Please reply to: Lisa O’Donnell

Direct Line / Voicemail: 020 7641 4240 Fax: 020 7641 3050

Email: lodonel1@westminster.gov.uk

Date: 31st July 2012

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London GLA City Hall Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Dear Sir, The following is a Joint Response to the London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations

(June 2012) from the London Borough of Brent, London Borough of Camden, London

Borough of Enfield, London Borough of Hackney, London Borough of Islington, London

Borough of Southwark, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Royal Borough of Kensington &

Chelsea and Westminster City Council. The response relates to issues around affordable

housing, specifically the affordable rent product. Boroughs may also be submitting separate,

individual responses to the Revised Early Minor Alterations.

1. The above boroughs object to the following text in the London Plan Revised Early

Minor Alterations:

“In view of the particular priority the Mayor gives to provision of new affordable homes to meet London’s very pressing need, boroughs should give particular weight to the criteria set by national government for the allocation of public resources for affordable housing in setting local plan targets (Policy 3.11) or negotiating provision in private housing or mixed-use developments (Policy 3.12) and should avoid imposing any requirements (such as borough-level caps on rent levels for affordable rented housing) that might restrict the numbers of new affordable homes.” [Paragraph 3.63] Boroughs should enable the range of affordable rents to be applied and should not attempt to set rent targets for affordable rented housing in their local development frameworks as this is likely to impede maximisation of affordable housing provision London wide. Instead The Mayor will may provide details of where variations to affordable rent can apply in his London Housing Strategy and other relevant documents. [Paragraph 3.68](red text shows Early Minor Alterations)

2. The above boroughs object to the deletion of the following text in the London Plan

Revised Early Minor Alterations:

“In practice, the rent required will vary for each scheme with levels set by agreement between developers, providers, and the Mayor. Homes and Communities Agency and , in dealing with individual planning applications, the London boroughs.” [Paragraph 3.61, 2nd bullet]

2

3. The proposed restriction on boroughs setting rent levels for the affordable rent within

the London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) is:

i. Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework,

ii. Creates irresolvable internal inconsistency within the London Plan,

iii. Would improperly restrict boroughs’ legitimate powers.

Background

1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. This

replaced Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, and included national policy on

housing, the evidence base to support housing policy, and a new definition of

affordable housing. The draft London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA)

have been published to provide consistency with this document.

2. A new affordable housing product, affordable rent, was introduced through the 2011-

2015 Affordable Homes Programme published by the Homes and Communities

Agency and the CLG in 2011. The NPPF provides a definition of affordable rent

within its affordable housing definition as housing let by local authorities or registered

providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing.

Affordable rented housing is to be let to households who are eligible for social rented

housing and is subject to rent controls of no more than 80% of the local market rent

(including service charges where applicable).

3. The above boroughs have calculated that delivery of the affordable rent product at

the rent levels proposed by the Mayor of London (up to 80% of market rent, with an

average of 65% across London and across housing sizes) will not meet the local

housing need it is supposed to meet to comply with the NPPF. Appendix 1 sets out

the figures for this.

4. The London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations and London Plan Early Minor

Alterations seek to prohibit boroughs from setting rent caps or targets for affordable

rented housing in their local development frameworks as they consider it likely to

impede maximisation of affordable housing provision as per London Plan Policy 3.11.

The above boroughs object to the Mayor of London’s approach in relation to the

affordable rent housing product.

5. The above boroughs feel that the REMA is too prescriptive as currently drafted and

does not allow boroughs the flexibility to meet their own specific housing needs,

which is against the spirit of the Localism agenda and the NPPF. This is our

fundamental objection to the REMA. The boroughs need to respond to widely

differing circumstances in their local policies, and one size will not fit all. In line with

the NPPF, boroughs should be able to formulate their own policies on affordable

housing, to meet the need identified in their local evidence, through whatever

mechanisms they consider appropriate. Some of the above boroughs wish to

establish local eligibility criteria for the new affordable rent product based on local

incomes and local housing prices to ensure that it meets needs, particularly social

rented needs, whilst others wish to retain the flexibility to enable them to do so

3

should they wish to in the future. The boroughs may wish to set out these criteria in

Supplementary Planning Documents and in their Local Plans. There should be

sufficient planning guidance on affordability in terms of local incomes and house

prices/rents for affordability to be addressed as a material consideration for planning.

DETAILED OBJECTION

NPPF definition of affordable housing

1. The NPPF definition of affordable housing, repeated in Policy 3.10 of the London

Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA), states:

“Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices.”

(emphasis added)

2. The definition does not differentiate between affordable housing products and

therefore applies to all of them. It should be for the local authority to define those

eligibility criteria in relation to local incomes and local house prices. The London

Plan should not, and we believe can not, stop a local authority from doing something

in its Local Plan that the NPPF explicitly allows it to do. To do so would not be

consistent with the NPPF.

3. Paragraph 3.62 of the REMA states:

“For the purposes of the paragraph 3.61 definition, eligibility criteria for

intermediate housing should be qualifying prices and rents should be set locally

to recognise the individual characteristics of local housing markets”

4. If it is NPPF compliant (and indeed added to the REMA to achieve compliance with

the NPPF) for boroughs to set eligibility criteria for one affordable housing product (in

this case, intermediate housing), it cannot be NPPF non-compliant to set eligibility

criteria for a different product (affordable rent) when the requirement to set eligibility

criteria locally doesn’t differentiate between the two products. This creates an

internal inconsistency between different parts of the London Plan.

5. By seeking to prohibit local authorities from setting eligibility criteria for the affordable

rent product, the REMA restricts the definition of affordability to rent levels that are up

to 80% of market rent, without any reference to local incomes and local house prices

as required by the NPPF. This is inconsistent with the NPPF definition and

requirements.

London Plan requirement to meet affordable housing need

6. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities (including the Greater

London Authority) to “positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of

(the) area”. Paragraph 17, setting out the core planning principles requires planning

to:

4

“Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the

homes... that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to

identify and then meet the housing... needs of an area, and respond positively to

wider opportunities for growth”.

7. The London Plan fails to meet these policies. The affordable housing which will be

delivered by the proposed REMAs will not meet the range of affordable housing

needs of the area (refer Appendix 1). It would only meet a very small proportion of

households in need, to the extent that this provision is de minimus. The REMA is

therefore inconsistent with the NPPF.

Local Plan requirement to meet affordable housing need

8. Paragraph 174 of the NPPF states:

“Local Planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the

Local Plan, including requirements for affordable housing.”

9. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local plans to meet affordable housing need:

“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 in the housing market area,

as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including

identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over

the plan period.” (emphasis added)

10. For some boroughs, setting rent levels is the appropriate policy response to deliver

against these NPPF requirements. For some, setting rent levels for all affordable

housing products will enable them to meet the soundness test of being the best

policy option compared to all others. Other boroughs may decide to take up this

policy option in the future, and it is therefore crucial that the flexibility is retained for

boroughs to utilise this appropriate and legitimate mechanism in order to meet

housing needs in their areas. In line with the NPPF, boroughs should be able to

formulate their own policies on affordable housing which would meet the identified

needs in their local evidence. Boroughs should be able to determine to what extent

each of the three forms of affordable housing addresses the need, and have the

flexibility to set their targets/proportions/standards for any or each of the tenures

accordingly. This may include setting rent levels for affordable rent where there is

evidence that this is appropriate to meet local need. The REMA are therefore

inconsistent with the NPPF. They also seek to improperly restrict the boroughs

legitimate plan-making powers, making it impossible for them to meet other duties in

relation to their own Local Plans in relation to the soundness tests of being positively

prepared, justified and consistent with national policy.

5

Legitimacy for boroughs to set rent levels

11. The NPPF requires Local Plans to set out “clear policies on what will or will not be

permitted and where” (paragraph 154) including requirements for affordable housing

as set out in Paragraph 174 (see paragraph 8 above). For some boroughs setting

rent levels will establish an important set of local criteria for development

management to be able to determine whether the affordable rented housing offered

as part of a planning application is in fact affordable housing (i.e. to what degree it

meets needs and is therefore necessary to deliver against the borough’s own targets

and objectives). This will make it possible for officers to assess the planning

application in relation to local, regional and national policies, and therefore apply

those policies correctly.

12. Some London boroughs have published affordable rent statements in connection

with their housing powers and duties, setting out alternative rent levels where the

80% level would not be affordable. The GLA has accepted this, and has recently

advised boroughs that this is appropriate (17th July 2012). Clearly these statements

are capable of being a material consideration under Section 38 of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 when determining planning applications, regardless

of whether they are published in a planning document. The GLA have objected to

references to these statements as material considerations on the basis of general

conformity with the London Plan. The London Plan should not be a vehicle to

preclude consideration of relevant material considerations.

13. The above boroughs consider that they are best placed to advise on eligibility criteria

for affordable housing because they have objectively assessed housing needs

through the preparation of the required evidence base to support their local plans.

