Joint Core Strategy
Note for the Inspector
Subject: Update on Housing Matters
Dated: Thursday 3 December 2015
1.0 Introduction
The JCS councils have undertaken to fulfil the examining Inspector’s requests for supplementary housing
information. This note provides a summary position of the work undertaken on establishing an appropriate
OAN for housing and updates the the tasks related to establishing the housing land supply following the note
“JCS response to Exam 78” of 7 September 2015 (Exam 112) which provided summary information prior to the
publication of the 2014/15 annual housing permission monitoring reports by the JCS councils. This note includes
updated housing land supply trajectories and also confirms the findings of work undertaken to establish an
appropriate planning permission lapse rate reported in Exam 112. The five year housing land supply calculations
for the each of the JCS planning authorities and the JCS included within this note update the summary
trajectories shown in Exam 112 and are in conformity with the district’s annual monitoring reports, which have
now been published. These trajectories and land supply calculations update those shown in the Submission
Housing Background Paper (ETOP 101a) with the land supply position to 31st March 2015.
1.1
Considerable work has been undertaken in establishing an appropriate OAN for the JCS area. Table 1
shows the level of housing development indicated by the different reports over time and provides links to the
appropriate reports on the JCS website for ease of reference. Table 2 highlights the findings of the work
undertaken on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and also provides links to the appropriate
reports on the JCS website for ease of reference.
1.2
All housing land supply calculations have been prepared in respect of the housing requirements set out
in the Submission JCS.
Table 1: Main documents within the JCS OAN Evidence Base
Exam Doc
Assessment
Key Population Data
Reference
Regional Spatial
2004 DCLG Household Estimates (Plan period
EDPD103
Strategy 2009
2006 to 2026)
JCS Local
Local population projections update based on
Assessment
Gloucestershire County Council Housing Trend
ETOP101d
(Option B)
Analysis and Population and Housing
Projections (May 2011)
Nov 2011
DCLG 2008 household projections updated to
NLP
EHOU110a
reflect 2010 ONS population projections
Sept 2012
EHOU110b
uplifted by CE and Experian economic forecasts
DCLG 2011 interim household projections and
CCHPR
EHOU111
2011 interim population projections with partial
May 2013
return to trend to 2031.
DCLG 2011 interim household projections and
NLP
EHOU112
2011 interim population projections uplifted by
June 2013
CE and Experian economic forecast to 2031.
DCLG’s 2011 Interim Household Projections and
CCHPR
2011 interim population projections adjusted
Supplementary
EHOU114
according to alternative scenarios to 2031.
Note
Partial return to trend 25-34 selected by JCS
Mar 2014
and presented in JCS Submission Document
ETOP 121
ONS 2012-based sub-national population
CCHPR
and ETOP
projections (May 2014) and DCLG’s 2011
Nov 2014
121a
Interim Household Projections
DCLG’s 2012-based household projections (May
2014) and ONS 2012 based sub-national
CCHPR
Exam 119
population projections updated by ONS 2014
Sept 2015
mid-year population estimates (June 2015) and
ONS migration figures to March 2015
Gloucester
Cheltenham
Tewkesbury
Housing total
11,500
8,100
14,600
34,200
18,966
(Gloucester
Wider Area)
10,384
(Cheltenham
Wider Area)
3,811
(Remainder of
Tewkesbury
Borough)
33,160
10,500-13,200
12,650- 15,900 9,300- 14,100
32,450- 43,200
13,100-11,400
10,000-15,100
10,100-10,900
33,200 -37,400
10,500-15,130
13,100-11,370
10,100-10,900
33,200-37,400
10,500 –
13,200
8,300 – 9,900
9,600 – 10,200
28,400 –
33,200
PRT 25-34:
11,300
PRT 25-34:
9,100
PRT 25-34:
10,100
PRT 25-34:
30,500
12,700
10,000
7,700
30,400
13,290
9,900
8,640
31,830
Table 2: Evidence documents which assess the Strategic Housing Market for the JCS Area
Assessment
Fordhams 2009 SHMA
Exam Doc Reference
EHOU 103
34,200 RSS dwelling
requirement. April 2007
base date as updated by
the 2009 Gloucestershire
Housing Needs
Assessment in April 2010.
