Notes of Housing Group meeting held on 18 September 2017

Present: Celia, Jim, Maureen and Phyllida

Apologies: Tim, Ellie

1. Consultation

PC has forwarded the summary and appendices of the consultation to all members.  Katy will shortly send a table for us to respond to the comments.  We agreed that JIM and GLENN will lead but ALL to contribute.  This should be done by 6 October as Jim not available after that.  We all need to consider whether any of the findings affect the HNA or Draft Intentions.

Generally, the consultation shows support for the policies and aspirations.  However we will need to consider the responses to the Land Use question as there were mixed responses to this.

2. Sticking points

There will be a meeting with all parish, town, district and county councillors on 31 October and by then we must know what our sticking points are – ie those things we won’t move on.  So far, we agreed that a minimum of 35% low cost housing is a key point.

3. Design guidelines

We agreed that we do want to have design guidelines and we will need to liaise with Environment and Climate Change groups.  We have some examples from Jan Farnan (sent to Jim, Maureen and Celia – let PC know if you want a copy).  We agreed that we would like to pay someone to do this work.  JIM agreed to do Terms of Reference and PC will refer this to the Steering Group on Wednesday.

4. Allocation of land

Other than the issue about land outside the development boundary we don’t think we should be allocating land.  PC to take to SG on Wednesday.

5. Emails from group members

Tim emailed to give an update on potential funding.

Ellie emailed with some questions and comments on the HNA which we discussed.  PC to draft response for JIM to make changes to HNA.

Maureen and Phyllida had debated the issue about housing for older people which had been queried by WDDC and we agreed to amend the text.  PC to send email to JIM for him to amend.

6. Any outstanding issues

We think most are covered but JIM will check.

However, we do need to agree about the Evidence Base.  We felt we should use Katy’s version but JIM and GLENN to have final say.

DATE OF EXT MEETING:  we may need to meet before the all councillors meeting on 31 October.

Housing Working Group meeting 8th March 2017 at Mountfield

Present: Glenn Crawford; Elaine Streeter; Richard Freer, Phyllida Culpin;  Celia Marsh, Monica King; Jim Tigg

Apologies:  Anna Lovell, Ellie Farmer; Roy Mathisen

No amendments were made to the Register of Interests

1. General update

1.1 PC updated about meeting with Hilary Jordan and colleagues.  Notes have been circulated.  BRID 1 Vearse Farm is strategic.

1.2 At the last but one meeting of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group it was agreed that the housing element needs to be in line with SHMA even if we disagree with it and fight it separately.

1.3 PC has attended two meetings of the Joint Council Committee, firstly to demonstrate progress with the plan and secondly to discuss how the JCC will review our proposals and resolve disagreements, if any.  PC will report back after next JCC meeting.

1.4 The Draft Intentions document is beginning to come together and needs to be with JCC to review by end March.  Housing Group needs to complete its section and then review its policies, projects and proposals against those of the other groups.  JT volunteered to draft.

1.5 Vearse Farm –CM reported that numbers may go up with a piece of adjoining land which would bring a further 80 units. Land Use group to consider and cross check with Environment.

1.6 RM has been liaising with Paul Derrien at WDDC for housing need data.  (Post meeting note:  now received and is different from that previously sent and shows greater housing need.)

2. Local plan review session

2.1 RF reported back and circulated notes. Terry Sneller has said that increased number of houses to increase number of working age people coming into area to balance against older people here.This is also in the Sustainability Document. GC has sent link.5 models of growth and WDDC chose the most ambitious and assumes economic boom coming.Hence 775 pa for WDDC. Review of Local Plan suggests lower growth rate but suggests it’s a ‘foolish’ option.

2.2 Steering Group will do formal response.GC has some wording.All to comment if wish. Self build group will be putting in a response.

2.3 Emphasis on developing Sherbourne and Dorchester.Mixed messages on AONB.Removal of ‘minimum’ 35%.

3. Housing white paper

3.1 JT – talks about rationalising how housing need is determined and supporting self build.  Could bring into HNA some more things from White Paper which we support.  Register of land to be set up.  Some relevant to our area and  some not.  Support for Modern methods of construction.  Training requirements on construction sites.