Supporting economic growth and maximising housing delivery

14. It is a key objective of this government to simplify the planning system, and give

certainty to developers to enable them to make the decisions necessary for

development, economic growth and investment. It cannot be left to site-by-site

negotiations to determine the level of rent that might be acceptable on individual

schemes, as suggested by the Mayor. Boroughs must be allowed to set clear policy

expectations and requirements not only to ensure that the right type of affordable

housing is delivered, but also, very importantly, to give certainty to the development

industry. Having clear policy requirements reduces speculation and discourages

overinflated land values, which in turn might negatively affect the amount of

affordable housing being delivered.

15. Publication of local policies and targets, including affordable rent eligibility criteria at a

local level will provide the certainty developers (and registered providers) crave.

GLA officers have advised that this should not be necessary as developers should

have a Registered Provider (RP) partner at the time they submit their planning

application. Firstly, it is difficult under current legislation to invalidate an application

because they don’t have an agreement in place with an RP. Secondly, many

applications are speculative or in advance of sale, so the applicant is not the final

6

developer. And thirdly, perhaps most importantly, in order to make investment

decisions, the value of the affordable housing units has to be estimated at pre-

purchase stage, not pre-application stage. If this information isn’t available at this

stage, it is entirely legitimate for developers to raise viability concerns at application

stage because they have over-estimated how much an RP can pay for the units,

based on an over-estimation of the rental income from those units. Where viability is

an issue, affordable housing is not maximised. Therefore restricting the ability of

boroughs to provide up-front investment advice about affordable rent eligibility criteria

fails to meet the policies of the London Plan and REMA. This is also inconsistent

with the NPPF, including in relation to “proactively driv(ing) and support(ing)

sustainable economic development to deliver homes...that the country needs”

(paragraph 17) and setting out “clear policies on what will and will not be permitted”

(paragraph 154, NPPF) amongst other policies.

16. Whilst the boroughs support the objective of maximising delivery of affordable

housing, the approach taken will not achieve this. This is because much of the

housing that will be delivered will not be affordable to the majority of eligible

households and therefore cannot really be defined as affordable. At the rent levels

suggested, the affordable rented housing provided would only meet a proportion of

affordable housing need, and an even lesser proportion of social rented need (refer

also Appendix 1). At a pan-London level, this doesn’t represent maximisation of

affordable housing delivery, or “mak(ing) optimum use of the resources available to

fund affordable housing (or), to maximise affordable housing output” (Policy 3.12 and

Paragraph 3.71 of REMA).

17. Of particular concern is the Mayor’s stated intention to give particular weight to this

issue when considering conformity of boroughs’ emerging plans, and the Mayor has

already issued a number of non-conformity opinions . This creates a serious risk

that the Mayor’s proposed approach will slow down or prevent boroughs in bringing

forward their development plan documents, and thus boroughs will not have up to

date policies on a range of planning issues, not just affordable housing. This would

create a policy vacuum at a local level and add to uncertainty in the planning

process, and is likely to lead to “planning by appeal” resulting in unnecessary delays

and costs to all parties involved. This is at the time when the government is urging

local authorities to put local plans in place as quickly as possible to help bring

forward sustainable development at an accelerated rate. The Mayor’s approach

could seriously jeopardise this objective, as it will hinder rather than help boroughs

with speedy plan preparation.

Affordable rent as a social rent product

18. The REMA states that affordable rented housing should be let to households who are

eligible for social rented housing. In setting local eligibility criteria for the affordable

rent product, this would therefore involve possible publication of the income bands at

which the affordable rent product should be made available (which may or may not

be converted into weekly rental (plus service charge) levels for convenience and

practical purposes).

7

19. Given the guidance regarding the relationship between gross and net annual

incomes, and the guidance that housing costs should not exceed 40% of household

income, the availability of relevant income bands for intermediate housing eligibility

(which therefore defines social housing below the income bands and market housing

above), affordable rent eligibility is obliquely defined anyway. Publication of

affordable rent income bands merely allows local authorities to a) provide clear,

consistent advice to developers, b) define affordable housing for determining of

planning applications which include affordable rent units, c) meet objectively

identified need

20. Some of the affordable rented housing provided to date has been declined by

reasonable preference groups because they can not afford it. This is a significant

concern to the boroughs and makes a strong case for why boroughs may need to

establish affordability criteria at a local level, to ensure the affordable rent product is

both affordable, particularly those who are eligible for social rent.

Conclusion

21. The boroughs represented by this response acknowledge the considerable difficulties

faced by the Mayor in endeavouring to maximise affordable housing delivery and

meet his targets in light of the significant cuts to government funding. These

boroughs very much want to work with the Mayor to maximise the delivery of the

range of housing needed to meet the capital’s acute housing needs, particularly for

affordable housing. However, we do not believe that the approach taken in the

REMAs is the right one, an appropriate one, or one which will in fact contribute to this

aim. There is little to be gained from delivering housing as an affordable housing

contribution which does not meet the range of needs across the city, and that cannot

be let to those in need because it is too expensive.

22. Boroughs need to retain the flexibility necessary to continue to deliver affordable

housing which meets the range of local needs and circumstances identified for their

boroughs. This flexibility should allow boroughs to set eligibility criteria for all three

affordable housing models; social rented, affordable rented and intermediate

housing, with reference to local incomes and local house prices. If boroughs choose

to set criteria, they should also continue to have the flexibility to use these to

negotiate affordable housing, including ensuring that any homes coming forward are

made available to those eligible for that type of housing.

8

CHANGES SOUGHT BY THE BOROUGHS

1. The changes sought by the boroughs are shown in bold. Text that should be

removed is shown in strikethrough. Text that is proposed for deletion but should

remain is shown in bold. Red text shows Early Minor Alterations.

2. Paragraph 3.61

“In practice, the rent required will vary for each scheme with levels set by agreement between developers, providers, and the Mayor and , in dealing with individual planning applications, the London boroughs.”

3. Paragraph 3.63

“In view of the particular priority the Mayor gives to provision of new affordable homes to meet London’s very pressing need, boroughs should give particular weight to the criteria set by national government for the allocation of public resources for affordable housing in setting local plan targets (Policy 3.11) or negotiating provision in private housing or mixed-use developments (Policy 3.12) and should avoid imposing any requirements (such as borough-level caps on rent levels for affordable rented housing)that might restrict the numbers of new affordable homes.”

4. Paragraph 3.68

Boroughs should enable the range of affordable rents to be applied and should not set rent targets for affordable rented housing in their local development frameworks as this is likely to impede maximisation of affordable housing provision London wide. The Mayor may provide details of where variations to affordable rent can apply in his London Housing Strategy and other relevant documents.

9

We trust you will take these significant concerns into consideration in taking the London Plan

Revised Early Minor Alterations forward to public examination later this year. Borough

representatives would be happy to meet with you or your officers to discuss this further and

find a pragmatic solution.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Janice Long Lead Member for Housing London Borough of Brent

David Joyce Head of Placeshaping London Borough of Camden

Councillor Ahmet Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing London Borough of Enfield

Councillor Del Goddard, Cabinet Member for Business & Regeneration London Borough of Enfield

Graham Loveland Assistant Director of Planning Regulatory Services London Borough of Hackney

Councillor James Murray Executive Member for Housing and Development London Borough of Islington

Councillor Peter John Leader of the Council London Borough of Southwark

Owen Whalley Head of Planning & Building Control London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Jonathan Bore Executive Director, Planning and Borough Development Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Rosemarie MacQueen Strategic Director for Built Environment Westminster City Council

APPENDIX 1 GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOMES REQUIRED TO AFFORD DIFFERENT RENTS ACROSS LONDON BOROUGHS

Smaller Homes

I bed 2 bed Median income Lower IH income

Borough 100% 80% 65% RP EC 100% 80% 65% RP EC

Brent £36,400 £29,120 £23,660 £47,171 £37,737 £30,661 £30,352

Camden £55,714 £44,571 £36,214 £18,345 £74,286 £59,429 £48,286 £20,737 £33,054

Enfield £34,357 £27,486 £22,332 £15,927 £44,943 £35,954 £29,213 £19,257 £38,337

Hackney £30,750 £24,600 £19,987 £42,150 £33,720 £27,397 £26,788

Islington £62,029 £49,623 £40,318 £18,571 £84,500 £67,600 £54,925 £21,914 £31,560

Kensington &Chelsea

£46,429 £26,500 £53,857 £29,000

Southwark £41,991 £33,595 £27,294 £12,637 £54,786 £43,829 £35,611 £14,448 £16,800

Redbridge £20,810 £16,648 £13,526 £37,143 £28,505 £22,804 £18,528 £40,392 £29,534

Tower Hamlets £36,285 £29,028 £23,585 £16,584 £48,350 £38,680 £31,427 £17,550 £29,383 £18,100

Westminster £72,150 £57,720 £46,898 £24,514 £25,000 - £32,000

£102,266 £81,813 £66,473 £27,300 £27,500 - £36,000

£39,951 £20,000

LP REMA £64,300 £51,400 £41,795 £64,300 £51,400 £41,795 £27,762 £18,100

Family Housing

3 bed 4 bed Median income Lower IH income

Borough 100% 80% 65% RP EC 100% 80% 65% RP EC

Brent £60,171 £48,137 £36,103 £81,342 £65,074 £52,873 £30,352

Camden £98,429 £78,743 £63,979 £23,511 £125,357 £100,286 £81,482 £26,799 £33,054

Enfield £55,714 £44,571 £36,214 £23,467 £70,571 £56,457 £45,871 NA £38,337

Hackney £52,900 £42,320 £34,385 £69,710 £55,768 £45,311 £26,788

Islington £104,371 £83,497 £67,841 25,071 £29,343 £31,560

RBK&C £63,143 £29,714 £74,286 £31,385

Southwark £65,221 £52,177 £42,394 £16,198 £75,135 £60,108 £48,838 £18,222 £16,800

Redbridge £32,120 £25,696 £20,878 £41,042 £42,550 £34,040 £27,657 £40,857 £29,534

Tower Hamlets £60,388 £48,310 £39,252 £18,460 £67,418 £53,934 £43,821 £19,500 £29,383 £18,100

Westminster £135,850 £108,680 £88,302 £28,229 £29,000 - £39,000

£28,971 £29,000 - £39,000

£39,951 £20,000

LP REMA £77,200 £61,700 £50,180 £77,200 £61,700 £50,180 £27,762 £18,100

100% denotes the annual household income required to afford market rent for this sized property. The 80% and 65% figures are given up to the LHC cap levels, at which affordable rents are capped. Where the LHA cap applies, this is denoted by an *. RP indicates the household income needed to afford current social rents. EC indicates the eligibility criteria sought by that borough, setting out the income cap, band or target which that borough considers is necessary to ensure the affordable housing product meets local need. Median income is the median gross

household income across all housing tenures for that area. Lower IH income refers to the lowest annual household income for which households would be eligible for intermediate rent products. The 100% figures set the upper limit of this income band i.e. if a household’s income is above that level, they can afford a market property.

The figures above assume net income is 70% of gross and housing costs not exceeding 40% of household income. LB Southwark note they would usually use 30% rather than 40% in the

affordable housing study and as quoted. Target rent is based on 2009/10, and median income on 2008 study, so both would be higher. All boroughs note that average incomes for council and

housing association tenants is even lower than the median given above.

APPENDIX 2 COUNSEL’S ADVICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE LONDON PLAN AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

1. I am asked to advise the London Boroughs of Brent, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Islington, RBKC, Southwark,

Tower Hamlets and City of Westminster in respect of an issue on the GLA’s and Mayor’s approach to

affordable housing in the London Plan.

2. The NPPF introduces a new concept of “affordable rented accommodation” this is defined as “let by local

authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented

housing. Affordable rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local

market rent” [annex 2 p.50]. This is then differentiated from “intermediate housing” which is homes for sale

or rent above social rent levels but below market rent.

3. The policies in the NPPF do not provide a great deal of detail about the delivery of affordable housing but

the most relevant extracts are

a. Para 47(1) local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that the Local Plan

meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market

area, ..”

b. Para 50(1) plan for a mix of housing based on …market trends and the needs of different groups in

the community..

4. In summary, the approach the GLA has taken to affordable rented properties, is to publish Revised Early

Minor Alterations “REMA” in June 2012, which apply an across London definition of affordable rent; and also

to object to LDF documents produced by any of the London Boroughs which seek to apply a definition of

affordable rent which requires a lower level of rent than that set out in the REMA. The issue could therefore

be described as the degree to which the London Plan can dictate to the individual boroughs how “affordable

rent” in the NPPF should be defined in their areas.

5. The GLA’s objections in respect of the individual LDF documents is most easily seen from the response to

Islington’s Development Management Policies DPD, where the GLA Statement of General Conformity under

the PCPA 2004 is dated 20 June 2012. The approach to Housing is at para 15 onwards. The Islington DPD has

a policy at DM8 which seeks to fix rented affordable housing at rents that do not exceed target rents. The

GLA objection says that this policy is not in accordance with London Plan policies 3.11 and 3.12, which seeks

to maximise the provision of affordable housing. In essence the argument is that by setting the rents for

affordable housing at a lower level Islington (and the other boroughs) will impede the viability of that

affordable housing and thus reduce the quantum being provided. That outcome then fails to meet the policy

of maximising the provision of affordable housing. At para 23 of the GLA Statement it says;

“Whilst Islington Council’s supporting information is strong on identifying need, there is no evidence

provided to indicate that its approach is a realistic way of actually delivering enough affordable units

to meet that need. The Mayor has sought to address this through an indicative London wide 65% of

market rent assumption for affordable units, within which 40% will be around target rent.

Achievement of these indicative targets is only possible if boroughs allow flexibility in rent levels.

There is no support in national or regional policy for the setting of binding affordable levels to be

implemented through the planning system, and that Islington Council has failed to bring forward

adequate evidence to justify a different approach is also a concern.”

12

6. The Boroughs’ position, as outlined in a number of documents that I have seen, is that if the Mayor’s

approach is taken then a large proportion of the housing provided as “affordable housing” would not

actually be affordable at all because of the very great differential in much of London between market rent

levels and average income levels. Therefore the Mayor’s approach, which is set out in the REMA and through

his objections, will fail to meet the actual need for affordable housing.

7. The REMA are at this stage only in draft, and will be subject to consideration at EiP later in the year.

Therefore at this stage there is no issue of any LDF document having to be in conformity with them. There

are a number of relevant changes, but the most important for present purposes is at para 3.68;

“Boroughs should enable the range of affordable rents to be applied and should not set rent targets

for affordable rented housing in their local development frameworks as this is likely to impeded

maximisation of affordable housing provision London wide. The Mayor may provide details of where

variations to Affordable rent can apply in his London housing strategy and other relevant documents.

8. It seems to me that there are fundamentally two issues that arise. Firstly, what the NPPF policy is and

secondly, to what degree the GLA can constrain the London Boroughs on the terms of their DPDs, by

reference to the London Plan. It is not for me to advise on the planning merits of the two positions, i.e. the

degree to which the Mayor’s or the Boroughs’ figures are accurate, and what is the most effective way of

delivering affordable housing.

9. There are a number of points that emerge from the NPPF

a. The definition of affordable housing is that it is provided to eligible households whose needs are not

met by the market

b. AR housing is let to households who are eligible for social rented housing.

c. AR is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of local market rent [my

emphasis].

d. LPAs should use their evidence base to meet the full objectively assessed needs … for affordable

housing.

e. There must be a difference between intermediate housing and affordable rented housing.

10. Three points can be made from this. Firstly, for an AR product to meet the definition of affordable housing it

must be capable of meeting the needs of eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.

Secondly, the NPPF directs the role of LPAs in determining local need and considering the local market rent.

Thirdly it is clear that LPAs can set caps on rent, which generally in practice will be through s.106

agreements, in order to ensure affordability in perpetuity. I cannot understand the GLA’s comment quoted

above about there being no support in national policy about setting binding affordable levels through the

planning system, as that seems to be what the definition section in the NPPF is indicating should be done.

11. It is therefore strongly arguable that an approach by the Mayor that involves prioritising absolute numbers

of affordable dwellings, over ensuring affordability; and seeking to impose a London wide rent level, fails to

accord with the NPPF. The Mayor’s view is that London Plan policy 3.11 requires maximising affordable

housing. However, it does not seem to me that that can possibly be read to mean that levels should be

maximised even where the result would be that the product that is delivered does not actually meet the

assessed need. Such an interpretation would be perverse, and clearly undermine the entire rationale behind

the policy. There is an issue of fact and judgement, as to whether the Mayor’s approach to rent levels would

or would not meet the need, but that is not a question which I can advise on.

13

12. In respect of the setting of London wide rent levels for AR purposes, I think again the Mayor’s approach

does not actually accord with the policy. The NPPF definitions stress “local” incomes, house prices and local

market rent. The role in setting the policies and producing the evidence is given to the LPAs. It seems to me

that the most reasonable way to interpret this policy in the London context, is to examine rents and housing

markets at a Borough level, and perhaps even lower, rather than trying to set a London wide rent level. It is

very well known that there are wide disparities in house prices across London, and that affordability levels

will therefore vary. I do not think the NPPF supports an approach of analysing the markets and rent levels

across London, rather than allowing individual boroughs to determine AR levels in their own areas.

13. I turn then to the more procedural question as to the scope of the Mayor’s powers in this situation. There

are important differences between London and elsewhere, because only in London is it intended that a

regional tier of planning policy will be retained. However, at the present time there is no legal difference

because the RSSs still have not been revoked. In terms of the NPPF it draws no distinction between London

and elsewhere, and therefore the approach to how to apply the new affordable housing policy, and the level

at which rents and affordability is examined has to be one for planning judgement and is not dictated by the

NPPF, nor so far as I can see in any other policy document (or statute).

14. By s.24 PCPA the LDFs (in whatever form) must be in general conformity with the London Plan. Whether they

are or not is a matter for the Inspector. However it is my firm view that it is strongly arguable that the

Mayor’s approach to maximising affordable housing is itself plainly flawed, and therefore the LDFs which set

a lower rent level in accordance with local circumstances in each Borough are not “not in general

conformity” with the London Plan policy, i.e. they meet the test in s.24.

15. The London Plan itself must of course be drawn up with regard to the current national policy, and in the case

of the REMA this is now the NPPF. There is again a strong argument that the REMA themselves are not in

accordance with the NPPF if they do not secure affordability in the local market area. This is ultimately a

matter of evidential dispute, but I certainly think that it will be difficult for the Mayor to justify a London

wide approach in the light of the NPPF.

