Conflicting opinions on small site Affordable Housing policy

13 Jan 2017

In November 2014, former housing and planning minister Brandon Lewis, published a Written Ministerial  Statement (WMS) which declared that housings developments of 10 homes or fewer should not be required to provide affordable housing contributions. This was successfully challenged by West Berkshire Council and Reading Borough Council in the High Court who quashed the Government's decision to publish the statement and relevant updates to National Planning Practice Guidance. Subsequently, this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal and  as of the 11 May 2016 the WMS was reinstated along with relevant parts of the NPPG.


Whilst not forming part of the development plan, the WMS and NPPG are material planning considerations which should be considered by the relevant decision maker when determining planning applications. However, their status as guidance has led to inconsistent decision making which is particularly relevant to two recent appeal decisions in Brighton; a proposal for 9 flats in Hove (APP/Q1445/W/16/3152366) decided in December 2016 and a proposal for 9 houses in Ovingdean  (APP/Q1445/W/16/3147419) decided in January 2017.


Brighton and Hove City Council adopted their City Plan between the WMS being quashed and subsequently being reinstated. Their adopted affordable housing policy has a requirement to provide 20% affordable housing as an equivalent financial contribution on sites of between 5 and 9 dwellings. In both the above appeal cases, the City Council argued that this policy should apply, whilst the Appellants argued that the WMS and NPPF should take precedence.


In relation to the Hove case, the Inspector considered that the Council had made a strong argument for the need to provide affordable housing, noting that first time buyer houses are 9.6 times average earnings. However, he declared that the WMS and NPPG came into effect after adoption of the City Plan and affirmed the latest expressions of National Policy which should be afforded very considerable weight in the planning balancing exercise.  He considered that had the WMS and NPPG been in place when the City Plan was adopted, it would have been likely that the affordable housing policy would have been amended in order to reflect national guidance. Whilst acknowledging the considerable need for affordable housing, on balance, he decided that an affordable housing contribution was not required.


In relation to the Ovingdean case, which is the more recent of the decisions but only by a month, a different conclusion was reached. It was again acknowledged by the Inspector that there was a significant housing need; the Council had argued that there were over 24,000 households on the housing register with a large number of those in priority need. The Inspector also acknowledged the Council’s evidence relating to the high cost of housing, comparing the average cost of housing with average incomes. The physically constrained nature of the City was also noted, with  50% of all completions within the City comprising developments of 10 units or less. On the basis of this evidence, the Inspector declared that the guidance within the WMS and NPPG was outweighed in the planning balance and a financial contribution should be required. The appeal was subsequently dismissed for this reason (amongst others).


It was hoped that the decision made in the first of these cases provided some clarity and certainty to developers and consultants, but the most recent decision again raises uncertainty. Prior to submitting planning applications on small sites, applicants should be aware of the importance of checking the nuances of each Council’s affordable housing policy in relation to the WMS and NPPG (and when such policies were adopted) along with recent appeal decisions where relevant.

Further reading

Destination: office?

Blog, News & PR
Emily Wood considers the results of our recent survey and the implications for the future of the post-pandemic workplace
Read more Read

Commercial lease renewals and pandemic clauses

Will commercial reality trump the law when leases are up for renewal? Property expert James Picknell takes a look
Read more Read

Permitted Development Rights and the revised NPPF: Article 4 directions

Blog, Legal Updates
A revised National Planning Policy Framework has just been published. Holly Stevenson focuses on the change to Article 4 Directions
Read more Read

Can commercial lessees now ‘relax’ given the extended Government moratorium on forfeiture for non payment of rent?

Legal Updates
Property Litigation Partner, Keith Pearlman, doesn't think so and explains why they could be in for a nasty shock from 1 October of this year
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch