HEaDROOMObjective Assessments of Local Housing Needs

nlpplanning.com

The NPPF is a major opportunity for developers: local authorities must plan positively to meet objectively assessed needs in their areas. Councils are required to identify the scale and mix of housing that meets household and population projections, addresses the need for all types of housing and caters for housing demand.

The duty-to-cooperate also means that Councils must negotiate with their neighbours to meet requirements that cannot wholly be met within their areas.

This is a tough policy regime, way beyond that of PPS3. And the Inspectorate is taking its responsibility to examine for soundness seriously. But this is not a free lunch: where Councils are relying on inadequate evidence or are not planning positively to meet needs, it is up to land owners and developers to demonstrate this to Inspectors.

Figure 1 : The HEaDROOM framework

Where there is no up-to-date plan, developers can also support planning applications and appeals by putting forward their own evidence on objectively assessed needs for the purpose of testing whether a Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

HEaDROOM can help

HEaDROOM is Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners’ (NLP) bespoke framework for objectively assessing local housing requirements. Launched in July 2010, it has been used by developers in over 100 locations to support planning applications and appeals, and to accompany representations on Local Plan housing targets. It also has been used by Councils, which gives it wider credibility as an independent and objective piece of evidence. Fully updated to comply with the National Planning Practice Guidance - including integrating ‘Market Signals’ into the assessment - HEaDROOM provides a comprehensive approach to objectively assessing housing needs.

“To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing.“

NPPF para 47

•

••

•

Housing FactorsSHMA estimates of need for all types of housing, including affordablePast delivery ratesRegeneration, renewal and replacementVacancy rates and second homes

•••

••

Economic FactorsCurrent employmentEmployment forecastsEconomic activity rates and unemploymentCommuting flowsHousing : jobs ratio

Demographic Factors• Natural change• Migration• Headship rates• Census 2011 / ONS and CLG

projections

Objectively Assessed Need for HousingBenchmark scenarios against historic targets if appropriate

Capacity, delivery and impacts• Environmental capacity• Infrastructure capacity• Land availability + trajectory• Development viability + market demand

• Cross -boundary unmet needs

Assess against Local Policies• Corporate objectives• Relevant local plans and

proposals• LEP priorities• Economic growth strategy• Spatial priorities and

settlement strategies

Assess against National Policy• Plan for Growth• Housing Strategy• NPPF

“Meet objectively assessed needs unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”

Duty to cooperate• Approach to meeting

unmet needs

Infrastructure Needs• Infrastructure delivery plans

Benefits• Economic benefits (jobs, GVA, strategic) • Social benefits• Tax revenue + infrastructure funding

Evidence

POPGROUP modelling

Outputs and implications

Appraise against national and local policy

Objectively assess needs

Recommended Housing Target(Five-year housing requirement)

Apply through plan-making anddecision-taking

Reps and evidence to appeals and Local Plan Examinations

Planning appraisal of sites

Critique of Council SHMAsand evidence base

Evidence of need for five-year land supply

Market Signals• Land Prices• House Prices

•• Rents

•AffordabilityRate of Development

• Over crowding

HEaDROOM can help

of Local Plans have had to increase their housing targets in order to be found sound.

NLP Research ‘Objectively Speaking’ (April 2013)

44%

HEaDROOM

Figure 2 : HEaDROOM Graphical Outputs

Luton

Aylesbury Vale

Bedford

MidBedfordshire

Dacorum

Milton Keynes

NorthHertfordshire

St. Albans

SouthBedfordshire

WelwynHatfield

Stevenage

S

HEaDROOM: HEaDROOM:The objectively assessed housing requirement 2012 - 2032

Geographical Information Systems

1. Dwellings Internal Migration

Travel to Work Commuting

Constraints

Migration

2. Population

13,300 People

3. Jobs Supported

2,000 Additional Jobs Supported

Age Profile

8,100 Additional Homes Required to Accommodate

4. Household Change

Natural Change 1,100 Difference Net Migration 12,100 Total

4,800 1 Person

2,600 Couple

200 Family

1,000 SingleParent Family

-700 Family + Other Adult

100 Other

+Other

10,400 Domestic

1,700 International

18,200 Births

17,100 Deaths

RIP

GIS Reference: S:\CL13164 - Swale Core Strategy\CL13164 - SwaleCore Strategy - Constraints & Development Sites (01) (50k) - 10.12.2012