Base date
Affordable Housing
Need Model (25%
income) (net homes
per annum)
Affordable Housing
Need Model
adjusted for Local
Circumstances (35%
income, LHA
supported in PRT
not in need (net
homes per annum)
Long term balancing
housing market
model (net homes
per annum)
SDH Planning March 2014
SHMA Update
EHOU 104a
33,200 Dwellings
SDH Planning Dec 2014
SHMA Update
EHOU 104b
30,400 Dwellings
SDH Planning Sept 2015
SHMA Update
Exam 118 and 118a
31,800 Dwellings.
March 2013 base date.
Updates the 2009 Needs
Model.
March 2013 base date.
Updates the LTBHM.
Superseded by 2015 SHMA
Update for the JCS Area.
June 2015 base date.
Updates both the LTBHM
and Needs Model.
GCC
442
913
1776
Not updated
609
CBC
439
797
1456
Not updated
503
TBC
130
355
587
Not updated
286
370
Not updated
282
409
Not updated
231
73
Not updated
126
198
189
184
119
127
121
141
102
89
GCC
CBC
Not included
Not included
TBC
GCC
CBC
TBC
Not included
n/a adjusted for RSS
spatial distribution
n/a adjusted for RSS
spatial distribution
n/a adjusted for RSS
spatial distribution
2.0
Planning Permission Lapse Rates
During the Stage 1 Hearings the Inspector requested that the impact of a 10% lapse rate applied to the five
year housing land be submitted to the examination. These were provided within Exam 112. However, the JCS
councils considered that the actual lapse rate was somewhat lower at approximately 5% and accordingly
provided a supplementary 5% calculation. The JCS councils have now completed an assessment of permission
lapse rates to help inform the need for a lapse rate to be applied to the five year supply calculation. The
findings are summarised below.
2.1
The period of analysis of 2008/09 to 2014/15 was chosen to reflect the availability of data across the
three authorities. The research indicates that where permissions do lapse, they are regularly implemented via
a new application submitted at a later date. In a number of cases these new applications increase the density
of the schemes to enable more homes to be delivered on site. In consideration of this finding, two lapse rate
percentages have been calculated. The first is the lapse rate of all permissions regardless of subsequent
renewals to the consent; this gives an average 3.0% lapse rate over the seven years from 2008/09 to 2014/15
with an associated median value of 2.4%. The second is the lapse of permissions over the same period but
removing schemes that are subsequently superseded and delivered from consideration. The latter approach
reduces the lapse rate to an average of 2.5% over the seven year period assessed with an associated median
value of 2.2%. The data is summarised in Figures 1 and 2.
2.2
The JCS councils consider that where a lapse rate needs to be applied to the five year supply
calculation, a rate of 3% would be more appropriate than 10%. The impact of this 97% implementation rate is
commensurate with the 95% implementation rate previously illustrated in Exam 112. Both a 97% rate and a
90% rate have been presented under the five year supply analysis for comparison purposes. The
implementation rates have been applied to all sites with consent where development has not yet commenced
regardless of site size, as requested by the Inspector. The impact of the 97% and 95% implementation on
supply is negligible. A 90% implementation rate would have a minor impact on supply but would still allow
the authorities collectively and individually to demonstrate a five year housing land supply for the period
2017/18 to 2021/22 as shown in Section 5 of this note.
