Reference number

Respondent

Comment

Response

Change?

1

Christopher Mackenzie on behalf of Bristol & Bath Branch RIBA

Location:

We support the objectives of locating affordable housing where services and facilities are easily accessed - preferably without the need to own a car. We would also note, however, that this should also be the first objective of all new housing, not just affordable housing, which, as long as it is coupled with high quality design, will result in the virtuous circle effect of enabling services and facilities to thrive, and produce vibrant and sustainable communities. I should also note our concern that proposed changes in the planning Green Paper would seem to be requiring Local Authorities to allocate specific sites for affordable housing, which would be contrary to the objective of mixed tenure expressed in PPG3. In our view this could result in "ghettos" and would be a huge mistake.

Design:

We strongly support the idea that affordable housing should be indistinguishable from the "market housing" alongside it. We would, however, take the opportunity to note that the quality of design in the general housing market is generally extremely low, and would encourage the early involvement of the Social Landlord organisations as they have tended to be more aware of good quality design and lifecycle costs than the speculative housing developers, for whom low construction costs are often paramount.

Level of Provision and Occupancy Control:

We support the general objective of maintaining the involvement of a RSL for the reasons stated above. It also seems unsatisfactory for "Affordable Housing" to be merely housing sold by the Developer at a cheaper rate than the market housing. The legal agreements necessary to police such arrangements and prevent the gradual creep of affordable units onto the open market rates are no doubt complex and difficult to enforce especially with the limited resources of the Local Authority.

We would also support the target of 30% affordable housing with only the exceptions as listed. Adhering to this target will affect land prices and should make it easily possible to achieve. Anecdotal evidence, however, would suggest that this target has rarely been achieved. Especially at this time of high inflation in the housing market, and with the opportunities coming up in large developments such as Western Riverside, the Council should be absolutely clear that this target will be a minimum requirement for planning consent.

Support noted

Support noted, the local plans seek high quality design in all tenures.

Support noted

Support noted

No change

No change

No change

No change

2

Wiltshire CC (Strategic Planning

No comments to make

3

Peter Davenport, Bath Archaeological Trust

I only have one comment on section 5.13 Design, and that is to endorse it. I am not sure if the section needs clarifying, but it should be made clear that conversion of historic or listed buildings to provide affordable housing should likewise be subject to the guidance in PPGs16 and 15 and local policies. The rest of the document is not within our competence to comment on.

Support noted, the need to comply with national and local planning policies is stated in 5.13.

No change

4

Peasedown St John Parish Council

My Council, having noticed there are few houses allocated in the new District wide local plan, would suggest that Somer Housing Trust should be asked to review its land bank to see if new housing can be added to their stock by infilling. A review of planning policies should be done to stop the ever-growing practice of allowing large extensions to be built onto small houses where the mix was agreed at the original planning stage. Large extensions take some affordable housing into the expensive bracket

This is outside the scope of the affordable housing SPG.

No change

5

Bruce Austen, School Organisation Manager, B&NES

I am not sure whether you are working towards a key worker housing policy. I know that in other areas of the south of England local authorities are experiencing great difficulty in recruiting social workers and naturally other key public services are facing similar difficulties due to the high cost of renting or buying. Affordable housing is an issue in relation to teacher recruitment

Key workers are included in the affordable housing definition by virtue of their income in relation to housing costs.

Amend 5.9 to include reference to key workers.

6

Andrew Strange, Senior Planner, Inventures, Bath NHS House, Newbridge Hill, Bath

Paragraph 13 of PPG3 states that local planning authorities should assess the range of needs for different types and sizes of housing, including housing to meet the needs of key workers, including those in the health sector. The housing needs study should address the specific need for key worker housing in the area.

The Local Plan acknowledges the high proportion of people working in public services, such as healthcare, in the local area. There is a need for key worker housing in the area to assist the recruitment and retention of key workers in the health sector. The document should be amended to make reference to that need and to make clear that affordable housing could include housing for key workers.

Amend paragraph 5.9 by adding at the end of the last sentence: "..... special needs groups such as key workers."

