In order for Policy SP1 to achieve the third test of soundness (Will the plan deliver?), the policy must be updated to accommodate a greater level of housing delivery, that reflects the most up to date evidence. The Development Plans Manual states:

“In terms of considering the level of housing provision for a plan, the most up-to- date suite of Welsh Government Population and Household Projections are a fundamental part of the evidence base [paragraph 5.35]”

Policy SP1 as drafted sets out that the allocation of new [housing] sites will be primarily focused within the Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) identified on the Key Diagram and outside of the SGA, the allocation of sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites in appropriate Primary and Minor Rural Settlements. In order to meet the true identified housing needs of VoG during the RLDP period, Primary and Minor Rural Settlements will likely need to accommodate further new dwellings than the RLDP currently allocates (please refer to our comments below on Policy SP2 and Policy HG4 for further commentary).

Policy SP1 sets out that the plan will deliver 7,890 dwellings by 2036, including a minimum of 3,070 affordable homes. Policy SP1 also sets out that outside of the Strategic Growth Areas, the allocation of new sites will be limited to small-scale affordable housing led sites.

The number of households in VoG in mid-2021 (i.e. the start of the RLDP period) was 57,676. Based on Welsh Government’s 2022-based household projections, the number of households is projected to increase to 67,299 in VoG in mid-2036 (i.e. the end of the RLDP period). This equates to a household increase of 9,623 which is 22.0% more than the 7,890 dwellings the RLDP targets in Policy SP1. In addition, the Development Plan Manual requires a conversion factor from households to dwellings with 4% being the baseline (it is acknowledged that this will vary depending on local circumstances). Taking a 4% uplift, the dwelling requirement figure would be 10,008 which is 26.8% more than the RLDP seeks to deliver in Policy SP1. The number of overall dwellings identified in Policy SP1 will therefore not meet the identified household growth needs of VoG for the RLDP period. The Council should review the position in terms of the updated household projections.

It is important to note that the above calculations are purely to meet newly arising need and do not make any allowance for existing unmet affordable housing needs or any policy aspirations. As stated in the supporting text of Sustainable Growth Strategy 4 of the RLDP (paragraph 5.23) “The Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) 2023 identifies a need for 1,075 affordable homes per annum over the next five years based on principal projections or 1,114 based on the RLDP projections. There is an identified backlog of need across all the sub-market areas in the Vale of Glamorgan, and the issue is acute in many communities.” Policy SP1 seeks to deliver only 3,070 affordable homes over the RLDP period, equating to 205 affordable dwellings per annum. This is only 18.4% of identified need per annum for the five-year period from 2023-2028 in the LHMA. The number of affordable homes identified in Policy SP1 therefore falls drastically short of the identified need for affordable homes in VoG for the RLDP period.

The consideration of viability and the removal of the arbitrary upper limits on site sizes for allocations in Primary and Minor Rural Settlements will ensure that Policy SP2 meets the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?). The proposed amendment to the wording of Policy SP2 is as follows:

“For the purposes of this policy small scale affordable housing led developments are defined as providing a minimum of 50% affordable housing on sites of circa 25 dwellings in Minor Rural Settlements or circa 50 dwellings in Primary Settlements. The type, scale and mix of affordable housing will be expected to reflect the latest evidence, including specialist older person housing. Proposals which do not meet the minimum 50% affordable housing provision will not be supported.”

Policy SP2 lists Colwinston as a “Minor Rural Settlement” in the settlement hierarchy. Policy SP2 also states that:

“For the purposes of this policy small scale affordable housing led developments are defined as providing a minimum of 50% affordable housing on sites of up to 25 dwellings in Minor Rural Settlements or up to 50 dwellings in Primary Settlements. The type, scale and mix of affordable housing will be expected to reflect the latest evidence, including specialist older person housing. Proposals which do not meet the minimum 50% affordable housing provision will not be supported.”