4. Meeting with CG Fry

4.1 ES met with Frys and notes circulated.The representative seemed to query the amount of affordable now required from White Paper.  JT will check the % requirements of White Paper.Rep of Frys to come to future meeting. ES to arrange.

4.2 Notes of meeting to go intoHNA.JT/GC to follow up.

4.3 ES to do some research on design methods which are eco and don’t cost more.  CM says to contact John Butler who has just written these – she will contact him.

4.4 Vearse Farm good opportunity to go for good eco standards and MMOC.

4.5 Meeting with Head of Development at Magna on 23rd.  PC will report back.

5. Housing Needs Assessment - HNA

5.1 HNA now on draft 10 – taking into account WDDC’s feedback.  Does it still represent the vision of the Group – this needs to be checked!  GC and JT to review current and then all members to review.

5.2 ES – is there provision for rough sleepers and drug and alcohol?– JT to review.  ES to write section for HNA. Need evidence – CAB, Cupboard Love and Pilsdon. Need to cross reference into Community Facilities PC.

6. What next?

6.1 Rationalise HNA JT and GC

6.2 All members to read once JT and GC have reviewed

6.3 Draft ‘Draft Intentions’ by end of March: JT – to draft and then GC and PC to review.

6.4 Check policies are robust and ambitious and allow room for movement in negotiating with WDDC.  ALL once draft intentions received.

6.5 JT – 15 March to go to Totnes to find out they did it!  CM to circulate information on self build at Totnes.

6.6       Date of Next meeting  28th March at 6pm with Fry and PC to book room. ES to contact Frys.  Need questions for him.  PC to circulate notes of Magna meeting and then all to come up with ?s.   EG Given that even affordable is beyond the reach of people what would he do to make it more affordable? How do you see it working?

Housing Working Group meeting, 6th December 2016

Present: Roy Mathisen (RM), Richard Freer (RF), Celia Marsh (CM), Glenn Crawford (GC), Jim Tigg (JT), Richard Nicholls (RN), and from the Climate Working Group, Raja Jarrah (RJ), Richard Toft (RT).

Apologies: Anne Lovell.

Principal Purpose of the Meeting

As an outcome of our November meeting with WDDC’s Special Planning Team in Dorchester there is a need to clarify the rules covering what the NP can and cannot do in terms of aligning with Local Plan strategic policies.  This is an issue affecting all NP Working Groups so the approach will be for Phyllida to lead a team that meets with Hilary Jordan. 

The aim in this meeting is to agree the best way to prepare input that will enable Phyllida and her team to enter into an informed discussion with Hilary Jordan.

Discussion

GC noted that the Local Plan does not seem water tight as the adopted ‘strategic policies’ are not positively identified.  Also it is our view that the estimates of the number of houses needed in the Bridport area require proper substantiation and, failing this, should be modified [downwards].  This view is compounded by the 3 reasons for new houses given by Terry Sneller in our November meeting, namely 1) homes for new local families, 2) homes for new local and incoming employees, 3) homes for incoming retirees.  The HNA found no evidence for 1 and 2 (and saw 3 as a negative).

RM added that his study had concluded that the SHMA used as a basis for the Local Plan estimated a housing need 30% greater than that generated using ONS data.  In other words the SHMA is flawed and consequently so is the Local Plan.  During the November meeting RM challenged Terry Sneller on this matter saying that the extra 30% resulted in a ‘land-hunt’ to meet the target.  The response was that ‘numbers in the SHMA were tested robustly’.  Our view is that in the Local Plan Bridport has been burdened by more houses than are needed. 

The SHMA in question also says that only 8 social housing houses per year were needed – the logic behind this low figure is also seen as flawed.  RM also said he had been told that more houses gave more Affordable Homes as it is 35% of a greater number; a moot point.

For information, and as a separate initiative to the NP, RM has met with Sir Oliver Letwin to field the idea of setting up a ‘West Dorset Housing Trust’ that would provide a conduit for investors and support local builders.  He has sent a letter to Legal & General to seek guidance and asked Sir Oliver to endorse this letter.

RN reported that in the Purbeck area (which shares the same SHMA) an open meeting was held to discuss housing.  It was extremely well attended and the community ‘took the Council to the cleaners’.  RN suggests that a similar ‘Housing Number Problems’ public meeting be held in the Bridport Area. 