Questions

Does the NPPF oblige or require the Mayor to stop the boroughs setting affordable rent levels in order to achieve

compliance?

16. Q1 I have dealt with this above, in summary my view is that the NPPF does not oblige the Mayor to act in

this way.

Do any of the other Mayoral powers require the Mayor to stop the boroughs setting affordable rent levels e.g.

housing or HCA powers?

17. Q2 I cannot see any Mayoral power which obliges the Mayor to stop the Boroughs setting affordable rent

levels. There may be powers which impact on the viability of delivery in respect of the subsidy/grant regimes

on which the Mayor may have relevant powers. However, in my view that is a separate issue from the

planning powers which are relevant to this Opinion.

Does the NPPF allow the Mayor to stop the boroughs setting affordable rent levels?

14

18. Q3 I have addressed this issue above. For the Mayor to stop the boroughs setting rent levels on the basis of

the NPPF he would need to show that the correct approach was to set them London wide, and I think this

would be very difficult to establish.

Do any other Mayoral powers allow the Mayor to stop the boroughs setting affordable rent levels?

19. Q4 See Q2.

Does the NPPF allow the boroughs to set affordable rent levels?

20. Q5 In my view the answer to this is yes.

Does the NPPF require each borough to have all three forms of affordable housing included in the NPPF

definition? Can boroughs choose to have only one or two forms of affordable housing (i.e. intermediate and social

rented) if the local evidence clearly justifies this?

21. Q6 I don’t read the NPPF as requiring all forms of AH to be provided, and therefore it would be possible for

an LPA to say that its evidence base supported only two types. However, this is an area where it might be

easier for the Mayor to show that there was a London wide need for provision of all types, and therefore a

requirement in the London Plan for all three types to be provided, might be justifiable.

Does any other legislation allow boroughs to set affordable rent levels e.g. s.1 Localism Act 2011?

22. Q7 I would be very nervous of LPAs using the general power in s.1 of the Localism Act 2011 to set affordable

rent levels, if the planning system prevents it doing so. Planning is a comprehensive statutory code and I

think it highly likely that the court would not accept an LPA using the general power in s.1 to avoid any

specific limitations within the planning code.

Does the NPPF require or can it be interpreted to require boroughs to set local rent levels e.g. to establish

eligibility or to define locally what meets the definition of “affordable”?

23. Q8 this is the converse of Q1. The natural meaning of the NPPF is that local rent levels for the purposes of

AH policy are set by LPAs at borough level. However, if the evidence supported an analysis that the

appropriate local housing market was the whole of London, then it would be possible to support the Mayor’s

position. My preliminary view is that the evidence is much more likely to support the Boroughs’ position

than that of the Mayor, and that therefore there might be an obligation on the Boroughs to set rent levels in

order to achieve the NPPF policy. However, I cannot give a concluded view on this without far more detail on

the evidence to be relied upon.

If boroughs can demonstrate that setting rent levels will still maximise delivery of housing that is affordable, can

the REMAs be interpreted to allow local setting of rent levels?

24. Q9 I do not see how the REMA in its present form can be said to allow local setting of rents because of the

express prohibition in para 3.68.

Paragraph 3.62 of the REMA appears to require the boroughs to define the eligibility criteria for the affordable

housing product. If this is deemed to be NPPF compliant, could it also be interpreted that the boroughs

15

should/could be defining the eligibility for other affordable housing products such as affordable rent, or is there

some difference?

25. Q10 I find para 3.62 difficult to understand in the light of the prohibition in para 3.68 on setting rents. If

eligibility varies from borough to borough then it seems highly likely that rent levels will also do so. Further,

there seems to me to be a fundamental inconsistency of approach. The changes to para 3.62 expressly tell

the Boroughs to set eligibility criteria for intermediate housing locally. However, 3.68 is telling the Boroughs

not to set rent levels for AR locally. I cannot see on what rational basis this difference is justified.

GLA’s equalities impact assessment of Affordable Rent suggests that there might be equalities implications but

these are unclear at this stage. Can evidence of borough level equalities implications provide justification for the

London Plan policy to allow a locally tailored approach to Affordable Rent?

26. Q11 I am asked about the equalities implications of the Mayor’s approach and whether these implications

would justify the London Plan allowing the Boroughs to set rent levels. I certainly think that the equalities

implications must be considered, and that they may form part of the reasoning why the Mayor’s approach is

wrong.

If the affordable rent levels were set as part of a housing policy rather than a planning policy, but were used as the

basis for s106 negotiations, is this a legitimate way forward that would carry reasonable weight in a planning

appeal, and might it be a legitimate way of avoiding direct GLA control?

27. Q12 I am not convinced that setting affordable rent levels as part of a housing policy rather than planning

policy would work. I do not see how such levels could be incorporated into s.106 agreements if they did not

accord with London Plan, and therefore LDF policies.

NATHALIE LIEVEN QC

LANDMARK CHAMBERS

25 JULY 2012

From: Claire Jones-Hughes <bankssolutionsuk@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Westminster City Council NPPF Revision to Core Strategy: Hearings Programme Date: 15 May 2013 16:03:08 BST To: Michael Fearn <michael.fearn@shire-uk.com> Dear Michael, The Inspector wishes to point out that in her Guidance Notes and paragraph 16 it clearly states that no more written evidence should be submitted after 9 May 2013. However, in the circumstances, she would accept a very brief paper focussed on the permitted development change point.

If, alternatively, you wish to attend the hearings next week, agenda item 5 would cover your area of interest and you could then explain how you consider that changes to permitted development might affect the submitted plan. Many thanks Claire Claire Jones-Hughes Programme Officer Banks Solutions ℅ 6 Brading Road Brighton BN2 3PD 01273 381518 07737 786425 bankssolutionsuk@gmail.com On 15 May 2013, at 08:39, Michael Fearn <michael.fearn@shire-uk.com> wrote:

Claire Thanks for this.

The Inspector will be aware of the recent announcement of changes to permitted development (SI 2013 No. 1101, Class D) which come into force at the end of this month – these changes are relevant to the consideration of the Inspector’s Questions and we will therefore be submitting a brief further representation on the matter upon the Bank’s behalf, very shortly. Finally, please can you clarify whether it would assist the Inspector if the Bank were to appear at the Public Examination next week. Regards Michael Fearn Shireconsulting 8 Spicer Street, St Albans, HERTS, AL3 4PQ t : 01727 838455 f : 01727 835047 m : 07779 140266 e : michael.fearn@shire-uk.com w : www.shire-uk.com

Please reply to: Lisa O’Donnell

Direct Line / Voicemail: 020 7641 4240 Fax: 020 7641 3050

Email: lodonel1@westminster.gov.uk

Date: 31st July 2012

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London GLA City Hall Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Dear Sir, London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations The following is a response to the London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) (June 2012) from Westminster City Council. It is in addition to the joint response also made in response to the REMAs from Westminster City Council and 8 other boroughs in relation to affordable rent, which will not be repeated in this response. Westminster City Council objects to the following text within the REMAs: “Affordable housing provision is normally required on-site. In exceptional circumstances (where a robust justification can be demonstrated for on-site provision can be shown to being inappropriate in terms of the policies in this Plan), it may be provided off-site, for example as part of a land use ‘swap’. Where neither of these options is appropriate, a cash in lieu contribution ring fenced, and if appropriate ‘pooled’, to secure efficient delivery of new additional affordable housing on identified sites elsewhere may be accepted. ...

Given the strategic importance of maximising affordable housing development in London, the Mayor does not consider it appropriate for boroughs to use cash in lieu of on/offsite affordable housing for any other purpose than maximising the delivery of additional affordable housing.” (paragraph 3.74) In some circumstances it is appropriate that affordable housing funding is put towards the delivery of new affordable housing, that may not in fact be additional. For example, where demolished affordable housing is replaced by larger family units, but there is no actual increase in unit numbers. This exact scenario is likely to arise in our upcoming estate renewal programme. In other circumstances, funding may be required to assist Registered Providers (RPs) to bring homes up to a decent standard, where a lack of financial resources means those RPs would otherwise have to dispose of the properties. In these instances, the City Council may wish to step in to provide improvements funding or funding to change affordable tenure or to facilitate another RP or the Council to step in and purchase the existing housing stock rather than see it lost to the affordable housing sector. To date,

Westminster has lost over 200 affordable homes because of RPs disposing of existing homes in the city. It is noted that paragraph 50 of the NPPF explicitly allows for this use of financial contributions in lieu of affordable housing:

“where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.” [third bullet, emphasis mine].

This would suggest that use of the payments in lieu is appropriate, and constraint on this is contrary to the NPPF. While this would not be the primary use of our Affordable Housing Fund, we would like to have this flexibility. We consider that precise wording of the Section 106 agreements is a matter for the 3 tests and statutory restrictions, not a matter for the London Plan. Boroughs already have an obligation to maximise delivery of affordable housing, one which the City Council takes very seriously. We suggest that references to “additional” affordable housing are removed, and the London Plan is more closely aligned with the NPPF, including reference to improved affordable housing. We look forward to working with you and your officers to resolve this issue. Yours Faithfully, Rosemarie MacQueen Strategic Director for Built Environment

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 1

Definition of Affordable Housing

Q12. Is it appropriate for the REMA to exclude the Boroughs from being involved in

negotiations on affordable rent levels?

