21:30
per sight basis as to whether an education provision is required and the level so so in other words on the ground
2:21:38
when these init the individual sites come forward the level of the the policy requirements could be lower and that
2:21:45
would help viability and then just a couple of quick other points profit I mean we'll get different
2:21:51
views around the room I know we will um all I can say is from my professional perspective I think I've been cautious.
2:21:58
So the majority of the typologies, so this is the 80, 125, 250, and 500
2:22:04
dwelling typologies, I've assumed a 20% developer profit. The planning practice
2:22:09
guidance states that profit should range from 15 to 20% on revenue. So at 20% on
2:22:16
revenue for the majority, I've assumed the top end of the range. So in my eyes, that's cautious. And I just, you know,
2:22:23
for for context, I work with about 50 local authorities across the country and we do planning stage viability testing
2:22:30
and I do see a range of of profit. It's not all 20% that you know, we'll we'll see them across that range of 15 to 20%.
2:22:37
So again, hopefully just giving the impression of of caution and and a buffer. The only one that we haven't
2:22:44
assumed um sorry the typology we haven't assumed 20% are the 30 typology and the
2:22:50
10 which are at 18% and 15. And then finally on benchmark land value
2:22:56
this is the bane of all viability assessors. Um it's very controversial and it's often debated but again in my
2:23:02
opinion we've adopted a cautious approach to the allowances. So there's flex within the testing which we think
2:23:09
helps when we're making a decision at the end. So that's hopefully given you a bit of an overview. So the two questions
2:23:16
that I mentioned from the start, the first one is about value zones and about is it appropriate to have different
2:23:22
levels of affordable housing across different areas of the district and and
2:23:28
the firm answer from from my perspective is is yes, absolutely. And that's what the evidence bears out. So in PR25
2:23:36
um section 6.6 which is PDF page 99 we have a big section talking about
2:23:44
residential sales values new build sales values across the district of South Tinside and we test the values in
2:23:51
different settlements in different locations. The specific paragraphs for your for
2:23:56
your information are 6.6.4 to 6.6.21.
2:24:02
And what that does is it does a couple of things. We look at indexes in the
2:24:07
market about how values fluctuate. For example, right move to an index and so does Zupller. And it shows you what the
2:24:15
average value is in different settlements, you know, whether it's South Shields or whether it's West Balden. And it tells you, it gives an
2:24:21
idea and those figures are different from settlement to settlement. So that gives us a good understanding that
2:24:26
values can and do change across a market, which is to be expected. Um, so
2:24:32
that's in there. We also do what's called a beacon assessment, a beacon approach. This is quite useful from a
2:24:39
valuing point of view. We get a specific dwelling type, a three bed semi or a two
2:24:44
bed terrace or whatever it may be, and we look at the values of that specific type in different locations, trying to
2:24:51
get houses that are as similar as possible to see how values naturally fluctuate for just location factors. So
2:24:58
we're trying to distill the difference in value to just location. And what that
2:25:04
evidence showed us and it's it's in P25 is that values do fluctuate. And we have
2:25:11
to make a judgment. We have to make a a balance reasonable judgment as to how that should formulate into policy. And
2:25:18
my recommendation to the council was to to split it across these five value zones. So that was Cleen which we
2:25:26
consider based on the evidence to be the highest value location. Um and then we had East Balden and Whitburn, West
2:25:33
Balden and Bold and Collure, Heburn and South Shields and Gerro. And that's what the map tries to do. It tries to
2:25:38
encapsulate all of those different value fluctuations. Clearly it's not going to be
2:25:44
bulletproof. No valuation exercise ever undertaken is 100% black and white.
2:25:50
there's always going to be some some flex but we just have to make a reasonable judgment for the purposes of
2:25:55
this exercise which is what we've done. So I'm I'm quite firm on that that yes that is appropriate. Um and then the
2:26:02
second part which is your MIQ 7.8 are the levels of the affordable housing um
2:26:09
justified? Um yes. So in terms of the
2:26:14
context of what I've just tried to spell out to you, we've tried to be quite cautious in the typology testing. So
2:26:20
we've kind of stress tested tested it if you like. So we think there's some good flex in there. So in that context even
2:26:28
if the viability testing shows an unviable outcome doesn't mean that actually when it comes to delivery that
2:26:34
level cannot be provided. Um, I'd also just make the point that notwithstanding
2:26:40
that comment about the flex and the the buffer, the council have adjusted a couple of the the policy provisions due
2:26:48
to some concerns about the viability outcomes. And it's probably worth just just picking up on those very quickly.
2:26:54
Um, so when it came to, let me just get my notes. So we've got East Balden and Whitburn and I think there'll be a
2:27:01
discussion about this. Um, originally it was tested at 30% affordable housing.
2:27:07
And again, just going back a couple of steps, the latest 2025 testing, just
2:27:13
again for context, that is the same as 2023, but all it's changed is the affordable
2:27:20
housing mix because it doesn't have first homes anymore. and it's added in
2:27:25
this habitats regulation assessment cost of 760 pounds from from memory or 780
2:27:31
per unit. Um so it is the same as 2023 just for comparative purposes. So in the
2:27:37
2023 testing um uh East Balden and Whitburn was tested at 30%. So we did
2:27:43
the same uh in 2025 and what we found with the outcome of that one was it was
2:27:50
viable at 30% but it was very very close and I think when it was that close that
2:27:56
it raises a concern in terms of is is it appropriate to to keep it at that level
2:28:01
and I think the judgment was made that actually a reduction to 25% is is reasonable and also going back to the
2:28:08
value zones the value zones clearly differentiate between ceden and um East
2:28:14
Balden and Whitburn. So again, it made it made sense to have different levels of affordable housing. So that gives you
2:28:20
the context. Um the other one was Heburn. So Heburn was tested at 20%
2:28:26
affordable housing. You'll note that the policy is now at 15%.
2:28:32
So again, the reason for that was because in the Heben testing at 20%, it was unviable, but it was close. It was
2:28:39
close. So the view was well if we reduce the affordable housing provision that will help the viability and it'll make
2:28:46
it more suitable. So that's why that was dropped to 15%.
2:28:51
Um and just to flag up a final point on South Shield and Jerro which is 10%. So
2:28:58
this is a bit of a legacy a legacy point in terms of the policy because it was set at 10% originally because the the
2:29:05
government's wider policy at the time was to have all housing regardless of viability to at least deliver 10% um uh
2:29:14
first homes or or um affordable home ownership and it's kind and that policy
2:29:20
has run through. Um, but there's a couple of other things just to mention. What we did test in PR25,
2:29:28
so this is the original December 21 testing is we did a sensitivity test based on lowcost developers delivering
2:29:36
in the more challenging value areas um, which we, you know, we consider to include South Shields and Jerro in this
2:29:43
instance. the likes of Gleon Homes, the likes of Keem Homes, they have a slightly different model to your to your
2:29:49
sort of other other house builders, your your Red Row or your Barretts or your Taylor Wimpy. Uh they are able to
2:29:55
deliver in more challenging areas and they are able to deliver affordable housing. So that gave us some comfort
2:30:01
that the 10% could still be delivered. So hopefully that gives a quick whistle stop tour. I apologize there's there's
2:30:07
lots in there, but feel free to ask away. Thank you. No, that's that's very helpful. Well, I'll bring in other
2:30:12
people in terms of how uh that evidence Mr. Nem has kind of
2:30:18
then been presented in map 22 and we kind of get the different zones uh for
2:30:24
the affordable housing um provision. Is that based ultimately on kind of post
2:30:30
code area or is it by ward boundary? how
2:30:36
I'm just thinking from I've had uh a lot of time at uh uh planning inquiries
2:30:42
debating about where something sits in relation to if the policy says Cleon,
2:30:48
what do we mean by by Cleon, how is this this defined? So if the council can assist on that.
