Transcript Living and Working in the Countryside (PowerPoint)

“A Living Working Countryside”
A response to the
Matthew Taylor Review
Peter Home
Senior Planning Officer, HDC
Introduction
The key problem…
“The English countryside is a
wonderful place to live and
work – if you can afford a
home, if you can find a
reasonably paid job.”
Matthew Taylor MP
Introduction
The key solutions …?
“The planning process has to become an engine of
regeneration or we face a future of decline.”
“In many cases just a handful of well designed homes,
kept affordable in perpetuity for local people, will make
all the difference to the sustainability of the community
and its services.”
The Process
• Matthew Taylor Review – July 2008
• Government Response Document – March
2009
• Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4: Planning
for Prosperous Economies – May 2009
• Possible changes to other PPSs (e.g. PPS3:
Housing & PPG13 Transport) - ???
• LDF preparation (Core Strategy reviews etc) Ongoing
The Context – Housing Delivery
“Three million new homes by
2020”
This means at least 750,000
in areas classed as ‘rural’
based on balance of UK
population
The Context – Housing Delivery
The South East Plan
translates this into average
annual figures for new
homes: 32,708 per year until
2026
And for East and West
Sussex: 5,800 per year
South East Plan – May 2009
The Context – Demographic Change
In the last 10 years the UK’s rural population has
increased by over 800,000
Long term trend of ‘counter urbanisation’ driven by:
• Perceptions that quality of life is better in the
countryside & worse in urban areas
• Reducing barriers to commuting by improved ‘strategic’
transport and Internet/communications technology
• ‘Cashing in’ on house price rises in London, before rural
prices caught up
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
Government policy for at least 15 years has been to
ensure housing supply contributes to achieving
‘sustainable communities’:
• Desire to reduce CO2 emissions by minimising
dependence on car travel
• Desire to increase social cohesion, particularly in
urban areas
• Desire to protect ‘greenfield’ land from development
for good landscape and biodiversity reasons
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
But, what
makes
development
sustainable?
Environmental

Economic



Social
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
Matthew Taylor argues that this national policy drive for
sustainable development has had unintended
detrimental effects for rural areas by:
1. Reinforcing the long-term undersupply of all types of
homes in rural areas
2. Contributing to housing characterised by low quality
and poorly designed estates that harm the character
of larger rural settlements and reinforce car
dependence
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
3. Restricting almost all housing delivery in smaller and
more rural villages – creating stagnation
4. Causing the demand/supply mismatch that
contributes to escalating and unaffordable rural house
prices
5. Holding back and harming the economy of rural areas
by a combination of the above
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
Economic Effects of the ‘sustainability trap’:
• Increasingly unaffordable housing underlines
economy as labour market is constrained
• Demand for local services declines (e.g. bus, P.O.)
• Skills drain from rural areas as young people are
forced to leave – 100,000 young people to leave rural
areas in next 4 years (National Housing Federation)
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
Social effects of the ‘sustainability trap’:
• Social and economic polarisation between rural
‘haves’ and ‘have nots’
• Service downgrading and closure leads to social
isolation, particularly for those with no car
• Erosion of family and community ties as young move
away and wealthy outsiders move in
The Problems – ‘Sustainability Trap’
Environmental effects of the ‘sustainability trap’:
• Fast growth in ‘reverse commuting’ (rural workforce
drive in from cheaper housing areas in towns)
• Wealthy urban work force drive to urban centres
reinforcing traditional commuting patterns
• Increased need to travel for services which are further
away and less accessible by public transport /cycling
The Problems – 1. Long-term Undersupply
• Planning policy bias against building on ‘greenfield’
land to protect agricultural land, landscape and
biodiversity
• National and local targets for building on ‘brownfield’
land – reusing a resource
• Emphasis on delivering development in larger service
centres where range of transport choices exists
The Problems – 1. Long-term Undersupply
But, Matthew Taylor challenges these assumptions:
• A smaller proportion of UK is ‘developed’ than
imagined – 3 million homes could be delivered on less
than 0.5% of UK’s presently undeveloped area
• Much ‘greenfield’ land is monoculture agricultural with
far less biodiversity than many ‘brownfield sites’
• The bias towards building in larger centres is
reinforcing the reduction in transport choices in rural
areas as bus services disappear
The Problems – 2. Bland housing estates
• The approach to delivery in rural market towns is
reactive; i.e. the minimum amount of land is released
to meet immediate housing targets with little forward
thinking
• This results in bland estates with no new services that
are crammed onto small parcels at the edge of the
market town
• Restrictive approach to greenfield land makes for
densities that are inappropriately high
The Problems – 2. Bland housing estates
Typical modern
high density estates
have gardens too
small to plant trees.