The RLDP seeks a high proportion of affordable homes alongside other overly prescriptive policies relating to net zero carbon emissions from new dwellings, residential density, and open space provision. In order to achieve these objectives in a deliverable and sustainable way, it is essential that the RLDP provides sufficient flexibility in both policy application and housing mix. Without such flexibility, the cumulative impact of multiple prescriptive requirements risks undermining site viability. A balanced approach is therefore necessary to ensure that the Council’s housing, climate, and place making ambitions can be realised without constraining the delivery of much needed homes.

Policy SP2 requires on-site provision of 50% affordable homes on all new sites in Minor Rural and Primary Settlements. Policy SP2 as drafted also limits maximum dwelling numbers to sites of 25 dwellings in Minor Rural Settlements and up to 50 swellings in Primary Settlements. There are a number of concerns with this approach as drafted:

1. Whilst it is understood that it is a core RLDP objective to deliver much needed affordable homes in VoG, Policy SP2 must incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow for viability considerations to be taken into account. Whilst it is understood that the sites proposed for allocation in the RLDP will have provided a Viability Assessment demonstrating that they can be delivered, there is a need to be cautious. Additional policy burdens (e.g. those relating to net zero carbon operational development) could go beyond what has been tested at RLDP preparation stage. Without an explicit mechanism to consider viability, the delivery of entire allocations, both market and affordable housing across the Minor Rural and Primary Settlements, could be jeopardised unintentionally. The blanket approach to the 50% affordable housing requirement across site allocations fails to consider the unique technical complexities of each individual allocation that are required to be overcome before sites can be delivered. This is in direct contrast to PPW paragraph 4.2.32 which states that:

“When setting the affordable housing thresholds and/or site-specific targets planning authorities must consider their impact on site viability to ensure residential sites remain deliverable.”

2. The upper limits of 25 and 50 dwellings for Primary and Minor Rural Settlements respectively are arbitrary and unevidenced. Given the identified need for housing and affordable housing as set out in our comments to Policy SP1, allocated Rural Affordable Housing-Led Sites that have limited constraints (e.g. Allocation HG4(1)) should be allowed to be expanded and accommodate further dwelling numbers should the sites be suitable to allow this. Each site should be considered on its own merit rather than having a 25 unit limit applied as a matter of course. Allocation HG4(1) is located in the HMA of Llandow. Table 5 of the Draft Local Housing Market Assessment 2023 Summary Note Evidence Base Document provides an estimate of the overall additional affordable housing need from 2023 to 2038 as being 52 units per annum which is significantly more than what is proposed for allocation. It is also worth noting that Registered Social Landlords will prefer to have a higher number of affordable units under their management in a particular location to ensure efficiencies in management and operation.

3. Land to the East of Colwinston (HG4(1)) is allocated for 25 dwellings with a minimum provision of 50% on-site affordable housing. As 50% of 25 is 12.5 dwellings, this would need to be rounded up to 13. As such, allocation HG4(1) is required to provide a minimum of 52% on-site affordable housing. As a minimum, allocation HG4(1) should be allowed to provide 26 dwellings so that the “minimum” on-site provision of 50% set out by Policy SP2 is truly a minimum.

Policy SP4 should therefore be amended as follows:

“…Placemaking Statements will be required as part of Design and Access Statements for all major developments setting out how the proposal accords with Placemaking Principles…”

This amendment is necessary to ensure that Policy CI1 meets the second test of soundness (Is the Plan appropriate?).

Policy SP4 requires “Placemaking Statements” for “all major developments”. It is observed that supporting paragraph 6.34 of the RLDP states that “Major development proposals6 must be supported by a Placemaking Statement to demonstrate clearly how proposals for new development will achieve placemaking. This Placemaking Statement should form part of the Design and Access Statement that will be a requirement for most major planning applications.”

It should be made clear in the wording of Policy SP4 that Placemaking Statements are not expected to be standalone documents as per supporting paragraph 6.34 of the RLDP.

The Land to the East of Colwinston allocation measures approximately 0.84ha and is therefore able to provide the minimum density of 30 dwellings per net hectare set out in Policy PGD2. It is noted that the Candidate Site Submission for Land to the East of Colwinston (Site ID: 453) was for a gross site area of 5.24ha and therefore if the allocation were to be expanded, up to 157 dwellings could be delivered at the site during the RLDP period.