Q14. Are the provisions restricting the Boroughs from setting their own rent caps

justified and consistent with the NPPF?

Q18. Are the provisions of Policy 3.12 regarding on/off site location of affordable

housing and cash in lieu contributions justified?

Q19. Will the policy help to secure balanced and sustainable communities?

Q20. Will the changed policy context secure the increased amount of housing that is

affordable to those in need that the Mayor and other parties seek?

The following comments are made in addition to the joint submission including Westminster

City Council (Reference 49) and the individual submission by Westminster City Council

(Reference 18).

The household income required to afford 80% of market housing in Westminster is:

Weekly Rent1 Gross Income Required2

1 bed £300 £55,714

2 bed £440 £81,714

3 bed £638 £118,411

4 bed £1,181 £219,291

The gross median pay of a Westminster resident is £39,951 and the 25th percentile is

£22,880. It is estimated that about half of social rented households have a gross annual

income of £12,000 or less.

Looking at household incomes across the UK and matching these to the house sizes needed to house those families, the following table sets out the proportion of households in the UK who could access “affordable” homes at 80% of Westminster‟s Lower Quartile Median market rent. Even acknowledging that, on average, Londoners earn more than elsewhere in the UK (£27,762 compared to £26,000), and Westminster‟s residents earn on average more than that (£37,741), the figures below indicate that this housing would be available to a very small proportion of the population, and certainly not most of those in housing need.

Westminster 80% LQ Median

2A+ 1C3 2A+ 2C 2A+ 3C 1A+ 1C 1A+ 2C

<144 <14 >145 <14 <14 <14 >14

2 bed £81,714 3% 4% 7% 1% 2% 4%

3 bed £118,411 1% 2% 2% <1% 1%

4 bed £219,291 <1% Data from the Institute of Fiscal Studies

No reasonable assessment of this data could draw the conclusion that provision of housing

at 80% of Westminster‟s market rent either provides “affordable housing” or would enable

the City Council to meet its full, objectively assessed needs for affordable housing

1 80% of London Lower Quartile rents from the GLA Rent Map http://www.london.gov.uk/rents/about/ 2 Where housing costs equal 40% of net income and net income is 70% of gross

3 Where A is the number of adults and C is the number of children

4 Child/children under the age of 14

5 Child/children aged 15-18

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 2

(paragraph 47, NPPF). The London Plan‟s own income ranges for intermediate housing

(£18,000 - £64,300/£77,200 for family housing) bear little relationship to it and illustrate its

unaffordability.

Even looking at the assumption that on average rents will be at 65% of Westminster‟s

market rent, the homes remain unaffordable to most people:

Weekly Rent6 Gross Income Required7

1 bed £244 £45,268

2 bed £358 £66,393

3 bed £518 £96,209

4 bed £959 £178,174

Local authorities must be involved in the negotiations for affordable housing, including

eligibility criteria for those able to access the housing, i.e. the range of household incomes

who could afford to access the housing. It is only through this involvement that local needs

will be met and local authorities can actually deliver what is required by paragraph 47 of the

NPPF.

Should the Inspector find that it is appropriate for the London Plan to restrict the application

of rent caps by local authorities, we would ask that criteria be set out in the London Plan to

provide some certainty. The housing market for London does not operate as a collection of

smaller units, and it is inappropriate that on this particular issue, a very local assessment is

taken. The affordable rents should be set at 65% of market availability for London as a

whole, and these ranges should be set out in the London Plan as established as the basis

for securing affordable rent. Using the upper limits set out in the London Plan for

intermediate housing as an indication of the household incomes which are insufficient to

access market housing, this would equate to £41,795 for 1 and 2 bed units and £50,180 for

larger units. However, we would see this as a last resort, and it will still not address the

needs of most of those on our affordable housing waiting lists.

If the London Plan is clear that affordable rented accommodation will be made available at

65% of London’s market rents, there is a strong correlation with Westminster‟s published

affordable rent statement, demonstrating that this strikes the appropriate balance between

affordability and deliverability.

Weekly Rent8 WCC Gross Income Reqd9 WCC

1 bed £146 £135 - £172 £27,161 £25,000 - £32,000

2 bed £182 £148 - £194 £33,800 £27,500 - £36,000

3 bed £210 £156 - £210 £38,991 £29,000 - £39,000

4 bed £325 N/A £60,357 N/A

6 65% of Westminster’s Lower Quartile rents from the GLA Rent Map http://www.london.gov.uk/rents/about/ 7 Where housing costs equal 40% of net income and net income is 70% of gross

8 65% of London Lower Quartile rents from the GLA Rent Map http://www.london.gov.uk/rents/about/ 9 Where housing costs equal 40% of net income and net income is 70% of gross

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 3

Allowing boroughs to give clarity to developers, or giving that clarity through the London

Plan, would therefore not result in significantly less affordable housing than the Mayor‟s

stated objective: that the affordable rent products will on average be available at 65% of

London‟s market rent. However, unless these rents form part of the planning considerations

within the regional policy framework, there will not be transparency in the requirements and

developers will continue to pay too much for sites on the basis of achieving values for

affordable rent products up to 80% of local market value.

If affordable rented housing was at rents of 65% of London market rent, the corresponding

figures below indicate it would be available to a substantially greater proportion of the

population.

London 65%

LQ Median

2A+ 1C10 2A+ 2C 2A+ 3C 1A+ 1C 1A+ 2C

<1411 <14 >1412 <14 <14 <14 >14

2 bed £33,80013 31% 42% 55% 14% 24% 38%

3 bed £38,991 32% 44% 42% 17% 28%

4 bed £60,357 15% Data from the Institute of Fiscal Studies

In relation to Document Reference ED02, we agree with much of the statement but disagree

with the following matters:

6th paragraph Whilst there is no expectation that all affordable rented housing will

be at the 80% level, equally as drafted, there is no mechanism for the local authority

to stop affordable housing coming forward that is, and therefore is inherently not

affordable. The City Council has demonstrated that no housing at 80% of market

rent is “affordable” to the majority of those whose needs it is expected to meet.

Importantly, if developers compete for sites on the basis of 80%, their investment

decisions will be wildly inaccurate. In the interests of transparency, if these homes

will be negotiated to be available to particular income ranges, the local development

plan should say so (either the London Plan or local plan).

7th paragraph The NPPF definition of affordable housing states that it is “social

rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to eligible households

whose needs are not met by the market”. Households in Westminster who earn less

than £46,000 meet our eligibility criteria, but the housing delivered by the REMA‟s

would not meet any of their needs. Households requiring larger homes and earning

less than £141,000 equally would meet our eligibility criteria and would be shut out of

the market entirely. The NPPF makes particular reference to families with children

(para 50), but only the wealthiest families with children would be able to live in

Westminster‟s affordable housing (only the top 4% of households with 2 children

could afford the 3 bed at 80% of Westminster‟s market rents (1% for lone parents),

10

Where A is the number of adults and C is the number of children 11

Child/children under the age of 14 12

Child/children aged 15-18 13

Figures based on 65% of the upper income in the range set out for intermediate housing in paragraph 3.61 if

the London Plan REMAs, on the basis that people with incomes above that can access market housing.

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 4

and the top 1% of households with 3 children could afford a 4 bed (1% for lone

parents with teenagers, not younger children).

Section: The NPPF starting point It cannot be the purpose of the NPPF to deliver

“affordable housing” which is not available at a cost low enough for eligible

households to afford. This would be a perverse interpretation and fail to meet the

housing needs of the country. It is also contrary to Paragraph 3.44 of the London

Plan where it is stated “the Mayor is committed to promoting a real choice of homes

for Londoners across the range of tenures to meet their needs at prices they can

afford” [emphasis mine] This does not support the separation of the homes, and the

incomes of those they are supposed to house. Such an approach would be a waste

of the funding available, including the capital levered by Registered Providers, and

value in kind from housing development. It would not meet the full, objectively

assessed need. Reports also suggest that it merely shifts costs from a capital to a

revenue budget, and from one government department to another, potentially at

greater cost in the longer term (Public Accounts Committee – Thirteenth Report

Appended as Appendix 2).

Achieving sustainable development In order to boost the supply of housing, local

planning authorities should use the evidence base to ensure that local plans meet the

full, objectively assessed need. Provision of affordable housing at 80% of market

rent will boost supply, but not meet need, and therefore is inconsistent with the

NPPF. The best way to boost housing supply would be to be honest to developers at

the outset about any return on the affordable housing element, and enable it to be

properly tested at local plan level and in relation to individual applications.

Plan-making The NPPF does not mention rent levels, either positively or negatively.

The London Plan unreasonably interferes with the ability of local authorities to meet

the full needs of their areas.

We endorse and fully support the Further Opinion prepared by Nathalie Lieven QC dated

14th September 2012, and appended to the written statement submitted to the Inspector by

the London Borough of Islington.