Comments on key worker housing are being addressed through the local plan process. Any changes in the local plan policies will be reflected in future affordable housing SPG.

Agree

Amend 5.9 to include reference to key workers.

7

Western Riverside Project team

Re 1.1: The B&NES Local Plan is at First Deposit Draft stage only and this should be acknowledged.

Re 2.2: It is not clear whether this definition includes or excludes 'key worker' housing.

Re 2.4: The relationship between incomes and prices/rents within B&NES needs to be indicated.

Re 5.6: By implication, infrastructure, abnormal foundation and ground contamination costs are not excluded. This needs to be made clear.

Re 5.9: It is not clear whether housing for the elderly/other special need groups would be within or in addition to the 30% affordable requirement.

The Plan has now reached its Revised Deposit stage as agreed at the 17^th July 2003 Council

Key workers are included in the affordable housing definition by virtue of their income in relation to housing costs.

The Housing Survey 2000 details the relationship and is a reference to the SPG.

Many infrastructure costs are `normal' for any development site, however 5.7 refers.

Agree

Amend SPG to refer to the Revised Deposit draft local plan'.

Amend para. 5.9 to include reference to key workers.

No change.

No change

Add `within the affordable housing element'

8

Paulton PC

State their support for the content of the SPG

Support noted

9

Terry Webber, Clerk to Camerton Parish Council

My Council would comment as follows:

Accessibility Paragraph 5.14 this is a very important issue and needs to be addressed. This parish has no local shop, post office of doctor's surgery and there is no public transport access to these and other services. It of course begs the question why have new tenants been recently relocated to Meadgate Camerton, who are unfortunate not to have funding for accessibility of maintenance of property, normally undertaken by tenants.

Use of Planning Obligations Again this is particularly relevant to Camerton and it is essential that this is included within planning guidance and enforced by the planning committees

Conclusion My Council supports the need for affordable housing and the need for planning guidance as proposed. However, past experience with planning matters suggest that there is no benefit to be gained unless both Planning Officers and Planning Committees when dealing with planning applications actively take the guidance into account and it is enforced.

The revised deposit draft local plan 2003 gives far more importance to this issue.

Support noted.

Support and comments noted.

No change

10

Joanna Hanslip, Regional Planner, South West & Central, The House Builders Federation

Introduction

PPG12 provides the framework for the use of SPGs identifying the manner and means by which it should be prepared and suggests the purposes for which it might be used. The guidance also clearly states that SPG does not form part of the development plan, and as such must be clearly cross-referenced to policies in the adopted local plan. It is within this policy framework that the B&NES SPG must be developed.

PPG12 emphasises that local plan policies have the status of section 54A of the 1990 Act, and suggest that SPGs might be considered as material considerations. It continues however to state the SPG should not attempt to delegate the criteria for decision making on planning applications to SPG or to development briefs. It is precisely this that the Council must seek to avoid in formulating the SPG on sustainable development. The SPG can only 'supplement' the local plan, rather than identify criteria against which development control decisions will be made.

The SPG must be developed in accordance with the guidance provided in PPG12. It is essential that the relationship between, and status of, the local plan and SPG is clearly identifiable.

Generally the HBF considers that the SPG has not been developed in accordance with adopted local plan policy and runs counter to the advice provided in PPG12. The SPG can merely supplement local plan policy and as such until the local plan has been progressed and subjected to independent scrutiny it cannot be considered material in negotiations. With regard to detailed technical elements of the SPG I have the following comments to make:

Paragraph 4.6

The HBF is concerned about that statement in paragraph 4.6 that 1,730 subsidised affordable homes are required 2000-2006 and an additional 250 low cost market units. It is unclear to what extent such statement have been supported by the Council's Housing Needs Survey and it is not possible to scrutinise the findings of the survey. It is also imperative that the requirement for the provision of affordable homes is developed through the local plan framework. SPG cannot be formulated to develop policy

Paragraph 5.2

Again it would seem the SPG is seeking to formulate policy outside of the plan process. The thresholds for the provision of affordable housing must be contained with the adopted local plan and as a result subjected to independent scrutiny. Currently it would not seem as if the SPG is being formulated in a manner consistent with Government guidance. The thresholds should be deleted from the SPG or at least reflect the guidance provided in Circular 6/98 - a threshold of 25 dwellings should be identified.