2:30:53
Yeah. So the map is based on ward boundaries kind of put together to make up those areas.
2:31:11
Thank you. And in terms of um providing
2:31:16
um kind of implementation um clarity on this. I'm assuming these I
2:31:24
can't recall these affordable housing zones being in themselves on the policies map. I'm imagining that's going
2:31:29
to create potentially quite an issue. Um, but I don't know whether just for
2:31:35
very to help the effectiveness of policy part three. It's clear that when you're
2:31:41
referring to those areas, it is as shown on map 22 and that's a cross reference in the policy. So there's no ambiguity
2:31:48
or debate about when we say clean in the policy. What do we mean by by cleon?
2:31:54
That's a fairly hopefully uncontentious. Um
2:32:01
reference obviously I'm I'm mindful that paragraph
2:32:06
34 of the MPPF and I think Mr. New sort of outlined the approach that he's taken
2:32:12
has got to set out the kind of contributions are expected from development including affordable housing. It's obviously not to test
2:32:18
every scenario, but it shouldn't affect the overall deliverability of the plan and hopefully as a step away from not
2:32:25
having too many um discussions around individual kind of site viability um considerations i.e.
2:32:34
you know time is spent uh at the application stage debating uh
2:32:39
what can be uh what can be afforded. So it sounds to me that the council's
2:32:45
generally taken a precautionary approach where things are marginal or yeah at the
2:32:51
margins of the kind of the individual uh uh
2:32:57
site locations. Things have generally tipped towards you something that's uh
2:33:03
going to be uh confident as far as we can be on a modeling exercise confidently um
2:33:10
deliverable. But I am mindful from others that they want a different uh
2:33:17
requirement set out in the policy. So if I can start with um East Balden again uh in terms of what
2:33:26
um you're seeking I think mindful Mr. New has kind of spoke to that to some extent but I think Mr. Hutchinson first
2:33:34
and then from potentially Mr. Butler as well. I think you're seeking a higher
2:33:39
affordable housing requirement for East Balden.
2:33:46
Yes. Thank you, sir. It was really interesting to hear Mr. New's background on how the the viability figures were
2:33:53
were arrived at. Um, as you've just alluded, we we we don't agree with the
2:34:00
final figure that uh that has been produced for East Balden. and I'll go
2:34:05
through the reasons why we disagree with that and why we think it should be changed. Um, in the consultation on the
2:34:13
draft local plan, we objected to policy 18.3 4 which stated that that policy wasn't
2:34:20
sound. Um, our prop proposed modification is that that policy should
2:34:25
be amended to obtain 30% affordable homes on new developments in East
2:34:31
Balden. I'm not going to explain the uh justification for that.
2:34:38
Um this would return to the position that was set out in the regulation 18
2:34:43
draft plan when it was proposed that both East Balden and Cleon had 30%. And
2:34:49
Mr. New has is given some information on that which has been quite useful. The decision to use it reduce it to 25% for
2:34:57
East Balden was difficult to understand because the strategic housing market
2:35:03
assessment 2023 identified a huge increased need for
2:35:08
affordable housing from that in 2021. The figure they came up with was 361
2:35:15
units per year as opposed to 209.
2:35:21
But it's acknowledged that the local plan viability testing update 2023
2:35:26
report recommended the change in re in relation to national housing market
2:35:32
conditions and the the level of the Bank of England base rate. However, the report also acknowledges that the local
2:35:39
plan viability testing can only be a snapshot of current marketing conditions.
2:35:46
The Bank of England base rate has reduced from 5.25 25% in June 2023 to
2:35:54
3.75% in 2025. So that clearly changes the
2:36:00
position. In our regulation 19 submission, we pointed out the lack of local
2:36:06
justification of the decision in the local plan viability testing update. We
2:36:12
also pointed out our view that the site at North Farm in East Ben would still be
2:36:18
highly viable. uh with with a 30% affordable homes requirement. Indeed,
2:36:24
Mr. New in his presentation has stated that um in the most recent assessment in
2:36:31
2025, East Bordon would be viable at a 30% affordable housing uh figure, but but
2:36:39
for reasons of caution, he's chosen to drop it to 25%, which seems illogical to
2:36:44
me. Um the report goes on to conclude
2:36:52
affordable housing based on our modeling we consider it appropriate to adopt different levels of affordable housing
2:36:59
for different locations across the burough reflecting the range of market values that are experienced in that
2:37:05
locality. Having considered the base worstcase testing in terms of applying the maximum
2:37:13
policy requirement as well as the sensitivity modeling we conclude that
2:37:18
the following affordable housing provisions are reasonable east and whiter and 30%. Mr. Newman has
2:37:26
explained why that figure is now changed at these levels of affordable housing.
2:37:32
The typology show that additional policy requirements in relation to biodiversity, net gain, electric car
2:37:40
charging points, accessibility and adaptability, nationally described space standards,
2:37:47
forthcoming changes to building regulations, sustainable draining systems, open space, transport and
2:37:54
education can all be viably supported.
2:38:00
We con in conclusion we consider that those conclusions should still apply and
2:38:06
that the percentage for the East Balden neighborhood plan area should be amended to 30%.
2:38:12
Um when we consulted the community in the preparation of the neighborhood plan, uh we had a huge amount of
2:38:20
feedback from the local residents that they needed to have specific accommodation which was suitable for
2:38:26
young people and young families to get on the housing ladder which stay within the local community. If the affordable
2:38:35
housing percentage was left to 30%, that would give those people much more of a chance to get on the housing ladder. Um,
2:38:42
and it would still be consistent with NPPF paragraph 34.
2:38:48
Thank you, Mr. Butler. Next, please. Uh, thank you, sir. I think um when we
2:38:55
looked at uh the regulation 19 plan relating to uh Cleveland M East Balden,
2:39:01
one of the most surprising things was to see uh the change uh of level of affordable housing. Um we had a position
2:39:08
of 30% which covered both villages and just referring back to to map 22. Uh it
2:39:15
it actually splits the ward. It it's not on ward boundaries as such. Cleon and
2:39:21
East Balden is a ward has two villages uh and the market area at 30% only
2:39:27
refers to Clayton village. Now um so we have this difference in our communities
2:39:34
of the proposal in the plan and I noticed that Mr. New used the word but
2:39:39
very close to considering 30%. In our view, 30% is more uh suitable in terms
2:39:46
of what's required in paragraph 34 of the MPPF. The local plan viability
2:39:52
testing report um for the scheme at Land of North Farm East Balden suggests a 23%
2:39:59
profit on a 25% affordable uh requirement. Therefore, we believe
2:40:05
increasing it to 30% would still leave the housing developer with a very viable site. So in our view uh we consider it
2:40:12
should be necessary for soundness to amend the percentage of affordable housing in East Balden to 30% to combine
2:40:20
that with Cleon. Thank you. Thank you. Before I move off the
2:40:28
um East Balden um Cleon issue, a question to the council. Obviously push
2:40:35
back there from the local community for an alternative um affordable housing um figure for the
2:40:43
for uh East Balden. If I'm not saying I am, but if I was minded that that's a
2:40:49
modification that was needed to the plan, is that reasonable in terms of the
2:40:56
evidence and what's being presented to me uh in terms of
2:41:01
where things have got to particularly with the latest 2025 uh viability update or are there
2:41:08
significant risks where I to recommend 30%
2:41:15
It's it's probably worth me just giving a bit of context about why I thought it was too close. Um so just taking an
2:41:21
example the typology for 125 dwellings. So this is a you know a many million
2:41:28
pound development at 30% affordable housing with all the other policies that
2:41:33
that were expressed then. um the surplus the viability threshold that it's over
2:41:40
is 3.9% which is £90,000. Now £90,000 in the context of 125 dwellings is is a
2:41:48
drop in the ocean. So there's there is a risk there that that will cause
2:41:53
problems. Now they they are right in what they're saying on the technical testing in 2025. It does surpass the
2:42:02
viability threshold with the 30% affordable. So I can't dispute that. I think all I'd go back to is we have to
2:42:08
make a a reasonable judgment again as to what we think can can be sustained over
2:42:13
the lifetime of the plan. And we felt that that was 25%
2:42:18
rightly or wrongly. I think the the other thing just to give some context when the when the surplus or the deficit
2:42:26
is around sort of 15 20% of the viability threshold that's the kind of
2:42:33
area where I start to look at it and think actually does this need adjustment and we've done the same exercise with
2:42:39
with Heburn um albeit that he at 20% was was unviable so we said you know let's
2:42:45
reduce it to 15% and that will tip it over that that sort of buffer So again,
2:42:50
that's just for context and hopefully it it'll assist.