The results are
clearly harmful to
the character of
market towns
The Problems – 3. Stagnating villages
The planning policy context leads to the ‘writing-off’ of
small and very rural villages are too unsustainable for any
new development at all.
These villages may be very attractive and in protected
landscapes and may already have few services.
Little thought is given to the long-term effects on these
villages…
The Problems – 3. Stagnating villages
• Villages ‘preserved in aspic’ cannot thrive as
sustainable communities
• High demand by wealthy incomes (particularly the
retired of second homes owners) drives up prices way
beyond those affordable to most with a connection to
the village
• Local services disappear and the young and workers
on lower salaries leave
• Sustainability and social cohesion is undermined
The Problems – 4. Affordability crisis
• House price rises in rural areas are a relatively simple
result of supply and demand factors
• Whereas some decades ago all but the lowest or
unwaged could afford a home, now even skilled and
graduate workers on average wages can no longer
afford to buy or rent
• The need for genuinely affordable housing is increasing
dramatically, but supply is at best level.
The Problems – 4. Affordability crisis
• The Government target for new homes in small rural
villages (under 3,000 population) is 3,400 per year
• The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated that
some 9,500 per year would be need to meet current
demand (does not include removing backlog)
• The credit crunch has not helped – modest price
reductions are off-set by a decline in credit availability
and larger fees for new mortgages. Few rural Sussex
homes benefit from stamp duty holiday.
The Problems – 5. Harming the economy
• Rural economy is relatively strong and it contributes far
more to UK national economy than many think
• Huge changes in recent years away from ‘traditional’
sectors to diverse and dynamic sectors including
knowledge and financial industries & manufacturing
• 1998 – 2006 there was a 46% increase in ‘knowledge
intensive businesses’ (urban areas = 21%)
• Homework is very strong – 17% in rural areas vs. 8% in
urban
The Problems – 5. Harming the economy
But…
• Appearance of wealth in rural UK hides much genuine
poverty
• Average wages of people who live and work in the
countryside is £4,653 less than UK national average
• Housing scarcity and steep prices ‘push’ skilled workers
away from rural area leaving skills deficit for low-paid
professions (carers, social workers, teachers) – this
constrains the economy
The Problems – 5. Harming the economy
Planning policy context has traditionally restricted rural
employment and commercial development in the same
way as it has housing development
• New development restricted to scarce ‘brownfield’ sites
• Existing development afforded little protection if
application for housing is made
• Home workers and home businesses often struggle to
get permission for extensions
The Solutions?
• Matthew Taylor made 48 recommendations of which
the Government has agreed about 40.