GIS13164-13MAr-

10.12.2012

Swale Borough Council

Constraints & Development Sites

Swale Core Strategy

Key

Swale Local AuthorityBoundary

EmploymentPermissions(11 and 12)

Mixed Use Allocation

Employment Allocation

AAP Allocation

Employment LandReview (sites)

SHLAA Site

Development Sites

ConstraintsAONB, SpecialLandscape Area, FloodZone 3, InternationalBiodiversity (and 400mbuffer) & UrbanExtension LandscapeStudy (low capacity)

#

###

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

to and from Birmingham

CentralBedfordshire

NorthHertfordshire

LutonAylesbury Vale

Bedford

SouthCambridgeshire

EastHertfordshire

Dacorum

Huntingdonshire

MiltonKeynes

St.Albans

Barnet

Northampton

Brent

WelwynHatfield

Stevenage

Key

Internal migration flow (number of people), 2011

Other Local Authority

Source: Migration Statistics Unit, ONS, 2011(crown copyright)

Local authority with a migration in or out flow of 150 or more people with Luton, North Hertfordshire orCentral Bedfordshire

Luton, North Hertfordshire &Central Bedfordshire LocalAuthorities

150 - 300

301 - 600

601 - 1,000

>1,000

##

##

-1,500

-1,250

-1,000

-750

-500

-250

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

Eas

t H

amps

hire

Eas

tlei

gh

Fare

ham

Gos

port

Hav

ant

New

For

est

Por

tsm

outh

Sou

tham

pton

Test

Val

ley

Win

ches

ter

Mig

rati

on (

Per

sons

)

-1,500

-1,250

-1,000

-750

-500

-250

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

Overall Net Migration

Net domestic Migration

Net International Migration NB - not avaliable 2010/11

“The studies have been extremely helpful to us in providing robust and objective housing requirements. NLP’s HEaDROOM framework has helped Taylor Wimpey UK to stay ahead of the field when it comes to delivering high quality new homes in an era of localism.”

Andrew Thorley, Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

• Tried and tested at examination and appeal.

• Industry-standard POPGROUP demographic modelling software, drawing on relevant ONS and CLG assumptions.

• Intelligent application of the latest CLG 2011-based Interim Household Projections.

• Flex all the key assumptions to understand implications of alternative scenarios.

• Consistent with the ‘What Homes Where’ toolkit and credible with public and private sectors.

• In-house planning, economic and demographic expertise - with access to all relevant datasets - means NLP can fully review and critique Councils’ evidence base and approach.

• Transparent presentation of input assumptions and outputs.

• Not just number-crunching: looks beyond demographics to consider housing and economic drivers of demand. Tests need alongside supply-side capacity, delivery and policy factors.

• Outputs at sub-region, local and settlement-specific levels.

• Delivered by NLP without the need for external sub-contractors, giving full control over modelling inputs and assumptions for improved efficiency and effective reporting.

• A dedicated team of 15 consultants with HEaDROOM experience provides strength in depth across our offices.

• Results of analysis presented clearly through technical reports, supporting charts and infographics (see Figure 2).

Why HEaDROOM?

Barratt Developments • Bellway Homes • Berkeley • Bloor Homes • Bovis CALA Homes • Commercial Estates Group • Crest Nicholson • Croudace Fairview • Gladman Developments • HBF • Mariposa Investments • Miller Homes • Morris Homes • Northumberland Estates • Peel Holdings Persimmon • Portfutures • Redrow • RLW Estates • Storey • Taylor Wimpey Thakeham Homes • Theakston Estates • Village Developments