2:42:57
Thank you. I appreciate is uh an element of of judgment in this. I think I was
2:43:02
perhaps trying to get to whether is 30% an unreasonable
2:43:07
kind of position um for East Balden.
2:43:17
What would the risks be? I mean part of part of it you know part of it could be well I I I yeah I I suspect the industry will
2:43:27
argue to the contrary so perhaps if no one's happy I've got it right you know that's what I always think I can only
2:43:33
revert to trying to make a reasonable judgment obviously there's different views
2:43:40
thank you I'm going to move other people do want to speak because still got a fair bit of the agenda to get through I
2:43:45
don't want to sort of artificially constrain discuss discussion, but I'm clear what people are saying to me on
2:43:51
Eastb. If I can hear from others and if there's time, we'll come back to to East Bold and I'm very clear on what the
2:43:57
community is asking for by way of a modification um to the plan and hear
2:44:02
what the council's saying. If I can now hear from others, I'll start with councelor Ford, please, for the Green
2:44:08
Party. Thank you, sir. And um may I just crave your indulgence that as a as a counselor
2:44:15
for Cleon and East Balden uh ward um the concern um about um this is very very uh
2:44:23
well expressed. Um and the fact that you yourself raised that the issue of um
2:44:30
preventing unnecessary arguments at future stage, you know, the fact that
2:44:35
this this would have a different um percentage for two halves of a ward. um
2:44:41
would be quite uh quite a risk in itself I would think of of future um the plan
2:44:46
not being deliverable in a sensible way. Um so our our overall point is that in
2:44:53
terms of your question about um are the the affordable housing requirements justified in setting being set at a
2:45:01
level that wouldn't undermine the deliverability of the plan. Um we would definitely argue that um yes they're the
2:45:10
that they're justified in that if anything the requirements w would would
2:45:15
need to be higher in terms of um being consistent with the strategic housing
2:45:21
market assessment the schmar of 2023 which as um uh the east bond forum
2:45:27
speaker has said 361 affordable homes each year across the burough. Um so I
2:45:34
appreciate the the explanation of how the figures have been reached but that
2:45:40
is only a snapshot and um the uh the the
2:45:45
very high need for affordable housing in the burough means that the the targets
2:45:51
for the period of the plan should remain robust. There's obviously um the plan is
2:45:56
subject to reviews. Um there is the possibility uh clearly of planning
2:46:02
applicants um submitting viability assessments on individual schemes where viability is deemed to be challenging.
2:46:09
But I also um would say that um the sites in SP7
2:46:15
are seeking to take um green current green belt land out of green belts in
2:46:21
order to develop as part of the plan. And if they do go forward um then
2:46:27
clearly as the government is minded to try and um uh you know in its golden
2:46:32
rules for taking sites out of the green belt that there in order to benefit the
2:46:37
communities there um uh uh and to um uh
2:46:44
strengthen the housing market is actually to have higher percentages of h affordable housing to be um built on
2:46:51
those sites. I mean that's broadly 50% 15% above existing local policy which
2:46:56
would be up to 40% um in our area. So the um the the percentages are clearly
2:47:05
not in line with that um uh certainly not at 25% for the the sites in East
2:47:12
Balden. Um so I think the um you know clearly the the the um
2:47:19
percentages are um must not be lowered and we would definitely um
2:47:29
ideally wishing them to be higher but I do accept the viability testing but certainly um would would um uh would
2:47:36
make that case. Thank you. Thank you for that uh councelor Kilgore and then I'll come round the table
2:47:43
please. Thank you sir. Um I I think just really quickly to ask that um is our
2:47:50
understanding correct that the SP8 is still um positioned at 25% requirement
2:47:56
for affordable housing and that that hasn't or there is no intention with
2:48:01
regards to viability for that being changed be given that the Jarro and heaven is or certainly Jarro is 10% um
2:48:09
that the site specific allocation for that is 25% sent.
2:48:16
Thank you. I'm not aware that the council's proposing any modification in relation to that. The policy is 25%.
2:48:24
Um it's set out uh obviously within um the policy. I'm
2:48:31
just looking at the map 22 and the various kind of shading of um
2:48:41
various shading there just for for clarity
2:48:48
um so whilst it sits obviously within the
2:48:54
wider sort of 20% I think the specific policy requirements obviously 25 I'm not aware that anybody at the stage for this
2:49:01
purposes of the local plan. I'm keen not to kind of get too further down the
2:49:06
track is suggesting a modification at this stage on the SP8 requirements. Um
2:49:13
again I think prefer to come back to that tomorrow but um I'll move on next
2:49:18
to Mr. Conroy. We might have a something to add on that please.
2:49:24
Probably took the words out of my mouth with that last sentence sir. So yeah nothing further to add on that one. Thank you.
2:49:30
Okay. So to Mr. W and then to Mr. Martin please.
2:49:37
Thank you sir Mr. New may be pleased to hear that um Bellway Homes think you have got it right on site GA1 um which
2:49:44
is obviously the site in in heaven. Um saying that um I have been advised it is
2:49:49
still borderline and obviously this is a site that Belway did purchase a freehold of almost almost 15 years ago. Um,
2:49:55
however, I spoke yesterday about the unintended consequences of certain policies when we get to planning application stage. And one issue which I
2:50:03
think we're kind of stuck in a rock and a hard place here is obviously the December 2024 NPF which was mentioned by
2:50:09
councelor Ford obviously does require at planning application stage for sites released from the green belt to be 15%
2:50:16
above a local plan requirement unless the local plan is being prepared in accordance with the December 2024 NPPF.
2:50:23
So what may be an unintended consequence is that the council's evidence indicates that on sites such as G1, we should be
2:50:30
looking at 15% affordable housing. However, I do think there's a risk based on the December 2024 MPPF being a
2:50:37
material planning consideration that a planning application stage we begin to be requested to provide 30% affordable
2:50:44
housing, which based on the evidence before us is is completely unviable and and may prevent sites coming forward.
2:50:55
Thank you, Mr. I not quite sure I follow anything and you think the risk will be at the planning application stage if the
2:51:02
site presuming assuming you you're going to wait for the local plan
2:51:08
um to be adopted um the site would then be altered from the green belt.