Paragraph 5.5

The requirement for 30% provision on eligible sites - this is a local plan matter and should be deleted from the SPG until adopted in local plan policy.

Paragraph 5.10

The SPG provides inappropriate levels of detail from the Housing Needs Survey to demonstrate that 'the majority of need is for social rented'. Greater clarity is required here and again must be tested through the local plan process before being developed as guidance in SPG.

Paragraph 6.2

Circular 6.98 is quite clear that Local Authorities cannot seem to prescribe which RSL partners developers use to provide affordable housing negotiated through a section 106 process. The paragraph should be amended to reflect both the guidance provided in Circular 1/97 and 6/98.

Paragraph 6.5

The SPG cannot seek to control the occupancy of affordable homes, such an approach is counter to the guidance provided in Circular 6.98

Paragraph 6.7

Care is required here in determining the manner and means by which affordable housing should be provided - this is a matter for negotiation - a process of blanket formulation cannot accord with Circular 1/97

The affordable housing SPG meets the requirements of PPG12.

Comment noted.

Comment noted

The SPG supplements the stated local plans, some of which are adopted, others well advanced in preparation. However it is agreed that the Bath and North east Somerset Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan is in its early stages of preparation.

Paragraph 4.6

These figures are derived from the Council's Housing Survey 2000 that is a published document. In line with PPG3 - Housing, para 13 and Circular 06/98 - Planning and Affordable Housing paras 5-7 the Council has carried out the survey, working jointly with housing services to assess the range of needs for different types and sizes of housing across all tenures, including affordable homes.

The survey and conclusions form the basis for justifying affordable housing policies in the Bath&Noth East Somerset Local Plan 2003 Revised Deposit Draft. The SPG reflects the justification for affordable homes set out in the Local Plan.

Paragraph 5.2

The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration in determining planning applications in accordance with PPG1, para 48. The 17^th July Council approved the use of the Revised Deposit draft for development control purposes. Although carrying only limited weight at the moment it is still relevant to the decision making process. In this context it is considered that SPG should be prepared at the earliest possible opportunity to supplement the emerging policies. The Bath Local Plan continues to be the statutory adopted Local Plan and para 5.25 states:

"PPG3 'Housing' (March 1992), paragraph 38 calls for a proportion of affordable housing to be provided when development is taking place on a substantial scale. When deciding whether a site is substantial, the Council will be guided by the latest Government Advice and the level of provision sought will reflect the availability and nature of such sites and the findings of Housing Needs Surveys."

As already stated above the latest Housing Needs Survey continues to identify a large need for affordable housing and this is set out in the emerging B&NES Local Plan. However, the Bath Local Plan does recognise that in defining sites where affordable housing will be sought it will be guided by latest Government advice. It is accepted that for the Bath Local Plan this should be in accordance with para 10, (i)(a) of Circular 06/98 i.e. 25 or more dwellings or residential sites of 1 hectare or more. This should be set out in the SPG.

The Wansdyke Local Plan covers the rural parts of the District. Whilst not adopted, it has been subject to a Local Plan Inquiry. The Inquiry Inspector endorsed the proposed threshold for residential sites coming forward. In villages with a population of 3000 or fewer, these are sites of 10 or more dwellings or area of 0.5 ha or more and elsewhere 25 or more dwellings or sites of 1 ha or more.

Paragraph 5.5

Paragraph 5.10

The respondent has misquoted the SPG and has included `Social' in the first sentence.

Paras B7.70-B7.73 of the B&NES Local Plan sets out this justification but it is agreed that the SPG could set this out more fully and clearly.

This is the most up to date information and should therefore be used to inform provision sought under all development plan policies which the SPG supplements. If not it will not be possible to assess the balance of need between rented and low cost to purchase homes on applications coming forward prior to the adoption of the B&NES Local Plan.