JT noted that the HNA does not express a specific concern about the numbers of houses proposed but does with the prohibitive cost of new houses for many would-be purchasers or renters, whether these are Affordable Housing or not. 

The uncertainty of developers meeting the 35% target is also an issue. RJ pointed out that developers have no legal obligation to share their accounts with the public making scrutiny of claims they cannot afford 35% very difficult.

In the November meeting we were advised not to try and redefine ‘affordable’.  To avoid this criticism RJ urged that the use of the term ‘affordable’ when used in a context other than ‘Affordable Housing’ should be avoided.

RT described how the disparity between assessment rulings by NP Assessors (Examiners) needs rationalising.  There is a need to ask MPs why this disparity exists and why a community is not allowed to ask for what it wants.  It was noted that our MP, Oliver Letwin, was an early champion of the Localism bill.

RJ noted that some policies they drafted for the NP were also in early versions of the Local Plan.

RJ explained that the Climate Change Group is also engaged with WDDC, who have similarly pointed out what they are ‘not allowed’ to do.  Their strategy is to see to what extent the officers will accept them stretching the strict interpretation in taking their policies forward to the Independent Examiner, rather than engaging in a full-on argument.

Where to go from here?

As a first step in preparing the ground for the Phyllida’s team to meet with Hilary it was agreed to:

Prepare a list of specific points to send to Jan Farnam with the aim of providing the Special Planning Team an opportunity to address our concerns prior to the meeting with Hilary.  In the same email we will request the written response from Jan that was promised (mark-up of the Table of Key Findings p.25-27 of HNA Draft 9).  GC to coordinate (JT, RM to input).

Request to provide the Housing Working Group with a copy of Purbeck’s analysis of the SHMA. RN

Share the response to the Climate Change Working Group’s response to their questions sent to Jan Farnham. RJ

Take up RN’s suggestion to call a ‘Bridport Area Housing Number Problems’ public meeting.  Action – keep in mind for future meeting.

Next Draft of the HNA

Draft 10 of the HNA was agreed as necessary.  JT is maintaining a file of all potential changes and potential new material gleaned from emails, minutes etc.

It was agreed that working on Draft 10 of the HNA should be held until we are clear about what we are going to put forward as ‘policy’ and what is aspirational, or what is simply comment.

RJ suggests that an Executive Summary be placed at the front of the HNA.  JT emphasised that all suggestions are invited and welcome.

Housing Working Group meeting with Representatives of WDDC, Dorchester, 23rd November 2016

Present:

WDDC: Jan Farnham, Terry Sneller, Paul Derrien

Bridport Town Council: Katy Graham (KG)

Housing Working Group:  Glenn Crawford (GC), Roy Mathisen (RM), Jim Tigg (JT)

Purpose of Meeting:

Meet with WDDC to obtain and discuss the feedback from their review Draft 9 of the HNA.

Notes

Overall

WDDC did not have written comments at the ready but instead chose to take a more generalised approach.

Their opening statement was that the HNA addressed a lot of issues that could not be incorporated into the Neighbourhood Plan as they are not land-use related, e.g. financing, facilitation through shared-ownership schemes.

The main focus of all discussion was on the table in Section 3 – Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations.  WDDC will provide written comments on this Section.  A sample of WDDC observations is:

• Do not re-define “Affordable Housing” which is a reserved term.

• Particular issues that can be covered should be ‘local’ – such as ageing population

• Starter Homes are a government requirement and therefore must be taken as a given.  (However, we were still allowed to comment in the HNA on their (un)suitability for local conditions)

• Any policy relating to sustainable construction standards cannot demand a standard higher than that currently legislated by Building Standards, which are outside the scope of Planning.Instead think about a ‘solar farm’ if the land can be found.Also ‘encourage’ renewable energy.

• Define how to tackle and develop draft policies, e.g. for Exception Sites look at ways of combining Affordable with Open-market housing such that cross-subsidies are achieved.Clarify wording for the policy decision makers.