2:51:18
So there is I believe it's paragraph 167 of the December 2024 NPPF.
2:51:26
Um if you could please be patient for one moment.
2:51:35
Um which essentially requires sites which come forward on land which was
2:51:41
previous planning applications which come forward on land which was deleted from the green belt. should provide
2:51:48
affordable housing 15% above the local plan requirement unless that local plan
2:51:55
has been prepared in accordance with the December 2024 MPPF. So where my concern
2:52:00
comes from is we've got an adopted local plan prepared in accordance with the previous version of of the MPPF which
2:52:06
stipulates on sites such as G1 15% affordable housing. We then get the
2:52:11
planning application stage of which we're then going to have say a December 2024 NPPF which is a material planning
2:52:17
consideration which would direct the local authority to request 15% affordable housing above the local plan
2:52:24
requirement because this NP because this local plan is not being examined in
2:52:29
accordance with the December 2024 NPPF. So it's perhaps a situation which is
2:52:36
maybe unique to South Tinside at the present time because we're proceeding an examination of an earlier version of the MPPPF but at application stage we're
2:52:43
going to have a December 2024 MPF as a material planning consideration. So
2:52:49
I guess where my question or where the doubt comes from is actually should sites such as GA1 say that there is a 0%
2:52:56
affordable housing because in a planning application stage that would then jump to 15% which is what the viability
2:53:01
evidence indicates is correct whether there's potentially another form
2:53:07
of future proofing. Always reluctant to go down that that
2:53:14
route. Um, so the potential modification for MW is
2:53:21
is to potentially look at modifying the affordable housing. Your view would be
2:53:26
to modify the affordable housing requirements now to factor in on a practical day-to-day
2:53:34
level um the MPPF as a material um consideration.
2:53:40
Certainly. So if I may sir, it's paragraph 156A of the December 2024 NPPF
2:53:46
which I'll I'll paraphrase where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released
2:53:53
from the green belt through plan preparation or review or on sites in the
2:53:58
green belt subject to a planning application. So in some respects it makes no difference whether we we we wait or don't wait for the local plan if
2:54:04
you like. Um the following contributions golden rules should be made. affordable housing which reflects either point one
2:54:12
development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67 to 68 of this framework. Clearly that doesn't
2:54:18
apply to this development plan because we're not being examined under that or point to until such policies are in
2:54:26
place. the policy set out in paragraph 157 below and then says paragraph 157
2:54:32
which indicates that we should be 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement
2:54:38
which would otherwise apply to the development. So so hopefully you can now see where I
2:54:44
I think the unintended consequence could come. I I do think obviously I'm not involved in every local plan examination
2:54:50
throughout the country but you know it it may be unique to South Tinside because of this situation we find ourselves in that examination under
2:54:57
previous version of the MPPF planning application stage it's December 2024 MPPF which is a material consideration
2:55:05
so therefore at face value the authority would be completely reasonable in saying well sites such as heaven should be 30%
2:55:12
but saying that the evidence before us now is that only 15% is viable And that that would be a risk of housing delivery
2:55:18
I would suggest. Thank you. I must admit I'd not
2:55:26
followed that through. I understand what Mr. W is saying. I appreciate it's
2:55:33
not something I recollect reading anywhere in terms of sort of the background material. So it may be
2:55:39
something the council's kind of uh wants to reflect on or think on further.
2:55:57
My immediate reaction is what we can't do is manipulate
2:56:03
the plan in order to cater for changes in government policy. Uh that's the first thing. Um that's my
2:56:10
immediate reaction. Um but um the second point is um on the
2:56:18
face of it, it does seem to impose a higher requirement in these
2:56:24
circumstances. But I want to reflect on it um just to make sure that my understanding of this is correct in much
2:56:30
of what Mr. Wolf has had to say.
2:56:38
Thank you. I'll similarly reflect on it as well. Uh is there anything further
2:56:43
Mr. W you wanted to add on the affordable housing? Just that for the avoidance of doubt.
2:56:48
Bel do agree with the evidence at 15% for site G1.
2:56:54
Thank you Mr. Martin from the House of Home Builders please. Thank you sir. Um
2:57:02
it it's a bit of a difficult one when looking at viability in in this situation from from the HBF's point of
2:57:09
view. You've got a quite acute affordable housing need which we discussed at stage one 361
2:57:17
dwellings per which actually over what the overall requirement is and therefore
2:57:23
there is a need there to try and get as much affordable housing away in a viable
2:57:29
way as possible to try and meet that need. You've also got a situation here where
2:57:36
you've got a um a small buffer of sites com with the source of the supply versus
2:57:43
the requirements. So we're in a situation where the council can ill afford sites to sort of slip through the
2:57:48
cracks in terms of viability because it could be quite detrimental to the overall ability of the plan to meet its
2:57:53
housing needs. Um so it all has to be looked at in a very delicate way. Um the
2:58:01
council and and Mr. um have done the right thing in terms of they engaged
2:58:06
with the house building industry from quite early on and I think that deserves merit because I I go to some
2:58:12
examinations and that hasn't been the case at all. So um there were there are
2:58:17
various assumptions in there that our members did not agree with Mr. new on um
2:58:23
particularly things like some of the residential values, how biodiversity net gains been treated and the lack of um
2:58:31
assumptions for future home standards when they come in. Um notwithstanding
2:58:37
that even I think if you look at it on the face of the reports that Mr. um
2:58:43
provided including the 2025 update uh which includes the HA and the and the
2:58:48
allowance for the changing first homes policy. There is a lot of viability pressure in the burough um going through
2:58:56
those topology tables in section three. There are a lot of uh topologies that
2:59:01
are not just marginally viable but seemingly quite unviable. I mean South
2:59:06
Shields and Jar know Mr. New referred to that. Um I mean some of the topologies are getting close to 100% deficit on
2:59:15
benchmark land value which is is is concerning. Uh I'm appreciate Mr.
2:59:20
Newham's talked about flexibility that's sort of built in there in terms of it's
2:59:25
made some assumptions which actually are higher policy requirements than actually what's in the plan. I don't know whether
2:59:32
it's worth have having a viability assessment done which shows what though. So it shows the
2:59:39
viability of those sites with the latest policy requirements. So when you look at
2:59:44
20 the 2025 work, you know, Heburn is looking unviable, but it's because
2:59:50
there's an assumption in there for 20% affordable homes. It's now 15%. So what
2:59:56
is the viability situation with 15%. Um we're being told it's viable. Um but I
3:00:04
there's there's no information there for me to be able to distinguish whether that is the the case or not. Um
3:00:12
so there's some unanswered questions from our point of view in terms of of the viability of of uh some of the areas
3:00:19
in in the burough and and some of the topologies and it's whether how are they then
3:00:25
addressed. Um, you can't, whilst the policy has in it a uh an option for a
3:00:32
developer to submit their own viability assessment if viability is an issue on a specific site, that should be the
3:00:38
exception rather than the rule. And it's worth highlighting what the PPG says that where you've got up to date
3:00:44
policies, it's expected that planning applications can fully comply with that. So that
3:00:52
doesn't leave a developer with much in the way of wiggle room for looking at viability. So it's really important that
3:00:57
this is done and it's done robust and it's done correctly. I I would like
3:01:02
assurances that that with the sort of revised M43 requirements with the drop
3:01:08
in affordable housing that these sites are viable. Thank you.