Paragraph 6.2

Agreed, whilst reference to the Council's Joint Commissioning Partnership should be retained it should be made clear that this is not a requirement.

Paragraph 6.5

Disagree. Paras 12 &16- 20 of Circular 06/98 make it clear that occupancy should be restricted to those in local need and where possible to local residents, people employed locally or people with local connections.

Para 12 of Circular 06/98 specifically states that local plans should identify the preferred approach for controlling occupancy and include criteria of eligibility against which occupancy can be determined.

Para 6.5 refers to meeting such occupancy criteria as set out in planning policies.

The approach of SPG on this matter accords with Circular 06/98 and sets out where the LPA might be willing to accept a financial contribution toward provision on an alternative site.

No change

Add reference to para 1.1 to SPG being a material consideration in determining planning applications.

No change

No change

No change

Add new para at 5.2 explaining that for the Bath Local Plan area substantial sites are those of 25 dwellings or 1 hectare or more but that the emerging Bath & North east Somerset Local Plan defines new thresholds for Bath

No change

Amend para. 5.10 to more fully explain why the greatest need is for rented housing

Change para 6.2 to refer to `encouraged to seek'

No change

No change

11

Somerset CC

No major formal concerns or objections

Noted

No change

12

South Stoke Parish Council

No demand for affordable housing arising within the parish. There are no primary employers and no working farms. There is already a good mix of house sizes and types

Comments noted.

Local housing needs surveys will determine the needs in any area.

No change

13

English Heritage

5.13 Design - We feel that the association of environmental constraints with delays and cost implications gives far too much negative impression of conservation matters. This sentence should be removed.

We recommend also that developers also contact the Council's conservation officers (in addition to archaeological and ecological officers) for advice/information and to discuss potential issues early on in the planning process

In the Council's experience these items can give rise to extra costs and it is useful to mention it.

Agree

No change

Add reference to contacting officers dealing with the historic environment.

14

Cotswolds AONB Partnership

The provision of affordable housing within allocated sites of windfall proposals within Bath, Keynsham, Norton Radstock, Peasedown St John and Paulton should be of paramount importance. However, the rural area, including the areas of outstanding natural beauty, should not be ignored as the problem is also critical here. This may help to reduce the travel to work distances for many workers with the consequent improvements in traffic congestion, particularly if linked to public transport.

The partnership fully supports para 5.12 stating that affordable housing should be of high quality design and respect the character and local distinctiveness of the area. This is particularly important within an AONB

The partnership also fully supports para 5.14 accessibility to local services and public transport

Comments noted.

No change

15

Batheaston Parish Council

2.1 The range of possible affordable housing types is noted. As the subject is developing fast we should rely on the draft B&NES local plan notwithstanding that it is not far advanced as yet.

5.2 Batheaston is nominally marginal in terms of size but I think its nature merits the <3000 village approach (Sites for 10 dwellings or more in number of 0.5 ha or more in area).

5.3 Note that the provision extends to unidentified (windfall) sites and conversions.

5.5 30% is purely local figures 'established' by B&NES; other than 'considerable housing needs' B&NES do not explain its rationale. Is this the global figure for the district as a whole? What variance is permissible and under what conditions?

5.6 This is a testing paragraph. It might be helpful for the paragraph to indicate what might be abnormal site costs.

5.7 An important paragraph in relation to the question of the conflict of policies e.g. housing with an AFFORDABLE HOUSING element versus Green Belt.

5.8 What is the precise geographical meaning of "area" in which the scheme is located?

5.8 Lieu provision - where and when? Difficult for planning conditions re off-site contributions to be consistent with Circular 1/97 i.e. is it necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

5.10 RSL is a B&NES preference, not a Government requirement.

5.11 When and where may alternative arrangements be appropriate? But see 6.7

5.13 As in 5.12 better expressed as no derogation from the normal requirements for all housing proposals.

6.1 No objection to this aspiration but what if developers do not wish to work with a RSL?

6.4/5 Agreements/conditions on these lines require skilful drafting to ensure they are enforceable. What happens when an occupant becomes affluent to the point of no longer requiring AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

6.7 This appears to respond to the query raised by 5.11. However, would "pepper-potting" AH make insuperable problems for a RSL?