• But this does not mean the problems can be resolved
quickly – this needs to be a long-term process
• They are not all new - many of the recommendations
relate to actions already being undertaken by
authorities and communities across Sussex
The Solutions - 1. Long-term Undersupply
The report calls for assumptions about delivery on
greenfield sites to be challenged:
• Where these sites support little biodiversity and
contribute only marginally to the landscape quality, they
may be preferable to small cramped brownfield sites
• This must be part of a ‘Masterplanning’ approach that
looks longer term and seeks to ensure that sufficient
housing of the right kind according to needs (market
and affordable) is provided in rural areas
The Solutions - 1. Ensuring housing supply
Looking long term and taking a Masterplanning approach
will allow development to be scaled so that:
• transport services can be supported and
• sufficient space set aside for high quality ‘natural’ open
space that is biodiversity rich
These will help to ensure the development is
environmentally sustainable
The Solutions – Improving design
The report argues for the Masterplanning approach to be
delivers through the LDF process. Key requirements to
deliver better housing developments include:
• Taking a longer term outlook that does not seek to
allocate the minimum land for the minimum possible
number of homes
• Ensuing that local communities participate fully in the
production of Masterplans
The Solutions – Improving design
• Ensuring that development is scaled (over a number of
years) to be able to provide for services, employment
areas, retail and infrastructure that is needed
• The objective must be to create a ‘community’ and not
a housing estate – creating destinations not routes to
take cars to other places
• More innovative use of densities and open space is
needed to protect and enhance character of market
towns…
The Solutions – ‘Hub and spoke’ design
The Solutions – A Horsham Masterplan
The Solutions – Revitalising small villages
Possible solutions considered:
1. Do nothing – villages will continue to stagnate and
social cohesion and overall sustainability will
deteriorate
2. Let the market deliver – seeking to correct
demand/supply imbalance with large-scale building will
be environmentally unacceptable
3. Increase plan-led allocations – for mixed (market and
affordable housing developments…
The Solutions – Revitalising small villages
3. Increase plan-led allocations – for mixed (market and
affordable housing developments.
• Allocations must be based on local needs and on
viability assessments. Affordable housing likely to be
viable due to high market house prices.
• Like the masterplanning approach for market towns,
there must also a high level of community participation.
• The allocation must seek to ensure that services are
enhanced and protected.
The Solutions – Revitalising small villages
4. Promote ‘Exceptions Sites’
• Pioneered in 1989 for affordable housing in villages
less than 3,000 population where houses would not
normally be permitted.
• Houses must be affordable in perpetuity – not subject
to ‘right to buy’
• Must be a clear connection between homes delivered
and local needs and community support is a vital part
of the process
The Solutions – Revitalising small villages
• Report terms this approach “Community led affordable
housing”
• It requires the planning authority to be proactive in
seeking sites and helping deliver the homes
• The local community (particularly parish councils) have
a clear role in this process as to Rural Housing
Enablers (Action in Rural Sussex)
• Matthew Taylor recommends that local communities
should be able to initiate and expect planning authority
support
The Solutions – Horsham’s experience
Horsham District Council works proactively with local
communities and AiRS in a way the Report
recommends:-
Andrew Smith
Housing Development and Strategy Manager
Horsham District Council
The Solutions – 5. Protecting the rural economy
The Report recommends changing the national policy
framework:
• To ensure existing rural employment sites are offered
protection
• To realign the criteria for assessing new employment
and commercial development
• And in both cases the key criterion should be the level
of existing employment/commercial provision in that
local community – in other words ensuring needs are
met
The Solutions – Horsham Case Study
The HDC General Development Control Policies
Document – adopted December 2007
1. Specific policy for rural economic development (DC25)
2. Encourages new development where it delivers
specific economic benefits for the rural economy – e.g.
employing local workers or providing a needed service
3. Policy DC19 also offers protection in ‘Employment
Protection Zones’ many of which are located in rural
areas and outside of village boundaries.
The Solutions – 5. Protecting the rural economy
Home working and home businesses also need to be
protected and encouraged:
• The Government is actively looking at changes to the
‘use class’ orders to allow better development
management for house extensions that will be used as
business premises
• Many authorities are looking at ‘live work’ solutions for
rural areas and at rural ‘small business hubs’ to service
home businesses
Conclusions
An impossible task?
“The planning system has a crucial role to promote and
deliver sustainable communities – ensuring
development occurs in the right place at the right time
and makes a positive contribution to people’s lives –
providing homes, jobs, opportunity and enhancing
quality of life. It must simultaneously protect and
enhance the natural and historic environment, and
conserve the countryside and open spaces that are
important to everyone.”
Conclusions
Thank you!