... your village ... your voice ...

Review of the National Park Housing Policy

The Yorkshire Dales National Park is currently reviewing its housing policy and LoPRA was invited to comment on the issues and options identified by the Park. The Parish Council has also submitted its comments. All responses had to be in by the middle of August.

The consultation document states clearly that development in the NP must not prejudice the statutory purpose of conservation or public enjoyment and it attempts to balance this with the need to provide housing to meet the needs of local communities.

LoPRA submitted the following views:

1. Affordable housing target

Over the next five years 88 affordable homes per year will be needed in the NP; this is more than the annual completion rate over the 15 years between 1991 and 2006. There is clearly a gap to be bridged between proposed and actual and a realistic approach is required. There is a suggestion that some affordable homes could be built on sites just outside the NP boundaries. For communities living close to the NP this would offer a more achievable solution and reduce the pressure on the NP.

Affordable housing could be provided in Settle or Hellifield, both of which have good transport links by bus or train to Skipton and the villages between.

2. Delivering affordable housing

LoPRA has real concerns re the suggestion that some sites may be allocated on the basis that a small percentage of houses would not be affordable and could even be open market housing. We have difficulty understanding how this would help to provide genuinely more affordable homes for local needs; it is more likely to provide developers with the chance to provide homes for people to migrate to the countryside, contrary to one of the key aims of the Regional Spatial Strategy. Previous examples of mixed housing types in Craven have shown that developers, once permission has been granted, often seek to re-negotiate downwards the number of affordable homes, arguing that the proportions are not economically viable.

Rather, LoPRA believes that there should be a requirement that windfall sites bigger than 2 units should deliver a proportion of affordable housing, but on site only. We do not believe a financial contribution to the local housing authority is a realistic way forward; this puts Craven District Council in a position of having to find suitable alternative sites and rarely does the financial contribution meet the actual costs involved. An example of this has occurred recently in Hellifield. This approach benefits only the developer and is not in the interests of Craven or of the family requiring a home.

LoPRA has considered the affordable housing issue and believes that some homes can be provided on a shared equity basis by the commercial sector.

3. Housing development boundaries

LoPRA supports the option to keep the housing development boundaries predominantly the same as the 2006 Local Plan. LoPRA is particularly concerned re the suggestion that boundaries could be dispensed with and replaced with a criteria based approach; this means there would be no publicly approved policy framework and a little consistency in decision-making.

4. Housing density, size and type

LoPRA supports the option to maintain housing density at a minimum of 35 dwellings per hectare, to restrict all new build to a maximum of 90 sqm and to prevent the extension of medium sized houses.
This will help to achieve the construction of affordable houses and keep them affordable.

5. Housing in open countryside
LoPRA believes there are no circumstances in which permission for a house should be granted in exchange for the removal of an eyesore. This policy would be open to abuse by unscrupulous developers who would stand to gain from their own neglect.

Long Preston Housing Needs Survey - 2004

The survey was carried out by the Craven Rural Housing Enabler, on behalf of the Parish Council in February 2004, and the conclusions reported in August. There has been much debate and criticism of the methodology of the survey, which has been analysed in detail by a resident of Long Preston, who is a market research professional.

There has also been concern expressed as to the validity of the conclusion: that out of the 305 households now in long Preston ( 41 being built in the last two years – so for existing residents the relevant number of households is only 264 ) that 50 are in housing need. Although this figure is then arbitrarily halved by the author!

Whilst this is indeed the totals from the survey data, the main weakness in the data analysis would seem to be the result of a lack of definition as what is meant by the terms affordable housing and housing need. In the context of a Housing Needs Survey these have a specific technical definition which is not apparent to the non professional. it is likely that most respondents would not have realised that these terms specifically relate to social or subsidised housing.

When answering Question 8 of the survey – “Are you, or anyone else that lives at this address, in need of alternative accommodation in the next 10 years ?”, - many will have answered “Yes” - taking the question at face value; for example an owner-occupier of a family sized house approaching retirement , with family having left to pursue careers elsewhere, could well wish to move to a smaller property. The survey then guided them to fill in Part 2 –“Registration of interest in Affordable Housing in Long Preston”.

It is probable that of the 50 households which indicated an apparent housing need, many were in fact expressing a requirement for smaller, lower cost houses to be available on the open market, and having equity in their present property, were not actually in requirement of housing need or affordable housing, in the technical sense.

Because no clear explanations were given on the survey form as to the meaning and implications of these terms it is very difficult to analyse the raw response data to extract reliable predictions as to the true number of households in housing need.

Another weakness in the data analysis is that the figures are aggregated from present requirements, possible needs in 5 years time, and guesses for requirements in 10 years time. No attempt was made in the analysis of the survey data to include demographic trends, or even to cross-reference the reported current requirements, with the Housing Register of Craven District Council.

Extensive guidelines have been prepared by the DETR for the conduct of Housing Needs Surveys.
(See summary in the adjacent column)
It would appear that the Long Preston survey falls short of meeting these guidelines in a number of important areas. For example no reference is made to the current “Alms Houses” in the village, which have not always been easy to find tenants for which is surprising if there really was such a large need in the village.

LoPRA thinks that there is a requirement for Local Needs housing in Long Preston, but nowhere near the numbers shown by this survey, which has lost credibility with the residents of Long Preston. LoPRA was actually formed as result of the concern that the author of the survey had arranged a meeting with a large developer, before even discussing the survey with the Parish Council; who were the clients.

The Parish Council have been unsuccessful in obtaining an interview with the author of the survey. It has recently been learnt that a new appointee is being made to the post of Craven Rural Housing Enabler and the Parish Council has been promised that a meeting will be arranged early in 2005.

Main Recommendations
from DETR.

This table shows the main recommendations from the DETR guidance, as summarised by the DTLR in their publication “Delivering Affordable Housing Through Planning Policy”
(DTLR 2002, p.28).

Survey results should be validated by comparing household profiles with data from the Census, demographic estimates and local administrative records

Where particular needs or problems can be measured objectively this should be done in addition to collecting subjectively recorded problems

Where existing households are living in unsuitable housing, it is important to try to assess which of these could find solutions in situ or by moving within their current tenure

Affordability should be assessed by relating appropriate measures of income to entry level threshold house prices and rents, distinguishing different levels or bands of affordability relevant to different possible solutions

The amount of new household formation should ideally be checked against past rates and demographic estimates

The characteristics (including income/affordability) of new households should be based mainly on the profile of actual recent new households

General needs surveys can make a contribution to assessing the needs of certain groups for specialised housing and/or support, particularly older people and people with disabilities

Projections of housing need should not rely solely on surveys but should draw on demographic, economic and administrative data

Assessments of need relative to supply should be disaggregated by size/type of dwelling and by major geographical sub-areas, but there are limits to the ability of surveys to provide reliable data at small area level.

How the
Long Preston Survey
compares.

No validation carried out at all. The raw survey responses reported as being the definitive data.
No objective measurement of particular needs.
No assessment of unsuitable housing.
Some attempt was made to compare local incomes with local rents and house prices.
No demographic estimates made.
Conclusions based on raw survey data only.

A recent article in the local press reported that the Craven District Council plans to carry out a new district-wide housing needs survey.

Chief executive Gill Dixon said the survey was a "completely different animal" to village surveys using different methodology. It will give us the rigour we need to address affordable housing in the future," she said.

Return to top of page