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 5

Appendix 1 Suggested Changes to REMA

Suggested changes are shown in green. Additional text is shown in underline. Deleted text is shown in strike-through. Where text is within a sentence and was already recommended for deletion, it is shown in double strike-through. Text that was recommended for deletion which the City Council wants retained is shown in plain bold green text.

Amend paragraph 3.58 supporting Policy 3.9 MIXED AND BALANCED COMMUNITIES 3.58 The Mayor is concerned that there should be no segregation of London‟s population by housing tenure. London‟s legacy of monotenure estates has in some cases contributed to concentrations of deprivation and worklessness. Coupled with some housing trends and management practices, these have been exacerbated by the tendency for new social housing to be built in the areas where it is already concentrated. Conversely, market homes have tended to be developed in areas with very little social housing. The new affordable rent product should be applied so as to help achieve the objectives of this Policy. Local Authorities‟ negotiation of all types of affordable housing, estate regeneration strategies, allocation policies, tenancy strategies and homeless strategies will also be important tools in delivering this aim. Amend clause A (including the deletion of clauses Aa, Ab and Ac), and amend supporting paragraphs 3.61-3.63, of Policy 3.10 DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY 3.10 DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Strategic and LDF preparation A Affordable housing includes is social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing (see para 3.61), provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. and should:

a meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices, b include provisions for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or c if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

3.61 The definition of affordable housing set out above applies national guidance to the circumstances of the capital and should be used for planning purposes in London. Within this overarching definition: • social rented housing should meet the criteria outlined in Policy 3.10 and be rented housing owned and managed by local authorities or registered social landlords providers, for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and or be provided by other bodies under equivalent rental

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 6

arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Mayor. Homes and Communities Agency them as a condition of public sector investment grant, and for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime • affordable rented housing should meet the criteria outlined in Policy 3.10 and be housing let by local authorities or registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% 65% of the local London market rent (including service changes, where applicable) or £41,795 for 1 and 2 bed units and £50,180 for larger units. These figures will be updated annually in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report. In practice, the rent required will vary for each scheme with levels set by agreement between developers, providers, and the Mayor. Homes and Communities Agency and, in dealing with individual planning applications, the London boroughs. • intermediate housing should meet the criteria outlined in Policy 3.10 and be homes available for sale or rent at a cost prices and rents above those of social rent, but below local market levels prices or rents. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rent. New intermediate homes should be affordable to households Households whose annual income is in the range £18,100 - £64,000 £64,300 should be eligible for new intermediate homes. For homes with more than two bedrooms, which are particularly suitable for families, the upper end of this eligibility range will be extended to £74,000 £77,200. These figures will be updated annually in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report. • market housing is defined separately as private housing for rent or sale where the price is set in the open market. 3.63 In view of the particular priority the Mayor gives to provision of new affordable homes to meet London‟s very pressing need, boroughs should give particular weight to the criteria set by national government for the allocation of public resources for affordable housing in setting local plan targets (Policy 3.11) or negotiating provision in private housing or mixed-use developments (Policy 3.12). and should avoid imposing any requirements (such as borough level caps on rent levels for affordable rented housing) that might restrict the numbers of new affordable homes. 3.68 In setting their affordable housing targets boroughs are required to assess the economic viability of land for housing, taking account of risks to delivery and drawing on informed assessments of public funding and developer contributions. The Mayor has already established close working relationships with the boroughs and HCA on affordable housing investment within their areas which will inform this process. Boroughs should enable the range of affordable rents to be applied to meet their full, objectively assessed housing needs. and should not attempt to set rent targets for affordable rented housing in their local development frameworks as this is likely to impede maximisation of affordable housing provision Londonwide. Instead t The Mayor will may provide details of where variations to Affordable rent can apply in his London Housing Strategy and other relevant documents. indicative rent guidelines for affordable rented housing developed to ensure maximisation of provision and delivery of the range of policy outcomes in this Plan and in the London Housing Strategy to inform borough rent and tenure and other housing policies. These will be published in the London Housing Strategy and in the London Plan Annual Monitoring

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 7

Report each year. The Mayor may provide supplementary guidance on this issue. Amend clauses Aa, Ag, B and C, and supporting paragraphs 3.71 and 3.74 of Policy 3.12 NEGOTIATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE SCHEMES POLICY 3.12 NEGOTIATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE SCHEMES Planning decisions and LDF preparation A The maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed use schemes, having regard to:

a current and future requirements for affordable housing at local and regional levels identified in line with Policies 3.8, and 3.10 and 3.11 and having particular regard to guidance provided by the Mayor through the London Housing Strategy, supplementary guidance and the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (see paragraph 3.68) b affordable housing targets adopted in line with Policy 3.11, c the need to encourage rather than restrain residential development (Policy 3.3), d the need to promote mixed and balanced communities (Policy 3.9) e the size and type of affordable housing needed in particular locations f the specific circumstances of individual sites g resources available to fund affordable housing, to maximise affordable housing output and the investment criteria set by the Mayor gh the priority to be accorded to provision of affordable family housing indicated in policies 3.8 and 3.11.

B Negotiations on sites should take account of their individual circumstances including development viability, the availability of resources available from registered providers (including public subsidy), the implications of phased development including provisions for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation („contingent obligations‟), and other scheme requirements. C Affordable housing should normally be provided on-site. In exceptional cases where it can be demonstrated robustly that this is not appropriate in terms of the policies in this Plan, it may be provided off-site. A cash in lieu contribution should only be accepted where this would have demonstrable benefits in furthering the affordable housing and other policies in this Plan and should be ring-fenced and, if appropriate, pooled to secure additional affordable housing either on identified sites elsewhere or as part of an agreed programme for provision of affordable housing. 3.71 In estimating provision from private residential or mixed use developments, boroughs should take into account economic viability and the most effective use of private and public investment, including the use of developer contributions. To expedite the planning

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 8

process, developers should engage with a registered affordable housing provider prior to progressing the scheme and secure from them a commitment to provision. In doing so, they should require the provider to identify the resources it is bringing to the scheme and show to demonstrate that the proposed affordable housing provision “offer” makes optimum use of the resources applied in terms of Policy 3.12, and provides the range of affordable rents indicated by local incomes and local house prices. in the London Housing Strategy. Boroughs should evaluate these appraisals rigorously, drawing on the GLA development control toolkit and other independent assessments which take account of the individual circumstances of a site, the availability of public subsidy and other scheme requirements. These judgements should be informed by the indicative guidelines referred to in paragraph 3.68. Boroughs are encouraged to review and bring forward surplus land in their own ownership to maximise their contribution to affordable housing provision, including the provision of land to affordable housing registered providers on a nil cost or discounted basis. The Mayor will provide further detailed guidance on the practical application of this Policy. 3.74 Affordable housing provision is normally required on-site. In exceptional circumstances (where a robust justification can be demonstrated for on-site provision can be shown to being inappropriate in terms of the policies in this Plan), it may be provided off-site, for example as part of a land use „swap‟. Where neither of these options is appropriate, a cash in lieu contribution ring fenced, and if appropriate „pooled‟, to secure efficient delivery of new additional affordable housing on identified sites elsewhere may be accepted. These exceptional circumstances include those where, having secured an alternative site, it would be possible to: • secure a higher level of provision • better address priority needs, especially for affordable family housing • secure a more balanced community • better sustain strategically important clusters of economic activities, especially in parts of CAZ and the north of the Isle of Dogs where it might be part of a land „swap‟ or „housing credit‟ (Policy 2.11). Given the strategic importance of maximising affordable housing development in London, the Mayor does not consider it appropriate for boroughs to use cash in lieu of on/offsite affordable housing for any other purpose than maximising the delivery of additional affordable housing.

Westminster City Council Respondent Number: 18 & 49

Matter 2 – Housing Choice and Affordable Housing

P a g e | 9

Appendix 2 Public Accounts Committee – Thirteenth

Report

Public Accounts Committee -

Thirteenth Report

Financial viability of the social housing

sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme

Contents

Terms of Reference

Summary

Conclusions and recommendations

1 Delivering the Programme

2 Impact of the Programme on tenants

Formal Minutes

Witnesses

List of printed written evidence

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

Oral and Written Evidence

Monday 9 July 2012

Written Evidence

Summary

In December 2010, the government announced the Affordable Homes Programme (the Programme), under which there is £1.8 billion capital

funding in government grants to social housing providers. The Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department)

has overall responsibility for the Programme, which is delivered by the Homes and Communities Agency (the Agency) through contracts with

housing providers.

The Department expects the Programme to support the provision of

approximately 80,000 homes in the four years from April 2011 to March 2015. The Agency secured commitments from providers to build 24,000

more homes than its initial target of 56,000. Through negotiation the Agency reduced the average grant per home to £20,000; a third of that

under the previous programme. At the time of our hearing in July 2012, construction had started on 13,800 homes.

It is not yet clear whether the Programme will deliver better value for money in the long term. The reduction in the grant paid to providers for

each home will be funded in part by housing providers being able to charge higher rents to tenants, leading to an estimated £1.4 billion

increase in housing benefit payments over 30 years. The Programme therefore shifts cost from one department to another.