6.8 Again, the question of the definition of "the same area"

7.2 Is the B&NES Council suggesting (in a 'circuitous' way) that rural exception schemes should be subject to a sequential test? It should be made clear.

The existing adopted local plans and Wansdyke local plan are still relevant. The emerging B&NES local plan carries only limited weight at this stage because of the number of objections to affordable homes policies.

Agreed, will fall within the threshold for seeking affordable housing on sites of 10 dwellings or more in number or 0.5 ha or more in area.

Noted.

The Housing Survey 2000 proposes 30% based on affordable housing need across the district and is reasonable and practical. Variations in % may be applicable due to abnormal development costs; this is explained in paragraph 5.6.

Para 5.6 explains the types of costs that would not be considered abnormal. Abnormal costs can only be assessed on a site by site basis.

This part of the guidance addresses affordable homes sought on large sites, not exception sites (see section 7). These developments will not be acceptable in the green belt.

The paragraph actually states `provision on an alternative site within Bath & North East Somerset.' This would be directed toward an area of need.'

Will be considered on a sited by site basis and will only be considered in exceptional cases.

Agreed.

Where local housing needs dictate.

Local plan and national guidance should be complied with.

The Council will seek a planning agreement that secures the affordable housing in perpetuity.

This situation is outside the scope of the SPG.

No, RSL's are able to manage dispersed housing effectively.

`Area' will be defined locally on a site by site basis. For example in a village such as Batheaston, the area would be the village. In Bath, it may be a much larger geographical area.

No, it is not a sequential test, but as para 7.2 points out it is desirable for the applicant to assess other sites in order to find the best and most sustainable location.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

16

Dunkerton Parish Council

3.1 In principle, we need to keep people of the Parish here and to provide for them, especially the young, however it is believed that currently there is no established housing need in Dunkerton. To provide housing here for people with no connection with the Parish would not make sense - there are no local services provided and they would increase transport and road problems.

5.5 Planning permission to combine existing small dwellings - suitable for local affordable housing - should not be granted. Here rows of several cottages have been turned into one large house by people from far outside the Parish who then just use them for a few weeks of the year as holiday homes. Such practice destroys small local communities. We have endured squatters, vandalism and break-ins to such properties, and this in turn induces fear amongst the established community.

5.7 and 5.14 Local facilities are negligible in the Parish and access to public transport is on the whole very poor.

7.1 Whilst we support the need to keep people of the Parish here - especially young adults, it is believed that there is currently no established housing need in the Parish

Services in the Parish - There is no general food store (the only shop is a small butchers shop)

No Post Office

No doctors surgery (and the nearest one involves changing buses (where there is no shelter) on routes that run infrequently

No school

Access to public transport is limited - services are infrequent and many residents live half a mile to a mile up or down steep hills from the nearest route

There are virtually no opportunities for work in the Parish

And further to B&ANES District-wide Local Plan Parish Service Provision Survey of June 2000 there is no a) no general pre-school provision in the Parish b)only one garage and that does not sell fuel

Housing needs in a village/parish is established by conducting a village needs survey.

In any event Dunkerton is not a village where exceptions sites would be allowed (B&NES local plan policy HG.9, clause 4).

This is outside the scope of this SPG.

Noted see above comment.

Noted, see comment above

No change

No change

No change

No change

17

Knightstone Housing Association

5.1 - 5.4 Thresholds: Ensure conformity with Local Plan. We would seek a lower threshold than 10 be applied for rural areas as most rural developments are of a smaller size.

5.5 Level of Affordable Housing provision. The use of the word "Generally" weakens this paragraph. Could this be firmed up and suggest potential for a higher percentage where need requires.

5.11Tenure - Better definition of a Low Cost Market Home is required here.