In essence it was emphasised that the Neighbourhood Plan (and therefore by implication, the HNA) could not digress from policies contained in the Local Plan and government policy and legislation.  If the wish is for more Affordable Homes [as per govt. definition] then these would need to be developed via exception sites for which land would need to be found.  (Possibly aided by crowd-sourcing, community funding etc.).  Exception Sites can have different site-specific rules, mandated within a NP.  The policy allowing this is already contained in the Local Plan.

WDDC also emphasised that developers will not develop unless their project is financially viable and acknowledged that this viability may, in some instances, only be achievable at the expense of the 35% Affordable House allocation (applicable for sites of >10 houses).

WDDC acknowledged that excessive growth in Bridport, being in the AONB, was counter to national policy but justify the number of new homes allocated on formation of new households from existing residents (typically children growing up and moving out to their own family home), incoming workers to take up newly created jobs, and incoming retirees.  The NP delegates feel that the point regarding incoming workers should be challenged – where is the evidence for this?  Where are the highly-paid jobs which will provide household income to buy new £300k homes? (£68k p.a. required for 80% mortgage).  Similarly for local new families; given the costs involved, most growing families would not have sufficient funds without parental help.

Key Specific Points

Definition of ‘Local Connection’: Towards developing a definition of ‘local’ WDDC (Paul) will email the WDDC standard criteria that must be met to go on the Social Register.

Meeting of Local Plan Targets: Whilst the SHMA determined the numbers of houses and the Local Plan setting a target of some 15,500 homes within the single West Dorset Housing Market Area the location of the houses is dependant on land availability.  Sites for all but approximately 4,000 homes have been identified to date with Dorchester and Sherbourne taking the largest share.  For Bridport the Local Plan has some 945 allocated sites including Vearse Farm.

CIL: A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is now in place at £100 per m2 of building.  This levy does not apply to Affordable Housing.  Income from the levy goes into WDDC coffers, 25% of CIL is granted to the Parish in which a development has taken place and thus Bridport may only see a ‘sliver’ of a levy on one of its new properties. Vearse Farm is not subject to a CIL in lieu of the development including new facilities such as a school (which means the development benefits in full from this quasi-levy).  CIL will probably feature in the viability argument.

‘Staircasing’: Can give unintended problems around obtaining a mortgage.

NP Development: Katy ran through the process that is needed to deliver the NP.

Wrap-up

Whilst the focus was very much on the HNA Recommendations WDDC indicated that the document could be ‘fleshed out’ and made easier to grasp.  They suggest we write up draft NP policies, and highlight within the HNA – which becomes an evidence document for the NP – which of its findings are going forward as NP policies (currently indicated in pink, “crucial”, in the table in HNA Section 3). 

The next step is to prepare HNA Draft 10 for which WDDC’s written comments will be an essential input.  WDDC said that the trend is for NP Examiners to want to see some indication of how NP policies will be enacted so that should be made clear in the text.  In GC’s opinion the next draft will need to re-order the content to clearly separate items which are “aspirations” but can’t become NP policies from those which are intended to go forward as NP policy.  The HNA will remain as an “evidence” document.

There is a process of “screening” (Strategic Environmental Assessment) to which the NP must be submitted to decide whether a Sustainability Appraisal is needed due to new development land introduced by the NP.  WDWP can arrange that for us on request.  It is essential that this is done in tandem with development of the NP, not after it, or it may be legally challenged later as having been doctored to fit the evidence.

WDDC were thanked for their time.

J.Tigg, 25 Nov 2016

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 11 October 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

James Tigg (JT), Anna Lovell (AL), Richard Freer (RF), Roy Mathisen (RM), Glenn Crawford (GC).

No changes to interests were declared.

The meeting was specifically to review comments received as a result of circulating the Housing Needs Assessment (draft 9) for review to the Steering Group, Working Group leads, Joint Councils, Project Consultant and Town Clerk.  Comments had been collected and collated by Katy Graham, Project Manager.

Attendees separated into two groups and worked to resolve as many of the comments as possible.  Most suggestions either required no action or could be met with simple modifications to the text.  A minority will need further work or investigation.  No further editing of the HNA itself is anticipated until WDWP have reviewed the HNA, which is scheduled for early November.

Actions:

1. to combine results into a single report and return to Katy Graham.

2. to store proposed changes for incorporation into future update to HNA. 

GC noted that this was the last meeting that he would chair as his term as Working Group lead had now concluded.

