Cymraeg
4.9 LDP Housing Requirements
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27158
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd
HBF objects to the statement that the 'LDP target was unrealistic'.
HBF objects to the statement 'This issue was exacerbated in 2015 by changes to TAN1'.
The HBF does not agree with the statement that the 'LDP target was unrealistic'. At the time it was based on the information available and went through scrutiny at the plans inquiry and was adopted by the Council. Although circumstances and the data available may now have changed, at the time it was the appropriate target.
The HBF object to the statement 'This issue was exacerbated in 2015 by changes to TAN1'. The method of calculation does not directly affect the land supply as the wording suggests. TAN1 is purely a method by which to monitor the land available. One of the reason TAN1 was changed was that WG realised that relying on past build rates gave a false land supply figure and merely allowed Councils to continue to fail in the supply of new homes. An LDP should be about planning for the future needs and demands of the area as well as taking account of economic and other aspirations. A plan based on past records would be to plan for continued failure.
Accepted in part. Whilst we acknowledge that the housing target was found sound at Examination, subsequent WG projections have indicated far lower housing requirements. The Inspector did not take into account the reduced level of delivery since 2008, although CCBC argued to reduce the requirement for this reason.
PPW does now change the emphasis to be given to WG household projections when calculating LDP household requirements than was the case PPW prior to Edition 8. This will be clarified.
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27209
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Anwyl Construction Ltd
Agent: P L Planning
The LDP housing target was not unrealistic. It was evidence based, consulted upon at Deposit, Examined and found to be Sound. This should be explicitly acknowledged.
See attached document.
Accepted in part. Whilst we acknowledge that the housing target was found sound at Examination, subsequent WG projections have indicated far lower housing requirements. The Inspector did not take into account the reduced level of delivery since 2008, although CCBC argued to reduce the requirement for this reason.
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27210
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Anwyl Construction Ltd
Agent: P L Planning
The revision to TAN1 (2015) has not exacerbated the housing land supply position. It provided a standardised method of calculating housing land supply. The consequence is that Local Authorities cannot not use alternative methods of calculation (such as previous build rates) to rely on past performance a measure of success nor to continue to set aside their responsibilities to plan for the delivery of housing in accordance with National Planning Policy.
See attached document.
Noted. It is acknowledged that the residual method has always been the primary method of calculating land supply for authorities with adopted plans, however the past build rates method provided a 'sense-check' of the residual requirement which may indicate 'land shortages or surpluses, which do not exist in practice' (TAN1 2006 7.5.2)
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27227
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd
Agent: P L Planning
The LDP housing target was not unrealistic. It was evidence based, consulted upon at Deposit, Examined and found to be Sound. This should be explicitly acknowledged.
See attached document.
Accepted in part. Whilst we acknowledge that the housing target was found sound at Examination, subsequent WG projections have indicated far lower housing requirements. The Inspector did not take into account the reduced level of delivery since 2008, although CCBC argued to reduce the requirement for this reason.
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27228
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd
Agent: P L Planning
The revision to TAN1 (2015) has not exacerbated the housing land supply position. It provided a standardised method of calculating housing land supply. The consequence is that Local Authorities cannot not use alternative methods of calculation (such as previous build rates) to rely on past performance a measure of success nor to continue to set aside their responsibilities to plan for the delivery of housing in accordance with National Planning Policy.
See attached document.
Noted. It is acknowledged that the residual method has always been the primary method of calculating land supply for authorities with adopted plans, however the past build rates method provided a 'sense-check' of the residual requirement which may indicate 'land shortages or surpluses, which do not exist in practice' (TAN1 2006 7.5.2)
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27245
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Macbryde Homes Ltd
Agent: P L Planning
The LDP housing target was not unrealistic. It was evidence based, consulted upon at Deposit, Examined and found to be Sound. This should be explicitly acknowledged.
See attached document.
Accepted in part. Whilst we acknowledge that the housing target was found sound at Examination, subsequent WG projections have indicated far lower housing requirements. The Inspector did not take into account the reduced level of delivery since 2008, although CCBC argued to reduce the requirement for this reason.
Object
Review Report
Representation ID: 27246
Received: 22/12/2017
Respondent: Macbryde Homes Ltd
Agent: P L Planning
The revision to TAN1 (2015) has not exacerbated the housing land supply position. It provided a standardised method of calculating housing land supply. The consequence is that Local Authorities cannot not use alternative methods of calculation (such as previous build rates) to rely on past performance a measure of success nor to continue to set aside their responsibilities to plan for the delivery of housing in accordance with National Planning Policy.
See attached document.
Noted. It is acknowledged that the residual method has always been the primary method of calculating land supply for authorities with adopted plans, however the past build rates method provided a 'sense-check' of the residual requirement which may indicate 'land shortages or surpluses, which do not exist in practice' (TAN1 2006 7.5.2)