5.12 Design Compliance with NHF standards should also be required, together with RSL's design brief.

5:14 Accessibility: It is felt that this paragraph is not necessary, and would provide the developer with argument not to provide affordable housing in some areas.

6.5 Occupancy Controls: Other issues need to be addressed such as CORE statistical returns, stair-casing provision, grant recycling, and repossession.

Other s106 Obligations - RSL's would need to be absolved of other s106 obligations (contributions to education, roads etc.)

Calculation of Transfer Price etc. Please refer to alternative clause and method of calculation below:

Calculation of Transfer price

This Supplementary Planning Guidance outlines an approach to the provision of affordable housing on site without the need for an RSL to apply for social housing grant to subsidise either rent or shared ownership units. The Housing Corporation provides guidance on expected procurement costs of a dwelling according to location and size. Total Cost Indicator (TCI) tables, including notional on-cost percentages for each procurement type are published annually by the Housing Corporation. Each local authority is placed into a cost group. Bath and North East Somerset Council are currently in TCI band B2 (2002/2003). Full details of TCI tables, grant rate calculator and methodology can be found on the Housing Corporation website www.housingcorp.gov.uk.

The Housing Corporation provides a Grant Rate Calculator in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, current version being HCCALC3.XLS dated 24/09/2001. They no longer provide Grant Rate tables. Instead the spreadsheet works out the applicable grant for each individual unit depending on the following inputs:

Unit location Local Authority

Unit internal area in m²

Unit gross multiplier derived from TCI tables

Unit value as of January 1999

Unit Prospective Rent

Number of bedrooms

Whether unit is a flat or a house

Whether unit is new build or rehab

Whether unit is an extended family unit, defined as 8 person or more with additional or duplicate facilities

Whether unit is Supported Housing and/or Sheltered Housing

It is suggested that developers approach the Local Authority at an early stage to discuss the methodology and calculation of the grant rate applicable to a particular site.

Affordable Rented Housing

Transfer Price to the developer = 100% TCI at the time planning permission is granted minus (applicable Social Housing Grant and Housing Corporation notional on-costs).

Transfer of Land

Developer will transfer free fully serviced plots to the partner RSL plus a cash contribution equal to the level of Social Housing Grant and Housing Corporation notional on-costs required.

Shared Ownership

As for affordable rented above.

Commuted Sums

Payment to Bath and North East Somerset Council = Social Housing Grant and Housing Corporation notional on-costs plus a 5% surcharge on the total based on 100% TCI for rented housing on an agreed number and type of units at the time planning permission is granted.

The thresholds proposed in the Local Plan are realistic and achievable.

Bath & North East Somerset Housing Survey 2000 proposes 30% which is reasonable and achievable. There may be circumstances where a lower percentage is sought as explained in para 5.6.

The definition is broad to allow flexibility although the outcome is a home which is priced at an affordable level (in relation to local incomes and house prices).

Internal design and standards are not controlled by the planning system. However, developers should bear in mind the standards required for RSL properties by the Housing Corporation.

General market housing would be required to be accessible to local services in the same way that affordable housing is.

This would be for the planning agreement to specify.

This is outside the scope of the SPG.

Agreed. The current method of a calculation is out of date.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

Housing Corporation's up to date grant calculator to be used as a method of calculating the transfer price of the affordable units based on the presumption of nil public subsidy.

18

Roger Houghton

New King Street

Suggested measures for consideration:

Planning guidance to require a larger proportion of affordable housing in the city centre (Ken Livingstone is demanding 50% in London).

In 1991 the Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust (now part of Edinburgh World Heritage Trust) introduced a plan to increase the residential population from 3,000 to 10,000 while "achieving a balance in tenure and household size". The Bath World Heritage Site Management Plan, currently being drawn up, to include a similar target.

A more effective commitment to "living over shops" (Local Plan Policy H10, Draft Local Plan, B7.106). The council should produce an audit of suitable properties and actively encourage landowners to convert upper floors to residential use. In particular it should, where practical, be required for all council-owned property. (The National Westminster Bank building in Milsom Street is a prime example of the failure to follow through this policy.)

