Richborough is of the view that the figures included in the sources of supply at Figure 2 and paragraph 5.13 remain to be adequately evidenced.
A pipeline of sites with planning permission for over 7,500 homes is referenced in paragraph 5.13 of the Consultation Document. However, it has not been possible to find any detail or evidence of this pipeline in the documents supporting the current consultation. Paragraph 68 of the NPPF requires strategic policy-making authorities to have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a Land Availability Assessment (LAA). This should take account of the availability, suitability and likely economic viability of sites and specify those that are ‘deliverable’ in years 1-5 and ‘developable’ in years 6-15.
Richborough understands that a LAA is being prepared but detailed evidence of the pipeline of sites should be made available as soon as possible, given that this information already exists, in order to ensure that the supply is deliverable and developable.
Figure 2 identifies a projected windfall allowance of 3,000 homes up to 2040.
Windfall development is defined in the Glossary of the NPPF as “sites not specifically identified in the development plan”. Paragraph 70 also provides background to windfall development and sets out the following guidance on when an allowance might be appropriate:
“Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends.”
Furthermore, in order to be justified and avoid double counting with sites included as commitments within the supply, any annual windfall allowance can only be factored in three years after the base date. It has been assumed that the current base date of the supply is 1 April 2023, and therefore a windfall allowance can only be included from the year 2026/2027. However, if the Local Plan is ultimately not adopted until 2026, which seems likely, then the windfall allowance should only be added from 2029/2030.
Therefore, given the requirement of NPPF Paragraph 22 for Local Plans to look ahead fifteen years on adoption, it has been assumed that the windfall allowance can only be applied for twelve years of any plan period, at the most.
On this basis, the proposed windfall figure of 3,000 dwelling equates to a likely annual allowance of 250 dwellings per annum.
Whilst historic levels of windfall development may have exceeded that figure in the recent past this is likely to be a result of the fact that there hasn’t been an up to date Local Plan for over ten years and for much of that time the authority has not been able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. Richborough is of the view that any assessment of historic windfall development should be cognisant of such matters and should only include an allowance where it is possible to demonstrate that windfall will continue to be a reliance source of supply in the future.
Richborough consider the Council has failed to recognise the effect on housing delivery of a newly adopted Local Plan with deliverable residential allocations. The change in the strategic Policy position on adoption of a new Local Plan in Medway will radically increase the level of investment into the Borough’s housing market and increase the number of houses being built with support provided by an allocation. The result of this is that there should be a smaller windfall allowance. The previous trends in respect of windfall delivery relate primarily due to the datedness of the current Plan and the failure of Medway to progress a replacement.
Figure 2 also identifies that there is a requirement to identify residential allocations totalling 19,173 dwellings. Together with the figures for the pipeline of sites with permission and the windfall allowance, both of which Richborough have requested further evidence in order to justify, the overall supply totals just 29,756 dwellings. This exceeds the housing need figure of 28,500 dwellings by just 1,256 dwellings, which provides flexibility of less than 5% for non-delivery of the pipeline, windfall or allocations. This excludes the potential requirement to meet the needs of Gravesham. As previously referenced, the historic under-delivery of housing in Medway has been well below the relevant annual requirement, which confirms that the current supply of housing land is not flexible enough to ensure that land is brought forward at sufficient pace. This has led to issues in respect of affordability of housing and Richborough considers the need for additional flexibility be built into the emerging land supply to ensure the timely delivery of housing across the Borough throughout the Plan Period. Given the level of infrastructure which is required to deliver the future allocations combined with the track record of the supply trajectory, Richborough is of the view that the supply resilience buffer should be at least 10%, and potentially as high as 15%.
This is in addition to a non-implementation discount which should be considered for sites in the urban area and those on the Hoo Peninsula, which are constrained by viability and the need for significant levels of infrastructure.
Given the long term lack of housing delivery, Richborough is also of the view that the emerging Local Plan should make provision for a stand-alone policy which relates to the monitoring of housing delivery. This should include provision for identified ‘contingencies’, where it is apparent that delivery rates are falling short of what is anticipated. This will formalise a positively prepared approach to monitoring housing delivery and stimulating action where necessary.
Granting planning permission for additional new homes is likely to be the most effective way to address any delivery of housing and the contingencies should therefore include the release of previously identified ‘reserve’ sites.
Richborough is therefore of the view that Medway Council should allocate additional sites and reserve sites in the Plan that could be released if monitoring continued to show under delivery. This would enable the issue to be addressed promptly, without the need for a full or partial review of the Plan.
Richborough is of the view that the monitoring policy should clearly establish that if monitoring shows that the Plan is not delivering housing as required, then Medway will grant permissions for additional housing; release reserve sites; and undertake other actions to help bring schemes forward, in that order. The Policy wording should also set strict deadlines for publication of monitoring each year and failure to do so would trigger the contingencies. The end of the calendar year is a reasonable time frame for monitoring data to be collected and published and should be identified as the deadline within the Policy. It is important for any under-delivery of housing to be addressed as soon as possible.