The approach to residential development densities in Policy PGD2 is consistent with paragraph 3.51 of PPW which states that “Higher densities should be encouraged in urban centres and near major public transport nodes or interchanges, to generate a critical mass of people to support services such as public transport, local shops and schools.”

As such, as drafted Policy PGD2 meets the three tests of soundness.

There is a need to be cautious in applying additional policy burdens like HIAs to sites proposed for allocation in the RLDP that could go beyond what has been tested in the Viability Assessments submitted as part of the RLDP preparation, especially for smaller sites.

Policy SP5 states that “developers are required to undertake a screening assessment of their proposals at the pre-application stage to identify the potential health impacts of their development..”. For major residential developments between 10 and 99 dwellings, Policy SP5 requires that a “Healthy Placemaking Checklist” be undertaken and for significant residential developments of 100 dwellings or greater, the policy requires a rapid HIA be undertaken. The need to ensure that development proposals are designed to facilitate accessible healthy environments is recognised. However, there is a need to be cautious in applying additional policy burdens like HIAs to sites proposed for allocation in the RLDP that could go beyond what has been tested in the Viability Assessments submitted as part of the RLDP preparation, especially for smaller sites. Policy SP5 as drafted therefore risks not achieving the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?)

In order for Policy SP6 to meet the third test of soundness (Will the plan deliver?), it is evident that additional sites will need to be allocated and existing allocated sites will need to be expanded to accommodate further dwelling numbers. Allocation HG4(1) is potentially capable of delivering greater than the 25 dwellings currently allocated.

The 8,660 provision equates to a flexibility allowance of 9.8% against the targeted delivery of 7,890 set out in Policy SP1. Even with this flexibility allowance in place, this is still 10.0% lower than the predicted household increase of 9,623 in the Vale of Glamorgan based on Welsh Government’s 2022-based household projections for VoG over the RLDP period.

BDWR endorses the incorporation of a flexibility allowance, as is required by paragraph 5.59 of the Development Plans Manual (2020). However, it is considered that the flexibility allowance needs to be increased to a minimum of 15-20% to ensure that the ambitious anticipated annual build rate of between 885-906 dpa from 2027/28 to 2030/31 can be achieved. Whilst we note that the Development Management Manual references a starting point of 10% we note that other local authorities have utilised a higher percentage in draft plans. This includes Swansea (20%) and Monmouthshire (15%).

“The following sites are allocated as affordable housing led sites where there will be a requirement for the provision of a minimum 50% affordable housing to meet the affordable housing needs of the local community."

The removal of the arbitrary upper limit on maximum dwelling numbers for allocations in Minor Rural Settlements and the removal of policy restrictions on open market tenure, type and size will ensure that Policy HG4 meets the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?) and will assist in the delivery of the site.

The allocation of ‘Land to the East of Colwinston’ for residential development as a Rural Affordable Housing Led Site by Policy HG4(1) is supported by Barratt David Wilson Redrow (South Wales) Ltd. The site is free from any major constraints and is suitable for development, demonstrated by the successful Redrow development adjacent. The allocation assists in delivering the RLDP vision, in particular for the delivery of homes which caters for all, including affordable homes. As explained in our representations to Policy SP1 and SP2 above, the delivery of housing at the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements is essential to ensuring the housing needs of the individual HMAs (and also, the housing needs of VoG) are met during the RLDP period.

‘Land to the East of Colwinston’ has limited environmental constraints and as set out in our representations to Policy SP2 above, the site area is capable of being expanded to deliver greater dwelling numbers to support the delivery of the identified need for affordable housing in the Llandow HMA during the RLDP period.

The upper limit of 25 dwellings for Minor Rural Settlements allocations is unevidenced and does not align with the need identified in Colwinston. Given the identified need for housing and affordable housing as set out in our comments to Policy SP1, allocated Rural Affordable Housing-Led Sites that have limited constraints (e.g. Allocation HG4(1)) should be allowed to be expanded and accommodate further dwelling numbers should it be desirable and viable to do so.

