Written evidence from Rushcliffe Borough
Council (ARSS 113)
SUMMARY
Rushcliffe Borough Council welcomes the removal of
regional house building targets.
Regional Spatial Strategies were too top down, lacked
accountability, limited community input and ignored the capacity
of localities to sustain growth.
A more bottom up approach to housing delivery should
lead to more sustainable patterns of housing growth which take
greater account of local circumstances and the aspirations of
local communities.
While abolition of RSSs may lead to a general lowering
of housing targets, in reality many were unobtainable. A more
locally controlled, bottom up approach could well result in higher
delivery rates than would have been obtained under RSSs, where
delivery was in many instances already becoming mired under the
sheer weight of requirements and expectations.
It is critical that Government moves to put in place
a workable and efficient planning system as soon as possible,
avoiding the inherent weaknesses of the present Local Development
Framework system. Any unnecessary delays could hinder local authorities
taking positive action to bring about appropriate housing growth.
The Council welcomes proposals by the Government
for a "New Homes Bonus Scheme". However, given the lack
of details at this stage as to how the scheme might operate, it
is difficult to make any specific comments.
To operate successfully any scheme to incentivise
housing delivery has to be seen to be providing substantial funding
to help communities really feel that there is something it for
them in accommodating additional growth.
INTRODUCTION
1. This written statement is a response by Rushcliffe
Borough Council to the call for evidence by the Communities and
Local Government Committee for its inquiry into the abolition
of Regional Spatial Strategies and related matters.
2. The Council was closely involved in preparation
of the, now revoked, East Midlands Regional Plan, responding to
all its consultation stages and being present at the Plan's Examination
in Public.
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE ABOLITION
OF REGIONAL
HOUSE TARGETS
3. The removal of regional house building targets
as part of the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS)
is welcomed by Rushcliffe Borough Council. It is the Council's
view that the process by which RSSs were prepared was too top
down, lacked democratic accountability, limited scope for meaningful
community input and paid limited regard to the capacity of particular
localities to sustain growth.
4. In the case of Rushcliffe specifically, it
was the Council's view that the methodology used by the regional
planning body to distribute development across the Greater Nottingham
sub-area was flawed because of the very cursory regard given to
the ability of the local environment and local infrastructure
to sustain further growth. A top down regional planning approach,
and the sheer extent of the geographical coverage of the RSS,
invariably made it difficult for regional decision makers to take
proper account of those local circumstances that ought to have
been at the fore in deciding where growth should take place.
5. By way of example, across the Greater Nottingham
sub-area, in making proposed changes to the draft East Midlands
Regional Strategy, there was the application of a flat 19% increase
to the proposed housing requirement figure of each local authority.
This increase was made regardless of each authority's existing
proposed growth requirements and/or the capacity to sustain further
growth within the plan period. The implication of this simplistic
approach was that those authority areas already identified to
receive higher growth were hit disproportionately hard in terms
of the overall increase in housing numbers. This example is very
much seen as an illustration of the limitations of the regional
plan process to take account of the subtleties of local circumstances.
6. By contrast, Rushcliffe Borough Council believes
that the Government's stated desire to establish a more bottom
up approach to housing delivery, based on local communities having
greater scope to establish their own housing targets, should lead
to more sustainable patterns of housing growth which take greater
account of local circumstances and the aspirations of local communities.
7. While the Council recognises that the abolition
of RSSs is likely to lead to a general lowering of local housing
targets, in reality many of those set by RSSs were surely little
more than an aspiration whose delivery was never going to be realised
because of, in particular, ongoing infrastructure inadequacies,
continued lack of local acceptance that the targets were justified
and question marks over the ability of the housing market and
development industry to deliver the sheer scale of growth planned
for by RSSs over a relatively short timeframe.
8. Conversely, a more locally controlled, bottom
up approach, where identified housing targets are likely to be
more deliverable and have greater local support, could well result
in higher delivery rates than ultimately would have been the case
under the regional planning regime, where delivery was in many
instances already becoming mired under the sheer weight of requirements
and expectations.
9. While supporting the abolition of the East
Midlands Regional Plan's growth requirements, in order to ensure
that local housing delivery is not unduly stalled, it is critical
that Government moves to put in place a workable and efficient
planning system as soon as possible. Any unnecessary delays could
hinder local authorities taking positive action to bring about
appropriate housing growth. The Government should also be urged
to ensure that any changes to the planning system remove the inherent
weaknesses of the present Local Development Framework system.
For example, being overly procedural and also unduly risk adverse
in terms of the disproportionate level of work required to limit
any uncertainty surrounding the delivery of growth related infrastructure.
PROPOSALS TO
INCENTIVISE LOCAL
COMMUNITIES TO
ACCEPT NEW
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
10. The Council welcomes proposals by the Government
for a "New Homes Bonus Scheme" to financially support
councils who take action to give planning consent and support
the construction of new housing. However, given the lack of details
at this stage as to how the scheme might operate, it is difficult
to make any specific comments. At the very least, the suggestion
that the new scheme would be more simplified than the Housing
and Planning Delivery Grant, which was unnecessarily complicated,
is very much welcomed.
11. To operate successfully any scheme to incentivise
housing delivery has to be seen to be providing substantial funding
to help communities really feel that there is something it for
them in accommodating additional growth. Supporting local service
delivery to the extent that council tax bills might be discounted
may well be one way of doing this.
12. Where concern exists is whether there really
would be scope to make sufficient funding available. It is understood
there has been the suggestion that councils might be able to keep
council tax receipts from each new home built over a six year
period. By way of example, the delivery of 500 homes annually
(which is not an especially high delivery figure for a single
authority area) would, assuming an average council tax bill of
£1,200, generate a total of £3,600,000 per annum.
13. The concern is whether such levels of funding
would really be available to local authorities. The funding available
through the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant by comparison
was no where near as high. If, however, such levels of funding
were genuinely made available it could well form a real incentive
for local communities to support and facilitate the delivery of
growth.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
14. That, following the revocation of Regional
Spatial Strategies, the Government should proceed to put in place
a new local planning system which avoids the many weaknesses of
the present Local Development Framework system (eg overly procedural
and risk adverse) as soon as possible.
15. That if there is to be incentivisation of
housing delivery then the funding available needs to be set at
a sufficiently high level to make a real difference to local communities
in accepting housing growth.
September 2010
| 