3:01:17
Thank you. I don't know Mr. you want to come back on kind of the question mark some perhaps transparency around some of
3:01:24
the um latest kind of conclusions
3:01:31
just just two points really quickly. So again the process is iterative so we make assumptions about the allowances in
3:01:37
the model and then a judgment is made on it. It doesn't mean that you have to just keep doing viability testing over
3:01:43
and over again. There has to be a point where you stop. Um we did the the latest testing. A judgment was made rightly or
3:01:51
wrongly to reduce um Heburn and and obviously uh East Balden and Whitburn.
3:01:57
Um whether it would add anything to the situation to to run more testing because
3:02:03
the other problem is which I alluded to earlier. We we can keep testing and putting as
3:02:10
many numbers as we want in. We can change the policy so they're lower. We can reduce the profit. we can, you know,
3:02:16
change contingency, adjust the M43, we can do all those things. Um, and it will, you know, it
3:02:23
will show a viable outcome. But whether that changes the position in terms of the policy, I I my own view is that
3:02:28
doesn't add anything to the to the process and that the testing is already been done. It was frontloaded in in 2021
3:02:36
because we did do some testing at that point where we we did some sensitivity testing for half the planning policies
3:02:42
you may have picked up. So we our base assessment assumes this full planning
3:02:48
policy assumption and then we did 10 sensitivity testing at 50% of those policy assumptions and that showed you
3:02:54
know what he was talking about in terms of viability being being a lot brighter. So I stand by the approach undertaken. I
3:03:01
understand where he's coming from but I I think it's sufficient in front of you to to make the judgment on these policies. Um yeah thank you
3:03:10
briefly Mr. Martin. Thank you. Well, I've understood what Mr. Newman says,
3:03:17
but this local plan has to be based on evidence. It has to be based on robust
3:03:22
evidence. I would have I would have expected that once the planning policy requirements and affordable housing
3:03:28
requirements have been have been set by the council that a final sweep of viability would be done just to
3:03:36
definitively prove that those topologies are viable. Because at the moment I'm looking at section three of the 2025
3:03:43
study and you know you got the the final column viable or unviable. You've got
3:03:50
Heburn on a number of topologies and West Balden on a number and South Shields a number saying unviable.
3:03:56
If the if that's tested on a more stringent sort of policy requirement
3:04:02
basis, I I want to see what it's like on the actual policy requirement basis just
3:04:07
to prove that they are viable because at the moment I don't all I all I have is
3:04:13
the council's word that they've they've for instance adjusted heaven and now it's viable. But there's no I can't see
3:04:19
any calculations to show that. Surely it needs you need an assessment
3:04:25
something in writing to show they've gone through that process. I mean it might be there it just might not be in
3:04:31
these reports. Thank you. I heard previously from Miss
3:04:36
Mr. New we come back to viability next week as well. I'm going to hear further um submissions. I'll hold fire in terms
3:04:44
of coming to view I think on what you're inviting me to kind of consider Mr. Martin but that's noted.
3:04:51
I want to bring the affordable housing discussion to conclusion and move on to
3:04:56
other matters that are on the agenda. Um just by way of sort of wrapping up some
3:05:02
of the things that have been um discussed as part of that various kind of exchanges
3:05:10
um I'm going to think on and reflect on further the the um
3:05:19
request or uh position of kind of East Balden community as to whether that should be subject to 30% affordable
3:05:25
housing requirements and if I come to on that that's different to the plan. I'll
3:05:31
let the council know through a post hearings letter. Um
3:05:41
I've noted uh Mr. Shadow Raven, you're going to I think reflect further on why I've heard from Mr. Woff. I don't know
3:05:47
if you want further time on that. Well, to be honest with you, um
3:05:53
we've identified this lacuna already. um and we have discussed it
3:05:58
internally. Um I've expressed I've made a submission to you that you should be
3:06:05
concerned with the evidence base and what can be supported in this plan
3:06:11
irrespective of the effect that um the
3:06:16
MPPF may have on that situation at planning control stage and planning management um at uh development
3:06:24
management stage. Having said that, um I think it may well
3:06:29
be the case that things will change at national policy level anyway and that this won't be an issue.
3:06:37
By the time we get to the mod process, I think we will know where we stand on that.
3:06:44
So I I wouldn't actually dwell on it at the moment as an issue. Just concentrate on my respectful submission is
3:06:50
concentrate on what the evidence supports. Thank you. That's helpful to me. I think
3:06:56
it puts in my mind I'm not going to hear you've made your submission. I'm not going to hear anything further on that point. That's helpful. Thank you. Okay.
3:07:03
I'm going to move on please to item um five on my agenda. Uh self-build customu
3:07:11
housing. Question for the council. My was my MIQ 7.10 10 in terms of the
3:07:17
effectiveness of policy. 19 in terms of securing um this particular type of
3:07:25
housing need. Uh and if memory serves, this is something that is identified or
3:07:31
an opportunity is identified as part of site SP8 to secure this this type of housing
3:07:38
product. Yes. So it is identified within policy
3:07:44
SP8. So in accordance with the MPPF, the council keep a self-build register. Um
3:07:50
there's currently nine entrance on the register. So it's not a huge demand for it and there've been no self or
3:07:56
customuilt housing planning applications in the last 10 years. So I think it's reasonable to assume the demand is quite
3:08:02
low. However, obviously it's something that is it's sort of housing type that
3:08:08
is required. So it's captured in policy 19 as well as policy SP8.
3:08:23
Thank you. I think I've read from other submissions that self build is not
3:08:28
particularly strong dimension to the housing market in South Tide. Mr. Martin,
3:08:37
thank you sir. Yeah, it just to pick up on on on that point and it was one for clarity on the policy. I I wasn't clear
3:08:45
whether the policy itself requires larger sites and and larger sites isn't
3:08:51
really defined in the policy anyway to effectively have plots within there that
3:08:59
for self and custom build whether that's a requirement or it's merely something that's encouraged. Um, if it's a
3:09:06
requirement, I think that's quite problematic because the demand's quite low. Um, and what you don't want to end
3:09:14
up with is development sites with vacant plots for self-build and custom build where this demand simply isn't there.
3:09:21
So, what what do you do with those those uh plots? Um but it was it's clarity and
3:09:27
I didn't know what large meant in the context of that policy and I didn't know whether it's a requirement of those
3:09:33
sites or whether it's if something comes along on those sites the council are happy to do it.
3:09:41
Obviously the policies phrased in terms of encouraging that provision. Did the council have in mind what it meant by
3:09:48
larger developments? Is it anything kind of major 10 units or more? Or are there
3:09:53
particular sites that would obviously there's a practical dimension to
3:10:02
securing self build.
3:10:08
Understanding over 10 is a threshold as my understanding.
3:10:21
I was I think you may be going where I gone in terms of glossery because if it's not then we need to
3:10:27
bring some um definition forward. I think
3:10:36
I mean my instinct I don't know invite Mr. Martin seeking self build on particularly sites down to 10 feels
3:10:43
quite difficult or could be challenging whereas larger might apply to
3:10:51
a certain threshold. I don't know if the viability study well I think what we need to do is think
3:10:57
about that actually rather than sort of offer something um immediately is to think one about
3:11:04
whether or not in the glossery we need to define the term major
3:11:10
and secondly what threshold should be applied to self build
3:11:19
if there is clarification Mr. M that would in my view be in into main mod
3:11:24
territory. So you would get an opportunity to comment on that but you look you look
3:11:29
pained. Yeah. Um so just for my cl just for my benefit it's there isn't a the council
3:11:38
are not mandating that a large site should have should give over plots for self build and custom build. It is just
3:11:45
if the opportunity arose the council would be supportive of it or is it they are requiring a certain percentage of
3:11:51
plots on large sites to be self-built and customuilt?