Policy HG4 also states that “…In addition, the Council will require developers to provide a mix of market housing that will contribute to the specific housing market needs of the community. Applicants will need to demonstrate how both the market and affordable housing provides for the local housing needs of community in terms of tenure, type and size of dwellings so that a range of housing is delivered to meet the needs of different groups in the local community.”

The RLDP seeks a high proportion of affordable homes as well as ambitious policies for net zero carbon operational homes. If these policies are going to be met it is essential that the mix of dwellings on the open market element is of a sufficient value to make the Council’s policy aspirations deliverable.

On the basis of the above, it is proposed that Policy SP7 and Policy SP8 should be aligned so that they are consistent with each other and provide flexibility on a “case-by-case basis”. This would ensure that the RLDP will meet the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?).

Policy SP7 stipulates that in order to meet the affordable housing target of 3,070 dwellings during the RLDP period “a mix of affordable housing will be required, informed by the Local Housing Market Assessment LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy. This should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes, as well as an appropriate balance of general needs and specialist accommodation”.

Whilst it is understood that it is a core RLDP objective to deliver affordable homes in VoG which respond to identified need, Policy SP7 must allow for viability to be considered. Whilst paragraph 6.120 of the RLDP states “In calculating the affordable housing target, the Council recognises that the number of affordable homes delivered during the plan period could be lower as a result of site viability constraints or greater where they are on sites delivered by the Council, Registered Social Landlords or on land owned by the Welsh Government”, this recognition is not transferred into the wording of Policy SP7.

The blanket approach to affordable housing requirement percentage across VoG fails to take into account that there may be unique technical complexities at individual allocations that are required to be overcome before sites can be delivered. This is in contrast to PPW paragraph 4.2.32 which states that: “When setting the affordable housing thresholds and/or site-specific targets planning authorities must consider their impact on site viability to ensure residential sites remain deliverable.”

Policy SP8 sets out that Primary and Minor Rural Settlements should meet an affordable housing requirement level of 40%. We do query why affordable housing led allocations in the same geographic areas have a requirement of 50% affordable housing? It is understood from paragraphs 6.122-6.123 of the RLDP that the affordable housing percentage requirements for the settlements in VoG are being carried over from the adopted LDP. However, this does not explain why windfall sites in the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area would need to provide a minimum 40% affordable housing and the Affordable Housing Led Schemes in the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area would need to provide a minimum of 50%. Further evidence is required on this matter to ensure that Policy SP8 meets the second test of soundness (Is the Plan appropriate?).

Policy SP8 also states that: “The provision of affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis considering the evidenced viability of the development.” Policy SP8 also states: “Where developers claim that the target is unviable, a detailed viability assessment must be submitted and independently reviewed.” The consideration of viability in Policy SP8 is endorsed as it is consistent with paragraph 4.2.32 of PPW.

Policy SP8 also states that: “The exact mix of affordable housing required will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence at the
time of the application”. Again, this level of flexibility is endorsed. However, we are concerned that there is contradiction between Policy SP7 (Affordable Housing) and Policy SP8 that needs to be addressed. As drafted Policy SP8 (which relates to all new residential developments in VoG including Affordable housing led allocations) allows flexibility for the delivery of mix of affordable homes as it allows for the exact mix to be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest evidence needs. Yet, Policy SP7 (which relates to all affordable residential units to be delivered in the RLDP period) applies a blanket approach that requires the mix of affordable housing to be informed by the Council’s evidence base only, with no flexibility or consideration for site-specific cases or viability. Thus, the two policies as drafted in the RLDP currently contradict one another. This is especially important for the affordable led schemes as the housing mix (affordable and market) can have a big impact on the viability of the scheme given that they have more onerous planning obligations.

On the basis of the above, it is proposed that Policy SP7 and Policy SP8 should be aligned so that they are consistent with each other and provide flexibility on a “case-by-case basis”. This would ensure that the RLDP will meet the third test of soundness (Will the Plan deliver?).