Next meeting: not arranged.  It is suggested that the next meeting could be jointly with the Land Use Working Group to compare progress and findings.

Glenn Crawford

Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan, Housing Working Group

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 13 September 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

Anna Lovell (AL), Richard Freer (RF), Roy Mathisen (RM), Glenn Crawford (GC).

No changes to interests were declared.

GC reported that the Housing Needs Assessment (Draft 9) was circulated for review and comment on 5th September.  It went to members of the Steering Group, all Working Group leads, Bob Gillis, Jo Witherden, Katy Graham and to members of the Joint Council.  Comments will be returned to Katy with a deadline of 30th September.

A further round of review will be undertaken by Jan Farnan, Terry Sneller, Paul Derrien at WDWP.  RM and GC will introduce the HNA in person at a meeting in Dorchester on 19th September (a third NP representative is sought for this) and leave them with both paper and electronic copy.  A target for them to inspect and report the HNA will be negotiated at the meeting.

Following receipt of comments, the Housing group must then study and decide how to handle each comment.  To that end the next Housing Working Group meeting will be a few days after closure of the 30th September deadline.  Following that, the group must work with other Working Groups to achieve a seamless set of statements for the Neighbourhood Plan.  The precise mechanism by which this would happen was unclear and GC will find out.

RM updated attendees on his progress towards an education programme to make local councillors better aware of housing issues.

GC reminded attendees that he wishes to step down as Housing group convener.  No-one had come forward and RM thought we should wait until we see how WDWP receive our HNA when the magnitude and complexity of the work going forward would be more evident.  The over-riding quality needed for the next phase of work was probably ability to organise and chair the group, not housing expertise.

Next meeting:

Tuesday 11th October, 5:30pm start, Mountfield.

Glenn Crawford

Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan, Housing Working Group

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 24 August 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

Anna Lovell (AL), Richard Freer (RF), Celia Marsh (CM), Richard Nicholls (RN), Glenn Crawford (GC).

Noted that Ellie Farmer is now unavailable until March 2017.

No changes to interests were declared.

GC reminded attendees that the purpose for the meeting was to review outstanding items for the Housing Needs Assessment to enable it to be circulated beyond the Housing Working Group.  Having incorporated almost all previously requested changes there were three outstanding areas.

1. Definition of percentage of “affordable” housing.

a. GC reported that it had been impossible to uncover definitive information on the number of households who would aspire to move into new homes if provided, which was necessary if a definite target number of lower-cost homes were to be given.WDWP will attempt to help but cannot until key staff return from holiday.For now the HNA will contain a statement saying this is under review but to emphasise in a statement that the sector of the local public the HNA is primarily intending to support is those who wish to move into better accommodation but are unable to through lack and/or cost of suitable homes.Action: to insert wording.

b. GC suggested that, because the 35% “Affordable Housing” by Government definition (20% discount) promised by the Local Plan is of little help in our area, the thrust of the HNA must be to promote genuinely lower-cost homes which are beyond the 35% proportion.This was agreed.

2. Priority access to lower-cost homes.

a. It was not clear what methods exist to restrict tenure of new lower-cost homes which are not formally “Affordable Housing” to households with a local connection, or essential workers. GC had asked the question of WDWP who are yet to reply.Wording has been added to the HNA stating the requirement, and it will be left to professionals to suggest a legally binding mechanism.Agreed that this is adequate.

3. Policies from BLAP’s housing report are included in the text but have not been approved by the group.

a. All recommendations were accepted apart from “housing needs for vulnerable and elderly”. This was felt to be out of step with current conditions and better covered elsewhere in the HNA, so is not included.Action; to remove its recommendation.

There was a general review of the wording. Subject to four minor changes to the draft reviewed (9f) and incorporation of the points above it was unanimously agreed that the HNA should now be issued to the Steering Group, elected councillors and WDWP officers for further comment.  Action:  GC to update and release HNA by 6th September.

It was agreed that distribution should be managed carefully using paper copy to restrict circulation.  GC would release an electronic copy to Katy Graham our Project Manager; copies would then be issued by KG, accompanied by a letter (GC or KG to write) briefly describing the HNA and outlining the reviewing role that we would like the recipient to carry out, and inviting them to attend a review meeting around two weeks later.  In the meantime any early comments or questions would need to be addressed to KG on behalf of the Working Group.  Action:  GC to discuss this with KG, and subject to her agreement to implement the release plan.