The Department needs to do more work to understand the impact of the

Programme on tenants and its interaction with wider welfare reforms. On

the one hand more of the new housing, both for rent and for sale, may be taken up by people on higher incomes so that the programme fails to

meet the most pressing housing need. At the same time, the poorest tenants may be unable to afford the higher rents. Those who receive

higher benefits may in turn find it even harder to find employment that pays enough and so there will be more people who are more likely to be

locked into benefit dependency. We are also concerned that the allocation of funding does not fully target people and areas of greatest need.

Delivery of the new homes is heavily skewed towards the end of the

Programme, with many due to be built in the final year on sites which are

not yet confirmed, or have not received planning permission. This leaves very little room for slippage. The Agency will need to maintain a tight grip

on progress and act promptly to address any delay if the Programme is to deliver all that is promised.

The Programme has taken advantage of housing providers' current ability

to borrow and so finance a greater proportion of the cost of building social housing themselves. This has been based on balance sheets strengthened

by the rise in property values. However, this is a one-off opportunity and

it is far from clear whether providers will have the financial capacity to

take part in another round of the Programme after 2015. The Department will need to give the sector more certainty about its future plans as soon

as possible. We welcome the prospect of 80,000 new homes, but with 4.5 million people waiting to be allocated an affordable home in England, it

will not solve the shortage of social housing alone, and wider action is needed.

On the basis of a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General,[1] we took evidence from the Department for Communities and Local

Government and the Homes and Communities Agency on the financial viability of the social housing sector and the Affordable Homes

Programme.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. The Department has not done enough to understand the full impact of higher rent levels on tenants. Housing

providers can charge higher rents than before (on average 65% of

market rents in London and up to 80% elsewhere). This will affect tenants' ability to afford the new housing and may exclude some

of the poorest from accessing this new housing. Where higher rents are paid through increased housing benefit, tenants may

find themselves caught in an even stronger benefit trap where it has become even harder to find sufficiently well paid employment

to make working worthwhile, countering the Government's objective of ensuring that the benefit system makes work pay.

However, the Department does not hold information on the rent levels being charged for individual properties and it has not

considered the impact on tenants or prospective tenants of these rent levels or the interaction with wider Housing Benefit reforms.

The Department should consult tenants and providers to understand the impact of the higher rent levels on tenants, and

commission research into the financial and other characteristics of

those tenants living in 'affordable rent' homes and build the results into future programmes.

2. The allocation of funds under the Programme did not

fully focus on the areas of greatest need. The Agency allocated funds across regions, and the level of grant per home

was the main factor behind its decisions on which housing providers' bids were successful. It was not clear to us whether and

how funds were targeted at specific areas of greatest housing need. We are also concerned that people in the greatest need may

not benefit—higher rent levels may mean that new social housing

ends up with the 'richest of the poor' and we are aware of areas where larger properties in London have gone to couples instead of

families. The Department and the Agency should ensure that decisions to allocate resources in future social housing

programmes prioritise areas of greatest need and target families in greatest need.

3. It is unclear whether the shift of public resources from

capital grants to increased housing benefits will provide better value for the taxpayer. The Programme will be delivered

with an average government grant per home of around £20,000,

compared to £60,000 under previous housing programmes. In part this will be funded by a one-off use of capital surpluses held

by housing associations. In part it will be funded by providers charging higher rents to tenants, two thirds of whom are

supported by housing benefit, with a consequential increase in the housing benefit bill of an estimated £1.4 billion. To inform

decisions on future housing programmes, the Department should review whether and how the current mix of revenue and capital

funding provides best value for money for the taxpayer and tenants over time and take the results into account in future

programmes.

4. The Programme has a risky delivery profile with little

room for slippage. Half of the new homes expected to be built are planned for the final year of the Programme, and half do not

yet have confirmed sites or planning permission. If providers fail to make agreed progress, the Agency will need to reallocate

funding to others. The Agency should monitor providers' progress closely, and, in particular, when funds are re-allocated, ensure

that replacement schemes still meet the specific housing needs previously identified.

5. The Programme has taken advantage of the sector's current financial capacity but this may be a one-off

opportunity. With the rise in the value of property in the preceding 10 years, housing providers have strengthened their

balance sheets and were able to use their surpluses and borrowing, as well as other sources, to provide around £10 billion

of funding alongside government's contribution. Whether or not this approach is repeatable will depend on the future financial

health of the sector and its ability to continue to borrow on the scale required, which will in turn depend on factors such as

interest rates and the strength of the housing market. To enable the sector to play its part in meeting the substantial unmet

demand for social housing in the future, it needs clarity on the

government's plans and the role it will be expected to play. The

Agency should analyse the financial position of providers to assess whether the model can be repeated, providing more certainty to

the sector on its intentions for social housing beyond 2015.

1 Delivering the Programme

1. In December 2010, the government announced a new programme to

build affordable housing (defined by the Department as below market price) in England. The Affordable Homes Programme (the Programme)

allocated £1.8 billion capital funding in government grants to social housing providers. The Department for Communities and Local

Government (the Department) has overall responsibility for the Programme, which is delivered by the Homes and Communities Agency

(the Agency) through contracts with housing providers.[2]

2. The Department expects the Programme to support the provision of

approximately 80,000 homes in the four years from April 2011 to March 2015, less than 5% of the total number of families on local authority

waiting lists in November 2011.[3] The Agency secured commitments from providers to build 24,000 more homes than its initial target of

56,000. At the time of our hearing in July 2012, the Agency told us that they are on track with work starting on 13,800 homes.[4]

3. Most of the Agency's work to date has been on appraising and selecting

applications from housing providers. Through negotiation the Agency reduced the average grant per home to £20,000; a third of that under the

previous programme.[5] Most notably, government funding in London has

reduced from around £90,000 per home under the previous National Affordable Housing Programme, to around £26,000 per home under the

current Programme.[6]

4. The delivery of new houses is skewed towards the end of the Programme, with more than half planned in the final year. The Agency

told us they have revisited the timetable for planned completions and have brought forward the development of 6,500 new homes for areas

outside of London.[7] There is also a provision to move funding allocations between providers if it looks likely that they will not be able to

deliver on their commitments.[8]

5. In addition, in order to get the Programme moving, the Agency revised

its payment structure. The Agency originally planned to pay providers 100% of agreed funding once the homes had been delivered. However, to

encourage providers to start earlier, the Agency paid 75% of the grant to

housing providers who started development by March 2012, with the remainder to be paid on completion.[9] The Agency told us it considers

paying 25% on completion a sufficient incentive for providers to deliver on their commitments but they plan to review how paying 75% of funding

upfront will impact on the flexibility to move between sites or between providers.[10]

6. Some 51% of schemes are indicative, because sites have not been

identified, projects are not sufficiently progressed, or do not yet have planning permission.[11] The Agency explained that having indicative

sites is a symptom of the fact they invited housing providers to submit

offers for the whole four-year Programme. The Agency plans to work closely with housing providers to firm up the schemes. Where a provider

is not able to deliver indicative schemes, there is an opportunity within the Programme to move to alternative sites that are more certain.[12]

7. Under this Programme, providers are required to finance a greater

proportion of the cost of the new homes themselves. The NAO report estimates that housing providers will spend some £12 billion on new

homes, funded by a combination of the £1.8 billion government grant, £6 billion in borrowing and £4 billion from other sources.[13] Providers told

us that they have used their surpluses, profits from selling stock and re-

letting some properties, to borrow more.[14] They have also benefited from stronger balance sheets as a result of the rise in the value of their

housing assets in the last ten years.[15] The Department told us that the sector has £11.6 billion in undrawn borrowing facilities.[16]

8. The Agency told us that as part of its application process, the Tenant

Services Authority, (the then regulator) assessed whether housing providers were in a financially viable position. It told us that it looked at

each of the associations that put forward a bid and identified a few where there were some concerns.[17] We queried how the assessment took into

account changes to interest rates given that the current rates are so

low.[18] The Agency told us that each housing provider has different arrangements for its borrowing and it was therefore not possible to

identify a 'tipping point' at which a change in interest rates could impact on the financial viability of all providers. The Department also told us that

due to the size of their portfolios, housing providers were able to secure preferential interest rates and are less affected by short-term

movements.[19] Most of the borrowing for this Programme is on fixed rates and the Agency told us that, in its view, interest rates would not

affect this Programme, but could affect housing associations overall.[20]

9. We asked about the sustainability of the Programme in the longer-

term. Witnesses from housing providers raised concerns about whether they could continue to borrow at the same scale and therefore, if the

model could be repeated.[21] The Department thought that there was still

'headroom' with capacity in the housing sector to do more. It admitted

that it still had to make decisions on the size, scale and form of the Programme post 2015 as part of the next spending review.[22]

10. More broadly, there was acceptance from all the witnesses of the

urgent need to find a way to fund the growing demand for social housing, given that 4.5 million people are still waiting to be allocated an affordable

home in England. The sector cautioned that there needed to be serious attention given to where the subsidy for social housing will come from

post 2015.[23]