Policy SP7 stipulates that in order to meet the affordable housing target of 3,070 dwellings during the RLDP period “a mix of affordable housing will be required, informed by the Local Housing Market Assessment LHMA, waiting list data and the Older Persons Housing Strategy. This should include a range of tenures, types and sizes of homes, as well as an appropriate balance of general needs and specialist accommodation”.

Whilst it is understood that it is a core RLDP objective to deliver affordable homes in VoG which respond to identified need, Policy SP7 must allow for viability to be considered. Whilst paragraph 6.120 of the RLDP states “In calculating the affordable housing target, the Council recognises that the number of affordable homes delivered during the plan period could be lower as a result of site viability constraints or greater where they are on sites delivered by the Council, Registered Social Landlords or on land owned by the Welsh Government”, this recognition is not transferred into the wording of Policy SP7.

The blanket approach to affordable housing requirement percentage across VoG fails to take into account that there may be unique technical complexities at individual allocations that are required to be overcome before sites can be delivered. This is in contrast to PPW paragraph 4.2.32 which states that: “When setting the affordable housing thresholds and/or site-specific targets planning authorities must consider their impact on site viability to ensure residential sites remain deliverable.”

Policy SP8 sets out that Primary and Minor Rural Settlements should meet an affordable housing requirement level of 40%. We do query why affordable housing led allocations in the same geographic areas have a requirement of 50% affordable housing? It is understood from paragraphs 6.122-6.123 of the RLDP that the affordable housing percentage requirements for the settlements in VoG are being carried over from the adopted LDP. However, this does not explain why windfall sites in the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area would need to provide a minimum 40% affordable housing and the Affordable Housing Led Schemes in the Primary and Minor Rural Settlements outside of the Strategic Growth Area would need to provide a minimum of 50%. Further evidence is required on this matter to ensure that Policy SP8 meets the second test of soundness (Is the Plan appropriate?).

Policy SP8 also states that: “The provision of affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis considering the evidenced viability of the development.” Policy SP8 also states: “Where developers claim that the target is unviable, a detailed viability assessment must be submitted and independently reviewed.” The consideration of viability in Policy SP8 is endorsed as it is consistent with paragraph 4.2.32 of PPW.

Policy SP8 also states that: “The exact mix of affordable housing required will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest needs evidence at the
time of the application”. Again, this level of flexibility is endorsed. However, we are concerned that there is contradiction between Policy SP7 (Affordable Housing) and Policy SP8 that needs to be addressed. As drafted Policy SP8 (which relates to all new residential developments in VoG including Affordable housing led allocations) allows flexibility for the delivery of mix of affordable homes as it allows for the exact mix to be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the Council’s latest evidence needs. Yet, Policy SP7 (which relates to all affordable residential units to be delivered in the RLDP period) applies a blanket approach that requires the mix of affordable housing to be informed by the Council’s evidence base only, with no flexibility or consideration for site-specific cases or viability. Thus, the two policies as drafted in the RLDP currently contradict one another. This is especially important for the affordable led schemes as the housing mix (affordable and market) can have a big impact on the viability of the scheme given that they have more onerous planning obligations.

The inclusion of the allowance for development viability in Policy SP13 is endorsed. It is vital that the Council take account of development viability when considering community infrastructure and planning obligations. To not do so, could jeopardise whole allocations which would undermine the delivery of much needed affordable and market housing in VoG. With regards to Affordable Housing Led Allocations, care needs to be taken to ensure that any additional planning obligations beyond the affordable housing are carefully considered in terms of overall viability.

As drafted, Policy SP13 is consistent with PPW paragraph 4.2.21 which states that: “Where new housing is to be proposed, development plans must include policies to make clear that developers will be expected to provide community benefits which are reasonably related
in scale and location to the development. In doing so, such policies should also take account of the economic viability of sites and ensure that the provision of community benefits would not be unrealistic or unreasonably impact on a site’s delivery.” Also, with paragraph 4.2.32 of PPW which states that: “When setting the affordable housing thresholds and/or site-specific targets planning authorities must consider their impact on site viability to ensure residential sites remain deliverable.”

Thus, as drafted Policy SP13 meets the three tests of soundness.