The council to produce an audit of undeveloped and under-developed sites within the city centre and invite owners to present proposals for high density developments

The council to bring forward development plans for sites it owns in the city centre - including Avon Street car park, the Cattle Market and Manvers Street - which include affordable housing.

The council to consider additional measures to preserve a supply of affordable housing within the city centre. Examples elsewhere include planning conditions in Snowdonia requiring that houses must be used only as principal homes, in the New Forest that purchasers provide evidence of local ties and covenants in north Norfolk restricting sales to buyers who have lived in the county for at least three years.

The council to limit developments for student accommodation when sites and buildings are also suitable for residential use. (For example, 1960s office developments such as Carpenter House have elsewhere been successfully converted for residential use.

B&NES Housing Survey 2000 proposes 30% which is reasonable and achievable.

Outside the scope of the SPG.

Outside the scope of the SPG.

Outside the scope of the SPG.

Outside the scope of the SPG.

Outside the scope of the SPG.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

19

Government Office for the South West

Generally, we found the draft helpful in taking forward and providing guidance on the implementation of the local plan's affordable housing policies. We do have a number of concerns about the draft and these are set out below.

The number of plans and potentially conflicting policies that this guidance note seeks to supplement is misleading and confusing to members of the public. Supplementary Planning Guidance should only be used to supplement specific policies in a single plan.

The SPG states at paragraph 5.6 that abnormal site cost associated with the development may justify a reduction in the affordable housing requirement. However the last sentence outlines a number of development costs that will not be considered as abnormal. It is unclear why any of these `developments costs' cannot be abnormally high in certain circumstances. This does not appear to reflect the Paragraph 10 i) of Circular 6/98 that states that the economics of provision should be taken into account.

It is not clear how developers would be expected to take forward the provisions in paragraph 5.9 & 5.12 `All schemes should comply with the current Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards'. Those standards are not set out in the SPG or the Local Plan. Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards cover internal design details over which the planning system has no control. The Council should not seek to require compliance with standards that do not form part of the development plan. Paragraph 5.9 & 5.12 of the draft should be reconsidered.

Paragraph 4 of Circular 6/98 states that planning policy should not be expressed in favour of any particular form of tenure. Paragraph 5.10 of the SPG is inconsistent with that guidance and should be reconsidered. More generally the note does not give much guidance to developers intending to provide low cost market housing. You will wish to consider how best to incorporate guidance on low cost market housing, into the note so as to provide a broader perspective on the provision of affordable housing.

Paragraphs 6.6 should be redrafted so that the Authority does not exclude the possibility of affordable housing being secured through conditions on planning permissions.

You may wish to update 8.0 Further Information to reflect that the final version of Regional Planning Guidance for the South has been published.

Do not agree. The development plan consists of more than a single plan. It consists of Structure and local plans and it is important to ensure that the SPG refers to all. In addition, all LA's are likely to have emerging as well as adopted plans, these will be material considerations in determining planning applications and it is important that where ever possible affordable homes SPG relates to them. In our experience this has not caused confusion.

Agreed, insert `generally' after measures will not...

Agreed that internal design and standards are not controlled by the planning system. However, developers should bear in mind the standards required for RSL properties by the Housing Corporation.

The Bath & North East Somerset Housing Survey 2000 identified the relationship between income and house prices. The results indicated that the majority of those in affordable housing need had incomes of less than £20,000 per year (61% of concealed households had an income of less than £17,500). In Bath and other parts of the District , this level of income would be unlikely to support any tenure other than affordable rented accommodation. However para 5.11 goes on to say that other forms of tenure including low cost to purchase may be appropriate.

Agree.

Noted.

No change

In para 5.6 insert Insert `generally' after `measures will not '

No change

Include a direct reference to the Housing Survey being available at www.bathnes.gov.uk web site and amend the paragraph to include the reason for seeking rented accommodation.