Current HEaDROOM Clients

Contact Us

Cardiff

Gareth Williams gwilliams@nlpplanning.com 029 2043 5880

Leeds

Justin Gartland jgartland@nlpplanning.com 0113 397 1397

London

Matthew Spry mspry@nlpplanning.com 020 7837 4477

Manchester

Michael Watts mwatts@nlpplanning.com 0161 837 6130

Newcastle

Chris Harrison charrison@nlpplanning.com 0191 261 5685

This publication has been written in general terms and cannot be relied on to cover specific situations. We recommend that you obtain professional advice before acting or refraining from acting on any of the contents of this publication. NLP accepts no duty of care or liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication.Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners is the trading name of Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited. Registered in England, no.2778116. Registered office: 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL© Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2013. All rights reserved.

nlpplanning.com

Newcastle: Bellway and The Northumberland Estates

NLP established the rate of economic and housing growth for which Newcastle should plan through the Core Strategy in order to stabilise and reverse the trends of out migration by working age families. The analysis was used to make the case for Green Belt release in the Core Strategy.

Cornwall: Commercial Estates Group

NLP undertook an assessment of the housing requirement contained within the emerging Local Plan. This considered the robustness of the evidence that underpinned the housing requirement, the extent to which it aligned with employment targets and the NPPF. It found that the Council’s proposed housing requirement fails to reflect future demand and recommended that a prompt review should be undertaken.

Leeds: Barratt Homes

NLP’s report challenged the attempt by Leeds City Council to reduce its housing requirement, concluding that this would fall well short of needs, leading to housing market pressure and out-migration. The evidence successfully supported the release of allocated greenfield sites at public inquiry.

Barton Farm, Winchester: CALA Homes

NLP’s study on the need for housing in Winchester supported representations to the emerging Core Strategy and was a critical component of the evidence given to the successful appeal in respect of the 2000-dwelling Barton Farm proposal. The NLP work directly shaped the City Council’s Technical Evidence on defining its proposed local housing target.

Central Lancashire: Taylor Wimpey

NLP’s submission to the Core Strategy Examination highlighted the absence of a robust evidence base to underpin the councils’ reduction to their housing target. As a result, the Inspector identified the plan as being at risk of ‘unsoundness’. The councils subsequently increased the target.

West Northamptonshire: Portfutures Ltd

NLP’s critique and analysis of the sub-region’s housing need highlighted significant concerns in the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit’s approach to their housing target. This led to the Inspector conclusion that the JPU needed to undertake an NPPF compliant housing needs study.

Warrington: Peel Holdings

The NLP report demonstrated the adverse impacts of under-providing the homes necessary to facilitate economic growth in the Borough, which in recent years has been one of the driving forces of the North West economy.

South Worcestershire: Miller Strategic Land

NLP reviewed future housing needs and critiqued the methodology adopted throughout the preparation and examination of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. NLP’s representations were a primary contributing factor to the Inspector’s findings that the housing requirement was insufficient to meet housing and economic needs. The Inspector endorsed NLP’s approach stating that “NLP’s methodology is generally sound”.

“The most significant technical challenge came from NLP... [who] submitted a robust critique of the [Plan’s] approach. NLP presents a strong argument that is underpinned with a robust analysis of the demographic evidence [that] help clarify a number of issues.”

Report to South Worcestershire Development Plan (2012)

Horsham: Berkeley Strategic

NLP’s assessment of the local need for housing in Horsham supported representations to the ‘How much housing does Horsham District need?’ consultation. The assessment included a full critique of the Council’s SHMA. NLP’s report was itself peer reviewed on behalf of the Council, with several of NLP’s conclusions taken on as recommendations within that review.

North Tyneside: Bellway Homes

NLP supported a successful planning appeal for 366 executive houses at Whitehouse Farm, North Tyneside. The Report tested the Council’s assumptions and demonstrated that the draft Core Strategy and RS figure were not sufficient to meet needs or achieve economic objectives. The Inspector’s report specifically referenced HEaDROOM as adding weight to the appellant’s case.

“NLP’s evidence does strongly suggest the need for increased growth and therefore adds to the weight of the appellant’s housing case.”

Planning Inspector (May 2013)

HEaDROOMCase Studies