Lead Officer:Dave Nash

THE CABINET

19 JANUARY 2015

Subject:Addressing the full housing requirement in the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area

Lead Officer:Dave Nash

Contact on 01789 260399

Lead Member/
Portfolio Holder: Councillor C Saint

Summary

This report seeks formal endorsement of a report considered by the Shadow Economic Prosperity Board at its meeting on 21 November 2014 (Minute 70 refers) on the matter of meeting the full housing requirement within the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area.

Recommendation

That the decision made by the Shadow Economic Prosperity Board be endorsed.

1 BackgroundInformation

1.1At its meeting held on 21 November 2014 the Shadow EPB considered a report concerning the process that should be adopted to ensure that the full housing requirement within the housing market area is met. In view of the significance of this matter, it was accepted that all the constituent authorities should be asked to formally commit to the process as agreed by the Board.

1.2The report considered by the Board is appended here. The recommendations agreed by the Board were slightly modified on the basis of a request made by this Council and read as follows:

Recommendation 1: Reaffirm 4004 dwellings per annum as the OAN for the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA.
Recommendation 2: In recognition that Coventry City will not be able to accommodate the housing levels indicated in the Joint SHMA Annex (Table 1 above), agree the distribution endorsed by the Board on 10 October to accommodate some of the City’s housing need, subject to a robust capacity study being undertaken.
Recommendation 3: Where, via such a study, any of the Warwickshire Districts can demonstrate that its capacity cannot meet its figure endorsed by the Board on 10 October, the further shortfall will be added to sub regional additional housing need element.
Recommendation 4:agree the process and timeline set out in the Table 2 above to ensure delivery of the HMA’s full housing need and that the process is commenced prior to the end of November 2014 as set out in the timeline.
Recommendation 5: agree that each of the six Local Planning Authorities within the HMA seek to formally sign off the recommendations of this report by February 2015.

1.3As regards Recommendation 1, this is the figure for the HMA previously reported to The Cabinet and which set the context for the Council’s decision to adopt a district housing requirement of 565dpa.

1.4In respect of Recommendation 2, it is evident that Coventry City Council will not be able to accommodate 1,811dpa (36,220 dwellings 2011-2031) within the city boundary. It has recently consulted on proposals to accommodate up to 23,600 homes (1,180dpa) within the city. This means that up to 12,620 homes (631dpa) may need to be provided outside the city boundary. In responding to the consultation, SDC said it would expect the City Council to meet within its administrative area as much of its identified housing need as is feasible whilst remaining consistent with the principles and guidance of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance. The Council also acknowledged that all authorities within the HMA must co-operate to identify the most appropriate and sustainable locations to accommodate growth across the HMA as a whole. The response supported the principle that, if insufficient sustainable options are available within the city boundary,the focus should be on investigating suitable options adjacent to the boundary. The option of developing a plan-led approach to the provision of sustainable urban extensions was endorsed as the preferred approach. The growth likely to be proposed in other emerging plans across Warwickshire (subject to capacity studies yet to be finalised) is sufficient to accommodate some of the 631dpa that may not be accommodated within Coventry. The balance to be found at the date of the EPB meeting was 234dpa.

1.5In respect of Recommendation 3, this is a simple acknowledgement of the need to finalise the capacity studies across the HMA as a whole.

1.6Recommendation 4 is perhaps the key recommendation to which joint commitment is sought. It refers to the process and timeline set out in Section 4 of the EPB report. Work is already underway to secure a joint monitoring process and a consistent method for undertaking strategic housing land availability assessments (SHLAA). The outcome of those assessments will inform decisions about the capacity for development in each district. This will then be considered alongside other considerations, such as the distribution of employment growth and commuting/migration patterns, to establish jointly agreed broad spatial options for meeting the identified housing shortfall.

1.7Alongside this, the established process of jointly reviewing evidence will continue. The Joint Green Belt Study will play a role in this, as will future updates to the JSHMA and Employment Land studies. Regard may have to be had to housing need arising outside the HMA. The joint evidence base will inform future plan reviews, which would be carried out in a co-ordinated manner. A decision will be made in due course about whether this might take the form of a joint high level strategy rather than simply a number of individual authority reviews conducted to a co-ordinated timetable.

1.8Recommendation 5 simply asks the individual authorities within Coventry and Warwickshire to formally sign off this matter.

2 Options available to The Cabinet

2.1The Cabinet has the following options:

Option 1:

To endorse the decision made at the Shadow EPB meeting.

Option 2:

To request that further consideration be given to any aspect of the decision that may be considered problematic from this Council’s perspective.

2.2 It is essential under the current plan-making regime that all authorities within the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA work seamlessly under the duty to co-operate to properly discharge the expectations established by that duty. There has been a step change in joint activity as a result of the duty. The report endorsed by the EPB sets out further practical steps to ensure that activity across the HMA is properly co-ordinated. For this Council, this does not mean that other cross-boundary relationships can be ignored. It is well established that, because of the size and geography of the district, there are other HMAs that have an influence on the area. Parts of the District clearly have strong relationships to different areas outside Warwickshire. Any strategic planning issues arising as a result of those relationships will continue to be addressed. However, for the District as a whole, the principle relationship is considered to lie within Warwickshire and this means it is appropriate to embed the joint work that is undertaken with our Coventry and Warwickshire partners. On this basis The Cabinet is recommended to endorse Option 1.

3 Implications of the Proposal

3.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications

3.1.1 The Duty to Co-operate is a legal duty that requires a number of bodies, including the Council, to engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis on the preparation of Local Plans so far as they relate to strategic matters. Inter alia, issues such as the quantum and general distribution of housing and employment land and the maintenance of the West Midlands Green Belt are recognised as strategic.

3.2Financial

3.2.1The Council is required to keep its development documents under review and members are aware that this can be a costly process. Joint working offers the potential to work more cost effectively, particularly in securing a robust evidence base. Joint procurement will typically reduce overall costs. If at some future point it is decided to produce a joint plan, then this would be likely to provide further cost efficiencies associated with the examination process.

3.3 Environmental

3.3.1Any review of development needs and preferred locations will inevitably have environmental implications that are assessed as part of the plan-making process.

3.4Corporate Strategy

3.4.1 No direct implications.

3.5 Analysis of the effects on Equality

3.5.1 No specific equality impact issues arise.

3.6 Risk Assessment

3.6.1 A failure to work effectively to address strategic planning matters is likely to constitute a breach of the Duty to Co-operate and any such breach would invalidate the plan-making process. The adoption of joint or co-ordinated working arrangements reduces the risk of any individual authority being found at fault in terms of the discharge of its duties.

4 Conclusion

4.1 The report to the Shadow EPB was prepared to reflect the joint views of the policy managers across the sub region. The Council is already fully signed up to those aspects of the report that relate to the Joint SHMA and the associated joint monitoring process. The new issues raised here relate primarily to the broad timetable for a co-ordinated or joint review process. The timetable is not considered to raise any untoward issues for this Council, having regard to its adopted Local Development Scheme. On this basis The Cabinet is recommended to endorse the decisions made by the Shadow EPB.

Paul Lankester

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Background Papers

Report to the Shadow Economic Prosperity Board on 21 November 2014