3:11:58
I'd taken it as more the encouragement and sort of positive support given the
3:12:03
very low sort of baseline need. Okay.
3:12:10
Anything further on custom self build very briefly councelor Kore
3:12:16
just just to say that obviously I know we're struggling with the word mandatory but I think you know if we're talking
3:12:22
about large sites particularly SP8 um and I understand that if there isn't the
3:12:27
takeup for this type of of um you know process but but it should really be
3:12:33
considered in more of a way than just encouraged particularly on the size of
3:12:39
of that particular ular site. Whilst I know it's difficult and you can't make someone want to self build on a
3:12:45
particular site, but where it is something that is set out, I think encouraged
3:12:51
can't really be um put into practice.
3:12:56
Keen not to sort of get too drawn too regularly into the SPA discussion. I'm just reminding myself of the wording of
3:13:02
that particular policy. I mean that is somewhere where the provision is to be
3:13:07
to be looked at. Um obviously it'll be subject to much further detailed discussion in the fullness of time but
3:13:14
it's in the policy for SP uh SP8. I'm going to move on in terms of
3:13:21
the agenda. We've we've touched upon a bit around the mix of housing um uh
3:13:27
policy and policy 19 already. Um, I'm not sure there's much further. I
3:13:33
specifically wanted to um pick up or invite um the council to um
3:13:43
speak on that we haven't um discussed uh at previous um
3:13:51
points. I've just remembered something which is very remiss of me having moved
3:13:56
off affordable housing. The council has obviously looked at and
3:14:02
thought about first homes issue. I just wanted to just briefly air that before I
3:14:07
get too carried away with other parts of the agenda. I think the council in reflecting on
3:14:14
changes in national policy is looking at some further modifications
3:14:20
in relation to policies submitted. obviously looked at first home provision
3:14:25
as a product that's no longer kind of mandated but it can be um still pursued
3:14:30
but the council has identified some modifications as I understand it to
3:14:36
reflect perhaps where where we are and I think as Mr. Nem has indicated that potentially has some positive
3:14:44
ramifications in terms of overall viability.
3:14:49
Yes. So we've suggested a modification under the response to question 7.9 which
3:14:55
essentially removes that the need for um first homes and reverts
3:15:01
to the 10ear split that was evidenced through the schma which would be 75%
3:15:07
affordable rent and 25% affordable home ownership.
3:15:18
Mr. Martin, please. Thank you. Uh, sir, I'm I'm I'm happy that the the with that change to remove
3:15:26
that first homes um reference in the policy that's been suggested in the council's hearing statement. What
3:15:33
slightly confuses me is then that they've put in brackets under affordable
3:15:39
home ownership a combination of first homes and discount market sales home. So, is there still a first homes
3:15:44
requirement then? because they're now saying that that would drop into the affordable home ownership bracket along
3:15:51
with discount market value and neither of them have got a a percentage or an amount on there. I think that might need
3:15:59
clarification. The other point I wanted to raise looking through the changes
3:16:05
is that that policy's changed but the viability assessment there's a bit of a
3:16:10
disjoint between the two. So the viability tests affordable rent and
3:16:16
shared ownership and the policy saying affordable rent and discount market
3:16:22
value or first homes. So the 10 years are slightly different.
3:16:31
Thank you. if I can just come back briefly to the council on that point whether there's any clarification needed
3:16:37
or whether I should be concerned about the overall viability um picture then should I start
3:16:45
with Mr. New and then come to M Cooper on the policy ju just very very briefly just the viability testing has been done as Mr.
3:16:53
Martin has has has expressed um and that's a cautious approach and if there
3:16:58
is enough the difficulty with discounted market values is that they have higher
3:17:05
revenue for the developer there's also greater risk attached to them because you have to sell them individually like
3:17:11
a normal market home. So the profit that's that's factored into the modeling is higher. So you'd think that just
3:17:18
having discounted market sales would have a positive impact on viability, but it's not necessarily the case. So
3:17:25
all I can say is the testing is done on the basis that that we've undertaken it. So that's affordable rent and shared
3:17:30
ownership. Um my instinct is that if discounted market sale is is factored
3:17:37
in, it wouldn't hugely change the outcome of the viability modeling as it's shown in there at the moment.
3:17:53
Um, Miss Cooper, in terms of the clarification, I think Mr. Martin has suggested might be needed.
3:18:00
Yeah, I was just to say, you know, we'd be happy to sort of reook at that um amendment to the policy and it could
3:18:06
just be a case of removing that sort of bit in brackets, which was essentially there just to sort of provide a bit of
3:18:12
clarification and assist
3:18:17
Thank you. Wonder Mr. Martin whether Mr. Newman's response adds to kind of your further point earlier about kind of
3:18:23
transparency of well completeness of the viability picture. It was a point I was going to raise that
3:18:29
do we not do we not need a final sweep of the viability that shows all the correct policy requirements just to
3:18:35
demonstrate without a doubt that that these the topologies are viable. I
3:18:41
appreciate what Mr. uum says and miss may well be be right. I wouldn't want to query him. He's the expert, but surely
3:18:47
we need something in writing and a piece of evidence to fundamentally show that rather than just sort of word of mouth.
3:18:57
Indeed, professional word of mouth.
3:19:03
It was it was just to add very quickly, I'd like to assure everyone Mr. Martin doesn't work for me. I know he's I know
3:19:09
he's created new business for me and new costs and new work. I will hap I will happily do the exercise if you think
3:19:15
it's going to add to your decision making. I think yeah qualify that if I think
3:19:22
it's ne needed and necessary. Yep. And the council might have a view view on that as well.
3:19:31
Right. Okay. On that uh on that note, if we can move on then just um I'm going to
3:19:37
take sort of items six and seven together in terms of the mix of housing um and we also sort of into the optional
3:19:45
um technical standards on accessibility. The final part of policy 19
3:19:51
referred to meeting the needs of the aging population are accessible to all and I think the council has
3:19:59
thought about a modificate modification to this part of the policy and what's
3:20:04
intended is that Miss Cooper yes so we've um suggested a modification
3:20:10
to that policy just to remove the are accessible to all bit and to change the
3:20:16
age and population to older people just to bring that in line with the MPPF.
3:20:38
Thank you. And I so I take the two two policies relatively closely together. So just say with the council for policy 20
3:20:46
and the various MIQs um I had there at 713 and 714 about the justification.
3:20:53
These are obviously optional technical standards that councils can bring uh in above and beyond um uh building
3:21:01
regulations. Uh the planning practice guidance sets out kind of various kind of evidential
3:21:08
kind of thresholds for introducing such policy requirements. Obviously ensuring that they remain kind of viable. I think
3:21:15
heard from Mr. New earlier that perhaps earlier testing had assumed higher higher kind of thresholds certainly on
3:21:22
M43. Um again if I can just invite the council
3:21:28
just to very briefly outline the kind of justification for bringing in these particular uh optional technical
3:21:34
standards for the burough what the council seeking to achieve please.
3:21:40
Yes. So I think as we've picked up on quite a bit um this morning there is a need in the burough for accommodation
3:21:47
for older people accessible accommodation. Um the schmar assesses housing stock and condition as well as
3:21:53
demographic trends. Um and it identifies as we've sort of already discussed a
3:21:59
need for wheelchair accessible homes. I think that's set out in table 5.16 in
3:22:05
the schmar. Um the schmar goes on to recommend a policy that requires new homes to be built to accessibility
3:22:13
standards and it suggests a range of between five and 10%. Obviously the council have kind of gone with that 5%.