Next meeting:

Tuesday 13th September, 5:30pm start, Mountfield.

Glenn Crawford

Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan, Housing Working Group

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 10 August 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

Anna Lovell (AL), Richard Freer (RF), Ellie Farmer (EF), Jim Tigg (JT), Celia Marsh (CM), Glenn Crawford (GC).

Apologies

Roy Mathisen, Dominic Knorpel (DK), Richard Nicholls.

DK, who had been expecting to attend, provided notes for the meeting instead.

There were no changes to declarations of interests.

Agenda Items

1. Continuation of discussions of “universally affordable” policy, also aired at 9th August Steering Group meeting.

a. If universally affordable housing is to be the policy, to what extent is this to be restricted to local residents, and what mechanisms exist to allow that?

The group felt they did not have the expertise to answer this although EF had done some research into classes of restriction which are applied elsewhere.  “Section 157” which is commonly used in properties built on former Council or Community Land Trust land is not appropriate to homes built on privately owned sites, moreover mortgage lenders are averse to it. GC to seek advice from NP consultant Jo Witherden and from Jan Farnan at WDDP.

b. GC suggested that the figure of 100%, currently stated for the proportion of new homes to be low cost, was an arbitrary one. With a view to better quantifying the number, how many local households would wish to take advantage of these homes (for first purchase or to upgrade), and what size of property do they need?It was not clear how this could be established and this item is .

2. Housing Needs Assessment unfinished work.

Principle areas requiring further work are listed below:

a. Older residents in outlying areas may, with advancing years, wish to move to suitable accommodation nearer health and other facilities.The draft Housing Needs Assessment already states this but could do so more forcefully.The group agreed that it would not be practical to try and suggest how many households this would include. to improve existing wording.

b. Finish incorporating Jo Witherden's suggestions from Draft 8.

c. Review DK’s 9th August comments and evaluate to what extent they have (or have not) already been taken into account for Draft 9 – will do this ( to provide him with printed copy of unfinished Draft 9).

d. Complete an analysis of SHMA where its conclusions appear not to follow its data, and incorporate findings – .

e. Improve illustrations which demonstrate that larger percentages of lower cost housing need not impair developers’ viability (postponed). to invite Tim Crabtree to next meeting if this is within his area of expertise.

f. Assemble Health & Wellbeing Board evidence of linkage between health and housing in HNA ().

g. review the note which our colleagues on the Land Use Working Group wrote for us (attached) to see whether there's anything in there which isn't already covered ().

h. We need to move the HNA on, so we can start to get feedback from people outside the Neighbourhood Plan group; WDDP Housing, WDDP Planning, the Bridport Area “Joint Councils”.It was felt that the question of affordable percentage must be settled before this happens.()

3. Items arising from 9th August Steering Group meeting

• The meeting included a presentation by GC on the reasoning behind universal low-cost housing followed by discussion with attendees which centred on older residents’ needs, and the type of buyers who are currently unable to find homes.

• The need to allow movement of older residents from outlying areas to town was debated (2a above).

• Incoming key workers, especially medical, need to find housing and must not be barred by unreasonably restrictive policies.

• It was suggested that developers would be discouraged by too high a proportion of affordable housing, resulting in a reduction in building of new homes, counter to what is required.

• DK said future revisions of the Local Plan must take into account any neighbourhood plan Housing Needs Assessments.The Local Plan is about to undergo revision so it is important the HNA is made ready.

Next meeting:

Wednesday 24th August, 5:30pm start, Mountfield.

Glenn Crawford

Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan, Housing Working Group

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 12 July 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

Anna Lovell (AL), Ellie Farmer (EF), Roy Mathisen (RM), Jim Tigg (JT), Glenn Crawford (GC).

Katy Graham, Bridport Town Council Project Manager, attended as observer.

There were no changes to declarations of interests.

Agenda Items

1. Does the Group wish to retain "100% Affordable" policy in the face of warnings over rejection by the Inspector and worries over viability?