Include `and/or conditions' in paragraph 6.6

Include regional planning guidance in para 8.0

20

The Guinness Trust

5.1 - 5.4 Thresholds Ensure conformity with Local Plan. We would seek a lower threshold than 10 be applied for rural areas as most rural developments are of a smaller size.

5.5 Level of Affordable Housing Provision The use of the word "generally" weakens this paragraph. Could this be firmed up and suggest potential for a higher percentage where need requires.

5.11 Tenure Better definition of a Low Cost Market Home is required here.

5.12 Design Compliance with NHF standards should also be required, together with RSL's design brief.

5.14 Accessibility It is felt that this paragraph is not necessary, and would provide the developer with argument not to provide affordable housing in some areas.

6.5 Occupancy Controls; Other issues need to be addressed such as CORE statistical returns, stair-casing provision, grant recycling, and repossession.

Other S106 RSL's would need to be absolved of other s106 obligations (contributions to education, roads, etc.)

Calculation of Transfer - Price etc. Please refer to alternative clause and method of calculation below:

Calculation of Transfer Price

It is necessary for the Supplementary Planning Guidance to clearly outline the Council's approach to the provision of affordable housing on site without the need for an RSL to apply for social housing grant to subsidise either rent or shared ownership units. The methodology should be clear, workable and leave the RSL in a no worse financial position than if full grant was attributed to the scheme. We feel that the approach below should be considered to be adopted and suggest that developers approach the Local Authority at an early stage to discuss the methodology and calculation of the grant rate applicable to a particular site.

The Housing Corporation provides guidance on expected procurement costs of a dwelling according to location and size. Total Cost Indicator (TCI) tables, including notional on-cost percentages for each procurement type are published annually by the Housing Corporation. Each local authority is placed into a cost group. Bath and North East Somerset Council are currently in TCI band B2 (2002/2003). Full details of TCI tables, grant rate calculator and methodology can be found on the Housing Corporation website www.housingcorp.gov.uk.

The Housing Corporation provide a Grant Rate Calculator in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, current version being HCCALC3.XLS dated 24/09/2001. They no longer provide Grant Rate tables. Instead the spreadsheet works out the applicable grant for each individual unit depending on the following inputs:

· Unit location Local Authority

· Unit internal area in m²

· Unit gross multiplier derived from TCI tables

· Unit value as of January 1999

· Unit Prospective Rent

· Number of bedrooms

· Whether unit is a flat or a house

· Whether unit is new build or rehab

· Whether unit is an extended family unit, defined as 8 person or more with additional or duplicate facilities

Whether unit is Supported Housing and/or Sheltered Housing

Transfer Price to the developer = 100% TCI at the time planning permission is granted minus (applicable Social Housing Grant plus Housing Corporation notional on-costs).

Transfer of Land

Alternatively, and only with the approval/requirement of the Council, we suggest that the developer may transfer free full serviced plots to the partner RSL plus a cash contribution equal to the level of Social Housing Grant and Housing Corporation notional on-costs required.

Shared Ownership

As for affordable rented above.

Commuted Sums

Alternatively, and only with the approval/requirement of the Council, we suggest that the developer may make a commuted payment to Bath and North East Somerset Council equal to Social Housing Grant and Housing Corporation notional on-costs plus a 5% surcharge on the total based on 100% TCI for rented housing on an agreed number and type of units at the time planning permission is granted.

The thresholds proposed in the local plan are realistic and achievable.

Bath & North East Somerset Housing Survey 2000 proposes 30% which is reasonable and achievable. There may be circumstances where a lower percentage is sought as explained in para 5.6.

The definition is broad to allow flexibility although the outcome is a home which is priced at an affordable level (in relation to local incomes and house prices).

Internal design and standards are not controlled by the planning system. However, developers should bear in mind the standards required for RSL properties by the Housing Corporation.

General needs housing would be required to be accessible to local services in the same way that affordable housing is.

This would be for the planning agreement to specify.

This is outside the scope of the SPG.

Agreed. The current method of a calculation is out of date.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

The Housing Corporation's up to date grant calculator to be used as a method of calculating the transfer price of the affordable units based on the presumption of nil public subsidy.