3:22:19
um of new dwellings to be built to M43.
3:22:24
And the council's adult social care strategy identifies that 12% of residents have long-term health problems
3:22:30
or disabilities, which further just evidences the need for accessible homes.
3:22:43
Thank you. In terms of the the higher M43 um wheelchair user um requirement,
3:22:51
my recollection from the planning practice guidance is that that's for homes where the local authority would
3:22:58
have the nomination right so they're not to just generally be built on the kind of the open market. Does that need a
3:23:04
clarification or a modification somewhere in the plan to make it clear where that higher requirement uh is is
3:23:13
going to apply? Yeah, we have suggested an amendment to
3:23:19
the supporting text for policy 20 under question 7.14 which would just clarify
3:23:25
that in line with the PPG, the local authority would be responsible for
3:23:30
assessing applicants for wheelchair accessible homes and be responsible for nominating residents for those
3:23:36
dwellings. Thank you. Um so in terms of housing mix
3:23:43
and um accessible homes as part of that if I turn to people on my left and start
3:23:51
with council the Ford then I hear from Mr. Hutchinson. I'll come back around to Mr. Martin please.
3:23:57
Thank you. Um, yes, I I do um appreciate
3:24:02
that there was um uh a a potential problem with that that um part four of
3:24:08
policy 19 and the council um agreeing to remove it. It is a shame because um it
3:24:15
is a wonderful aspiration to have housing that's accessible to all and um
3:24:20
accessible to all should mean that all new dwellings do have um the uh M42 so
3:24:29
that that they're at least level access and are easy to adapt to make them more accessible which really is vital as has
3:24:36
been said the the schmar shows the um the needs of more and more people um uh
3:24:42
and clearly in our burough that you know there are many older houses in the burough that are difficult to adapt and
3:24:48
that become unsuitable for for people um so uh I think that the evidence is is
3:24:57
clearly there this is a key purpose of local plan to meet future needs um so
3:25:03
you know there are clearly not enough current homes accessible or adaptable and the need will increase during the
3:25:09
plan period um so it's justified All new homes should be at least M42. Other
3:25:15
authorities may not yet be requiring 100% of new homes to be built to this
3:25:20
standard as it is optional. But it's clear that this authority has based their decision to require all new homes
3:25:27
to have this basic level um of accessibility on sound evidence and it will meet the identified needs. Um the
3:25:34
second paragraph of policy 20 is also based on the evidence um in the Schmar 2023.
3:25:41
um the identified levels of disability in the population now and the needs the
3:25:46
demographic um uh uh trend of our of our
3:25:51
population. Um so the policy in the plan has taken the
3:25:57
minimum percentage of 5% um where the you know the schma had identified between 5% and 10%
3:26:04
um and 43 um properties a year um and
3:26:10
they have limited that to only developments of 50 or more homes and given the high levels of disability in
3:26:17
the bur already this does seem like too low a target. Um so we propose that um
3:26:25
one way of improving that would be to remove that condition of only applying in developments of 50 or more homes. Um
3:26:32
I think particularly as it's now been clarified the council would be part of nominating who you know who needs that. Um that all
3:26:40
developers all developments should play their part in providing homes that are accessible to wheelchair users. Um there
3:26:47
shouldn't be, you know, it shouldn't be sort of ghettoized into only particular
3:26:53
developments. Um and I think that was all I had to
3:26:59
say. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson, please.
3:27:04
Yes. Thank you, sir. Just following the the discussion on the um
3:27:10
the need for dwellings to be accessible and adaptable. We would fully support
3:27:15
that. It allows people to stay in their homes longer by making some sensible
3:27:20
design changes. It also reflects the need identified in the schmar and
3:27:26
without it it's hard to see how we can respond to the problem of aging and the need to keep people in dependent for as
3:27:33
long as possible. So I think that's an important point. I'd like to go back to
3:27:39
the issue of housing mix question 6.1 if that's uh if that's okay. Um
3:27:46
really it's about the uh the plan needing to acknowledge the role of the
3:27:52
neighborhood forums in defining what specific housing mix is required in
3:27:57
their areas. Um the housing needs assessment that we carried out when we
3:28:03
put together the neighborhood plan gives a clear indication of the housing mix best suited to the needs of local
3:28:09
residents. Reference should be made to the neighborhood plan within the draft
3:28:15
local plan. if the needs of residents would to be truly met rather than East Balden having to reflect the overall
3:28:22
situation within the burough. Experience that we've had from the
3:28:27
recent Cleven Lane planning application suggests that if it's left to developers
3:28:32
and market decision making, the needs of local residents in relation to housing mix won't be met. Therefore, the local
3:28:40
plan should be more explicit in its requirements in relation to this.
3:28:45
Paragraph seven of the East Boulder neighborhood plan refers to the housing mix identified and states a key role for
3:28:53
the neighborhood plan is to provide a policy framework to support the provision of a mix of homes to meet
3:29:00
local needs. The East Balden housing needs assessment provides evidence to
3:29:06
illustrate the required mix of new homes across the plan area. There are three points associated with that. First of
3:29:14
all, home ownership is the most is the most common tenure within the plan area,
3:29:19
whilst privately rented homes have increased their share significantly between 2001 and 2011.
3:29:27
This suggests a rising demand for rented properties and also that there should be a greater emphasis on delivering homes
3:29:34
for private rent and shared ownership. Secondly, there's a lower proportion of
3:29:40
one-person households compared to South Tinside as a whole. And of these, a
3:29:46
substantial proportion are age 65 and over. The recommended housing split for
3:29:52
new dwellings is for one-bedroom properties 26%,
3:29:57
two bedrooms 42%, three bedrooms 32%, and for four
3:30:03
bedrooms 0%. I think that's a very important point to bear in mind for the
3:30:09
new developments proposed in the area. Um, finally, the current provision of
3:30:15
specialist accommodation for the elderly is not sufficient to meet the needs of projected elderly population. The
3:30:23
neighborhood plan identified a need to deliver an additional 64 bed places um
3:30:28
up to 2031. We went into further detail uh on that particular issue early this
3:30:34
morning when talking about provision of housing for the elderly. So I think to
3:30:39
to sum up um we're saying the draft local plan should reflect what was
3:30:44
contained within the neighborhood plan and shape policy so that any sites put forward in the forum area required
3:30:52
specifically to cater for the needs and wishes of its residents.
3:30:59
Thank you councelor KGO. Is that for this point or previous point? Yep.
3:31:06
Just just two points sir if I may. Um the 12% that was noted around um
3:31:14
residents in the burough having um a long-term health condition or disability. I wonder if there's been um
3:31:22
a run at um maybe a 7.5 requirement rather than a five or a 10.
3:31:29
Um has that been looked at? And as well um what concerns me in the draft plan is
3:31:36
paragraph 8.68 68 um where it suggests that um any plans submitted um within
3:31:44
the six-month period following adoption would not require adherence to that and
3:31:50
that or that's what it what I'm reading it to to mean that would concern me with
3:31:56
regards to SP8. Thank you Mr. Martin please.