This was discussed thoroughly and in conclusion:

• As the housing “Need” is clearly for 100% lower cost housing, that is the only conclusion which the HNA can state.According to PAS (Planning Advisory Service) guidance, it is not for the HNA to set policy, but to inform of need, and that is what we are doing.

• When the next HNA draft is available it should be circulated to key WDDC staff (via Jan Farnan?) and a meeting requested with them to discuss the HNA’s findings.

• The HNA does not adequately explain the faults in the West Dorset SHMA which fails to convert housing need data into a realistic set of requirements.Action: RM to produce a summary of these shortcomings to incorporate into the next HNA draft.

• Do we accept the PAS guidance that "the HNA sets out evidence to inform policy rather than itself comprising policy", and water down our existing Policy, Proposal, Project statements to just different grades of "Conclusions"?

• With a slight amendment to column headings it can be made clear that the statements are not policies but recommendations and observations.

• Do we agree to state that a “local connection” is required for access to Affordable Housing?

• Yes; although the protection this gives may not last beyond the first owner of a property.Action:EF will look into whether Local Connection can be applied to open market properties.

• Can we conceive of ideas which would give local buyers a head start over buyers from outside the area?

• Only via Community Land Trusts.RM points out that incoming buyers tend to go for the more up-market houses and are therefore not so much in direct competition with less well-off local residents.

Additional item

RM will organise a series of educational sessions leading towards a West Dorset “Housing Summit” in the autumn.  This will be done outside of the framework of the NP.  The intention is to inform Councillors of the housing challenges which residents face, so that future revisions of the Local Plan can more accurately reflect true housing need.  The Bridport Area and other NPs would benefit from this as their recommendations would be less likely to conflict with the Local Plan.

The question put before attendees is “to what extent do NP colleagues feel that the NP can be connected to RM’s independent initiative?”

After discussion three levels of possible involvement emerged; 1) for the NP to actively back RM by being present at his seminars, 2) for RM to proceed independently but keep NP representatives involved and informed, 3) for RM to resign from the NP and go it alone.  The group decided for 2) and this decision will be communicated to the NP Steering Group.

Glenn Crawford

Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 9 June 2016

Venue Slader’s Yard, West Bay

Attendance

Jim Tigg, Dominic Knorpel, Glenn Crawford

Agenda Items

This was an interim meeting with a specific list of attendees convened exclusively to resolve problems that DK had identified with HNA Draft 8.

In summary, DK has two main complaints:

a) the HNA’s findings are for the entire NP Area and are not localised to individual parishes.  He believes this could make it more difficult for parish councils to identify how the HNA relates specifically to them, and this in turn may impede progress of the HNA towards acceptance.

b) in declaring a desire for universal affordability of new housing, the result may be to frighten away developers fearing loss of viability, resulting in a downturn of home building.

These points and several others arising were discussed at length.  The key outcomes are:

1. The use of the HNA to try and formulate draft policy troubles DK who believes that it should present data without making judgment.As this is contrary to received advice GC will take this up with our consultant.It is more important to put forward policy principles than to define the policies themselves.

2. In editing the HNA, more emphasis will be put on the difference between West Dorset Local Plan provisions and the proven requirements of the NP Area.

3. We should try and find more parish-related housing need data, e.g. from the Rural Services Network, particularly each parish’s age distribution compared with rest of Dorset and with England.

4. More parish-specific data would help underline a case for more building on “rural exception sites” (outside of established development boundary).

5. Health & Wellbeing data on housing topics has great leverage with planners and DK will send a copy of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment by Dorset Health to GC / JT.

6. If pursuit of universal affordability can be justified by evidence, and by statements in the Local Plan, NPPG and other higher level documents, and provided the viability for developers can be proved, then it can remain a goal. It must be rigorously justified or it will fail the inspection process.

7. Providing new housing specifically for the infirm elderly, if it enables them to move out of their long-term home which has become unsuitable, has the advantage of freeing up housing, often family-sized.

8. The idea of a “hierarchy of need” was suggested; e.g. social rented, affordable rented, affordable purchased, open market.

9. Recent BLAP reports on Housing Need should be specifically referenced and perhaps excerpts quoted, since WDWP contributed to them.