2 C&AG report, paras 1-3 3 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/2039614.xls

4 Qq 87-89 5 C&AG report, para 2.20

6 Q 68 7 Q 126

8 Qq 125, 128 9 Qq 91, 126-127

10 Qq 126-129 11 Q 125; C&AG report, para 2.25

12 Q 125 13 C&AG report, para 3

14 Qq 18, 94, 15 Qq 47, 82

16 Q 81

17 Q 74 18 Q 76

19 Qq 76-78 20 Q 80

21 Qq 3-4, 42-43 22 Q 94

23 Qq 15, 114

2 Impact of the Programme on tenants

11. The Programme will be delivered with less capital funding than previous housing programmes. This reduction will be partly funded by

tenants paying more rent. Some two-thirds of social housing tenants are supported by housing benefit so this effectively shifts costs from the

Department for Communities and Local Government to the Department

for Work and Pensions. The housing benefit bill is expected to rise by £1.4 billion over 30 years as a result of the Programme.[24]

12. We debated the value for money case of shifting from a capital

subsidy to a revenue-based subsidy. Witnesses from the sector told us that based on research and modelling, a capital subsidy appears more

cost-effective if over a longer period (say eight or ten years). However, they acknowledged that this work needed to be updated and was

dependent on a number of factors including: how long people are in receipt of benefit, what happens to the home when people move on and

whether the homes being built should permanently be for people who will need support. [25]

13. Under the Programme, housing providers can increase their rent

levels - up to 80% of market rent, though in London providers have

committed to 65% on average. This equates to an average rent of approximately £182 per week in London, compared to a market rent of

£280 a week in comparable properties.[26] The Department has done some work to analyse the costs of the Programme to all tenants, but this

was not presented in the impact assessment for the Programme.[27] We were also surprised to hear that the Agency has not collected information

on the rents that tenants will be expected to pay for individual properties, nor has it consulted with tenants to understand how they will be affected

by increased rent levels.[28]

14. We asked witnesses whether the higher rent levels charged under the

Programme could have a negative impact on those on lower incomes. In particular, we queried whether the homes being built under the

Programme would be 'affordable' to the people in most acute need. Witnesses talked about a drift towards families with higher incomes who

could afford the higher rents.[29] We heard that those on low income or out of work will have to earn more to be able to escape from being

dependent on benefits.[30] Poorer tenants could find themselves unable to get employment that pays enough to cover the higher rent levels

charged. [31] We are therefore concerned that the 'affordable' housing may end up benefiting those whose income is greater but whose need

may be less.[32] The Department explained that housing delivered through the Programme would still be cheaper than renting through the

open market.[33]

15. This Programme addresses a small fraction (2%) of the unmet

housing need in England and we were concerned about the way the planned homes were spread across the country. Rather than targeting

specific areas in greatest need, the Programme funds were allocated based on a broad geographic spread.[34] When asked about how the

housing need was defined, the Agency told us it considered a range of factors when assessing applications. It assessed the value for money of

the bids, the grant rates and consulted with local authorities within Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) areas.[35] The Department told us that the

Programme was heavily weighted to the places of highest housing need

with 23,000 homes (27%) planned within London.[36] Even within areas

of need, we questioned whether the properties are going to the right-sized families. We are aware of cases where four bedrooms homes have

gone to a couple with no children or a couple with one child. Witnesses told us that there was a drift towards people on higher incomes as they

can most afford to buy, which seems to us to be against the spirit of an affordable homes programme.[37]

16. In some areas where rent is already low, the Programme may not be

workable, because housing providers would have to charge above market rents in order to cover costs. The Department told us that all areas, even

those that appear to have less need, received funding because they had

specific housing needs which were not being met by the current housing stock.[38] The Department explained that the Programme included a

range of property sizes and types with a third of the Programme made up of larger properties and around 9,500 homes offering supported

accommodation to meet the needs of the elderly and those with special needs.[39]

17. There are wider welfare reforms that run alongside and will affect the

Programme. One such change proposes that housing benefit will be paid directly to the tenant rather than to the housing provider. Our experience

suggests that this may lead to difficulties, with providers not receiving the

money they are owned in rental income on time.[40] The Department told us they have started running four demonstration projects to test how

these changes will impact on rent arrears and speed of payment.[41]

24 Q 22; C&AG report, para 1.8, Figure 6

25 Qq 38, 43-46 26 Q 70

27 Q 137 28 Qq 111, 113, 116-117

29 Qq 31, 48 30 Q 48

31 Qq 107, 110 32 Q 115

33 Qq 107-108

34 Qq 95, 97, 121 35 Qq 98-100

36 Qq 104-105 37 Qq 31-33

38 Qq 121-124 39 Q 102

40 Q 131 41 Qq 131, 133-134

Formal Minutes

Monday 17 September 2012

Members present: Rt Hon Margaret Hodge, in the Chair

Mr Richard Bacon

Jackie Doyle-Price

Chris Heaton-Harris

Meg Hiller

Mr Stewart Jackson

Fiona Mactaggart

Mr Austin Mitchell

Ian Swales

James Wharton

Draft Report (Financial viability of the social housing sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 17 read and agreed to.

Conclusions and recommendations agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Thirteenth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report (in addition to that ordered to be reported for publishing

on 5 September 2012).

[Adjourned till Tuesday 18 September at 10.00 am]

From: Hearn, Keith @ London HH [mailto:keith.hearn@cbre.com] Sent: 25 April 2013 16:29 To: O'Donnell, Lisa Cc: King, Graham; 'Stewart Drummond'; 'Peter Webb' Subject: RE: NPPF Core Strategy Revisions - Reg 19 Representations on behalf of Travis Perkins

Lisa,

I refer to our exchange of emails last month regarding the representations that we had made on behalf

of Travis Perkins in response to consultation on your NPPF Core Strategy revision. This covered Proposal

18, namely Travis Perkins’ site at 149-157 Harrow Road.

We note that the “Preferred Uses” in the 2004 brief would include our client’s aspirations with the

exceptions of student accommodation. I also note that the City Council would be prepared to give

consideration to student accommodation as part of a package of uses on the site, although as you note,

we have not brought forward any specific plans for student accommodation, or indeed any other

specific proposals in terms of potential land use mix.

In preparation for doing so, we are currently in discussion with Graham King and Don Murchie to

consider potential highway improvements to facilitate the future development of the site. A further

meeting, involving Arup - Travis Perkins retained Highways Consultants - is scheduled in a fortnight or

so.

In the meantime and on behalf of Travis Perkins, I would be grateful if, as you have suggested, you could

forward this exchange of correspondence to the Inspector as a supplement to the Consultation

Statement that was appended to the Report considered by your Council in January.

Kind regards,

Keith

Keith Hearn | Senior Director CBRE Ltd | Planning Henrietta House | Henrietta Place | London W1G ONB DDI 020 7182 2701 | F 020 7182 2001 | T 020 7182 2000 keith.hearn@cbre.com | www.cbre.com From: O'Donnell, Lisa [mailto:lodonel1@westminster.gov.uk] Sent: 13 March 2013 15:01 To: Hearn, Keith @ London HH Cc: King, Graham Subject: RE: NPPF Core Strategy Revisions - Reg 19 Representations on behalf of Travis Perkins Hi Keith, We haven’t committed to preparing a revised planning brief for the site, and should we do so this would supersede the 2004 planning brief in any case, so would not give rise to any conflict. We have kept the “Notes” to those matters that are confirmed wherever possible.

The “Preferred Uses” listed would allow for all of the possible ambitions for the site set out by your client, with the possible exception of student accommodation, which we would in any case give consideration to should it come forward as an overall package of uses. For this reason it was considered unnecessary to make changes at this stage, particularly in advance of any specific plans for student accommodation. I also note that even if a use is not listed as a “Preferred Use” it can nonetheless come forward on a site, providing adequate provision is made for the preferred uses listed. It would only be if the student accommodation was proposed in lieu of a C3 residential element that the criteria would fail to be met. For this reason we haven’t made any specific changes to the designation, although I apologise that this was not clarified in the paperwork. If anything is firmed up in relation to student accommodation between Travis Perkins and ourselves we can obviously make any necessary changes through the CMP Revision. Please advise if you or your client would like me to forward this correspondence to the Inspector to supplement the Consultation Statement. Lisa From: Hearn, Keith @ London HH [mailto:keith.hearn@cbre.com] Sent: 13 March 2013 14:44 To: O'Donnell, Lisa Subject: NPPF Core Strategy Revisions - Reg 19 Representations on behalf of Travis Perkins Hi Lisa,

A quick question if I may please.

I submitted a Regulation 19 representation in respect of Proposal Site No. 18 in the NPPF revision to the

Core Strategy on behalf of the site owners Travis Perkins.

This letter is appended as one of fourteen responses in the Consultation Statement appended to the

report that was considered by your Council in January.

I can find no reference however as to how this representation has been addressed other than that no

change is proposed from the earlier draft.

I need to go back to my client. Have I missed anything or was this representation not considered of

sufficient importance to warrant explicit reference in the Committee Report?

I would appreciate your views please.

Thanks

Kind regards,

Keith

Keith Hearn | Senior Director CBRE Ltd | Planning Henrietta House | Henrietta Place | London W1G ONB DDI 020 7182 2701 | F 020 7182 2001 | T 020 7182 2000 keith.hearn@cbre.com | www.cbre.com