3:32:05
Thank you sir. Um I think in regards to the proposed changes the council put in the hearing statement rel relating to
3:32:12
policy 19 in the mix. I think that provides clarity that that we were
3:32:18
certainly looking at. I think it's right that applicants should have regard to
3:32:23
the the schmar when uh looking at the housing mix for specific developments. It's not the only consideration that
3:32:30
needs to be taken into account. Obviously there's market considerations. there's the actual site, its location,
3:32:37
its context, its constraints. Um, so I'm happy that there's the flexibility in
3:32:42
that policy that would allow them to look at all those factors when looking
3:32:48
at a mix on site. Um, and not just an assumption that every single site should
3:32:53
follow the exact same mix uh when when they come forward. Um the issue we we
3:33:00
have is is more to do with the M42 and um requirements. Um it's obviously 100%
3:33:07
at the moment. The PPG is quite clear as to what you need to be looking at. Uh this is it's a
3:33:14
it's a need to have basis, not a nice to have basis. In an ideal world, it would be great. If every single house could be
3:33:21
M42, that would be fantastic. But there has to be evidence behind it and that's
3:33:28
quite clear. So, and it's not just about need, it's about the size, location, the
3:33:33
type, the quality of the housing, uh whether existing stock can be adapted,
3:33:40
um whether there how that need varies across different tenurs and then also
3:33:46
obviously there's the viability implications. Now the schma when I read through it is very clear on the need
3:33:52
some of those other points I'll get to viability in a minute but the other points about location size the
3:34:00
adaptability etc the different tenures I'm not sure it's as clear on that in terms of the evidence um it certainly
3:34:07
isn't anything specific in the I can see saying these are the relevant tenures for instance that we need to be
3:34:13
considering this against um the point I would make is in terms of
3:34:21
viability, it is a, you know, viability is quite tight in this area. It's an area where we you do have to be careful
3:34:28
with viability. I note in the 2023 update to the viability assessment. Mr.
3:34:34
New says it may be prudent for the council to revisit its proposed accessibility adaptability standards.
3:34:40
The proposed policy for M42 standard is currently applied to 100% of houses given the viability challenges shown in
3:34:46
the modeling. Um the council could consider this in order to aid scheme viability. And it's just interesting as
3:34:53
well to compare that that figure to neighboring authorities. So Newcastle is
3:34:58
25% M42 Gates is 25% Sunderland is 10
3:35:04
North Tinside is 50 Durham is 66%. So it would be an outlier in the area if it
3:35:11
were to come forward with 100% and just because of the the margins in terms of
3:35:17
viability. I think it would be prudent if potentially a lowered figure would be
3:35:23
considered and it could ease viability pressure. I know that's already been done with
3:35:29
M43, but it's whether it could be done could have been done for for M42. The
3:35:34
the other point I would make is regarding the wheelchair accessible
3:35:40
point. So that requires the council to have the nomination rights over those
3:35:47
those um properties. What is the situation if the council
3:35:53
aren't able to identify somebody to occupy a certain dwelling on a on a site? What what happens to that
3:35:59
dwelling? Um, does it does it revert to needing to be wheelchair adaptable
3:36:05
rather than wheelchair accessible? I just again a bit clarity on that would be would be great. Thank you.
3:36:22
Okay. Thank you. If I can come back to um the council on some of the points that have been raised there. So the
3:36:29
first one I wanted to pick up was from um Mr. Hutchinson
3:36:34
where there would be Nessa under policy 19 to not only cross refer to the schmar
3:36:40
but also to cross refer to other uh evidence or technically in part in
3:36:46
terms of the neighborhood plan parts of the development plan that could inform specific
3:36:54
housing mix. Um earlier on in the plan particularly
3:37:01
under policy SP1 we do require developments to be sort of in accordance and have regard to the neighborhood
3:37:07
plans. Um obviously the council have kind of considered that sufficient but
3:37:14
yeah can look at a obviously an amendment if if you think that that's necessary.
3:37:22
No thank you. That's I'll reflect on that and I'll look back at that policy SP1. um uh reference
3:37:30
uh in terms of the um optional technical standards and um the
3:37:40
M42 issue. Um is it correct Mr. new that
3:37:47
effectively the final viable if we call it the final viability um position
3:37:53
acknowledging it's iterative does assume 100% um M42 and that's a balance with all the
3:38:01
other kind of policy um requirements. Yeah, correct. Yes. And and just to
3:38:08
reiterate, so the M42 standard's been assumed at 100% of all dwellings in the modeling and also the M43 standard has
3:38:15
been over prescribed in the modeling. It's at 13%, not 5%. So the adjustment
3:38:20
that's been made in the policy is already going to help the viability.
3:38:26
Thank you. And then finally, does the council have a view in terms of the point made by Mr. Um um
3:38:33
Martin in terms of just the practical implications whe there's anything further that's
3:38:39
needed to policy in terms of if you know that uh M43 requirement is not fulfilled
3:38:47
what occurs I mean I'm presuming Mr. Martin that would be resolved or discussed prior to the grant of any kind
3:38:54
of planning permission before anything's built or implemented and kind of factored in at that stage.
3:39:00
There isn't a risk of something going ahead and not meeting a
3:39:06
particular need. Um I don't know that that for for
3:39:11
certain I don't know because you could it depends when that nomination process
3:39:18
comes about whether it's post signing for section 106 or or pre
3:39:23
um and whether if you are going down this route it's something that's put in a section 106 that's almost like a
3:39:29
cascade or something like that that could be done but it's not clear
3:39:35
just to aid me from the council's perspective and obser and other evidence. I mean, in terms of thinking
3:39:41
about kind of nomination rights, people with mobility issues who will potentially um
3:39:48
be uh placed in um the accommodation swords, I don't know, Mixon or any other
3:39:55
insist on this. I mean, is there any kind of shortage of likely kind of households
3:40:02
that would qualify for that type of accommodation? As you sit here now as a kind of council housing manager, is
3:40:07
there a strong demand for accessible? Yes. I mean, just to say that currently
3:40:12
on our housing register, the greatest need uh for people needing to move is because their home is not suitable due
3:40:20
to health needs. So although I do appreciate the practicalities if you know if you can't
3:40:27
match necessarily an individual to um the property that's being developed I I
3:40:33
don't think there's a a shortage of need at this current moment in time.
3:40:40
Thank you. Are there any further points people wish to raise on optional technical standards? Some points there for me to further reflect on.
3:40:48
No, we're coming up to 5 to one. The only item that's left on the agenda was gypsy and traveler um provision. Nobody
3:40:56
around the table has made representations on this because nobody has made representations on policy um
3:41:03
21. There were some points I wanted to pick up. I think rather my view is given me I had an earlier start is that I can
3:41:10
pick this up with the council probably next week on the final day just briefly go through that policy then rather than
3:41:19
allow people to have a a lunch break now because we've got an afternoon session as well. So can I thank everybody for
3:41:25
their contributions uh part of this matter seven discussion that was very helpful Mr.
3:41:31
really sorry sir um just on the M42 M43 I know you mentioned in your MIQs about an implementation period
3:41:39
um and it was whether that's being discussed at all because it would be something that we'd be keen to see if it
3:41:44
if this were to come forward okay thank you that's sorry I had kind of uh gone
3:41:51
over that I think the council's response to this is within the plan there is a reference to a transitional period which
3:41:57
obviously which is what the PPG um refers to um were you anticipating
3:42:04
Mr. Martin that it's not in kind of supporting text but is in the policy itself?
3:42:10
No supporting text is fine.
3:42:17
Again, thank you everybody for your contributions this morning. We now adjourn uh this matter 7 discussion and
3:42:22
I'll be seeing some of you again this afternoon at 2:00 for matter nine when we pick up climate change, water
3:42:31
and health uh policies for the burough. Thank you.