While accepting the validity of DK’s points GC and JT cautioned that to perform substantial additional research or re-structuring of the HNA at this stage could unacceptably delay its completion.  Even when completed the HNA still has to pass inspection by the Steering Group, then the Joint Councils, WDWP and the Government Inspector.  GC will confer with the Steering Group.

Glenn Crawford

Bridport Area Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 19 Apr 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

Ellie Farmer, Roy Mathisen, Jim Tigg, Celia Marsh, Monica King, Dominic Knorpel, Glenn Crawford (chair)

Apologies

Richard Freer

Declarations of interest

No changes

Update on Actions from Previous Meeting:

Survey of builders and developers

Survey is ready to be enacted; volunteers to carry this out yet to be identified apart from DK (Mac Builders and A P Chant) and Tim Crabtree (C G Fry).  Others Persimmon, Hallam, Castle, Taylor Wimpey.  GC to look for volunteers.

Community-Led Housing

Tim Crabtree agreed to write a short text description for the HNA, awaited with interest.

Agenda Items

1. Housing Needs Assessment - HNA

   • Jo Witherden has reviewed Draft 4 and reported her findings, circulated to all by GC.

   • No other Working Groups commented.

   • GC and JT are editing the HNA between them; the nature of the job makes it difficult for others to share the workload.Agreed this is the only way forward despite it being more time consuming than expected.

   • GC is looking for household gross income data for the NP Area but having difficulty.Various leads yet to be followed up but even the County Council’s Principal Research Officer says she can’t find out.

   • Discussion on percentage of Affordable Housing determined by Local Plan: DK of opinion that it can be increased beyond 35% if NP Area conditions justify it; Richard Nicholls to be asked to comment (GC to do this).

   • If “Starter Homes” approach is not suitable for the NP Area, we can say so.

   • Agreed to remove “5%” requirement for serviced plots and reduce to statement of encouragement for self-build and custom build.

1. Tasks Beyond HNA

   • Shelved for next meeting.

Date of next meeting Tuesday 3rd May, principally to further discuss the HNA progress.

Neighbourhood Plan Housing Working Group Report

Date 5 Apr 2016

Venue Mountfield

Attendance

Richard Freer, Jim Tigg, Celia Marsh, Tim Crabtree, Monica King, Dominic Knorpel, Glenn Crawford (chair)

Apologies

Roy Mathisen, Corry Provan, Ellie Farmer

Update on Actions from Previous Meeting:

Survey of builders and developers

Glenn and Ellie have produced a list of topics, which now needs refining.

Agenda Items

1. Housing Needs Assessment

   • JT has completed a fourth draft.Despite there being known areas of omission and others capable of improvement, all agreed that this should now be offered to Jo Witherden for her assessment.Jo would be asked to discuss findings with the Working Group at its next meeting; target for 2 weeks’ time (19th April).

   • Also agreed to circulate it to other Working Groups with request to submit comments by 19th April.

   • For future drafts: mention Edwards Close and Dibden View as examples of recent developments which were attuned to local demand.

   • DK suggested that rural developments on smallholdings could be useful and should be encouraged via the HNA.

   • Anecdotally, health services and seasonal businesses have trouble housing staff recruited from outside the area.This was not revealed by our survey of local businesses.

   • DK points out that we must review our HNA against the Local Plan, NPPF and NPPG before going externally to the NP team.LP sections 3.5.4, 5.7.4 are particularly relevant.

1. Questionnaire for housing developers:

   • Ellie Farmer has contributed to the draft survey, which GC now has to merge into a single questionnaire.

   • Discussion on what it is we wish to learn from such a survey – no clear consensus, each builder may teach us something different.

   • Discussion on which firms it would be useful to include.When GC has compiled the questionnaire, DK will contact Chant and Mac, TC will contact Fry.Taylor Wimpey should be included for their opinion of the development environment in the NP Area, as well as other firms already identified; Persimmon, Hallam, Castle.

1. Community-Led Housing Approaches

   • TC outlined how a MHOS works and explained that it is a model widely used in Scandinavia (18% of new homes).He will review the relevant section of the HNA in time for a further draft (target: 12th April).

   • This type of development is encouraged by the Local Plan.

1. Tasks Beyond HNA

   • Shelved for next meeting.

Date of next meeting target 19th April, depending on whether HNA has been read and commented-on by Jo.