Figure 1: Lapse rates of all consents
Year
Total Commitments
GCC
Total Commitments
CBC
Total Commitments
TBC
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Total
3941
4121
3660
3534
3754
3219
2562
24791
1291
1135
990
1286
1284
1316
1356
8658
790
743
664
1212
1032
1554
1311
7306
Total
Year
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
40755
2014/15
Total
Total Lapses GCC
12
81
64
51
83
219
66
576
Total Lapses CBC
31
101
79
202
34
31
15
493
Total Lapses TBC
6
44
12
30
5
11
56
164
Total
Year
Lapse Percentage
GCC
Lapse Percentage
CBC
Lapse Percentage
TBC
JCS
Mean Lapse Rate
Total Commitments
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
1233
2014/15
Median
0.30
1.97
1.75
1.44
2.21
6.80
2.58
1.97
2.40
8.90
7.98
15.71
2.65
2.36
1.11
2.65
0.76
5.92
1.81
2.48
0.48
0.71
4.27
JCS
Median
1.81
5 Years
2008/09
to
2012/13
5 Years
2009/10
to
2013/14
5 Years
2010/11
to
2014/15
7 Years
2008/09
to
2014/15
29437
29504
28734
40755
Total Lapses
835
1047
958
1233
Lapse Percentage
2.84
3.55
3.33
3.03
2.36
Figure 2: Lapse rates of consents omitting sites subsequently superseded and delivered
Year
Total Commitments
GCC
Total Commitments
CBC
Total Commitments
TBC
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Total
3941
4121
3660
3534
3754
3219
2562
24791
1291
1135
990
1286
1284
1316
1356
8658
790
743
664
1212
1032
1554
1311
7306
Total
Year
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
40755
2014/15
Total
Total Lapses GCC
0
48
15
51
44
192
60
410
Total Lapses CBC
29
97
55
194
33
31
15
454
Total Lapses TBC
2
42
6
26
1
11
56
144
Total
Year
Lapse Percentage
GCC
Lapse Percentage
CBC
Lapse Percentage
TBC
JCS
Average Lapses
Total Commitments
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
1008
2014/15
Median
0.00
1.16
0.41
1.44
1.17
5.96
2.34
1.17
2.25
8.55
5.56
15.09
2.57
2.36
1.11
2.57
0.25
5.65
0.90
2.15
0.10
0.71
4.27
JCS
Median
0.90
5 Years
2008/09
to
2012/13
5 Years
2009/10
to
2013/14
5 Years
2010/11
to
2014/15
7 Years
2008/09
to
2014/15
29437
29504
28734
40755
Total Lapses
643
846
790
1008
Lapse Percentage
2.18
2.87
2.75
2.47
2.15
3.0
Updated Housing Trajectories
Summary housing trajectories have been prepared for the JCS and for the individual authorities. This updates
the overall housing land supply position to be correct to 31st March 2015 for all sites as shown in Exam 112. In
addition supplementary data correct to 31st August 2015 has been included for all sites that contribute to local
plan potential to show a clear distinction between schemes with consent that have been guided by the
emerging district plans and the further district plan potential. This information confirms the supply data for
the JCS presented in Exam 112 and provides the land supply for each authority.
3.1
The trajectory includes revised delivery rates for all development expected over the plan period in
accordance with information gathered from the individual district’s most recent Strategic Assessment of Land
Availability reports (SALA) published during Spring 2015 and has been supplemented with additional contact
with developers of all significant sites to ascertain realistic build schedules in accordance with routine annual
monitoring procedures.
3.2
For the JCS proposed strategic allocations, delivery has been harmonised in accordance with the
Statements of Common Ground submitted to the examination. The trajectory shown in Exam 112 was also
updated in line with the trajectory presented to the inquiry for A4: North Brockworth following the Secretary
of State’s “call in”. A schedule of the planning position for all strategic allocations will be made available to the
examination during the hearing.
3.3
As set out in ETOP 101a, the Submission JCS trajectory made an allowance for small site windfall
development. However, the level of windfall development granted permission in Cheltenham Borough was in
excess of expectations in 2014/15 and has increased the overall land supply by approximately 100 units. In
addition substantial windfall development has been granted permission in Tewkesbury Borough on larger sites
during the 2014/15 monitoring year in light of the authority’s housing land supply position. The majority of
the permissions have been granted adjacent to the proposed Service Villages and an allowance had previously
been made within the trajectory submitted in support of the JCS for this development. However the small
allowance made for development at Tewkesbury town has been supplemented by the grant of permission for
a green field site to the north of the town. Three developments delivering approximately 200 units have also
been permitted at Ashchurch. Following removal of lapsed consents from the trajectory the overall, updated
land supply position has increased by approximately 235 dwellings over the plan period compared with the
submission JCS figures. This is a total supply of 31,277 dwellings compared to the 31,042 dwellings in the
original submission.
3.4
A further potential supply has been identified as a result of the bid for “Devolution Gloucestershire”
(Exam 131). The ongoing conversation with ministers has indicated that further publically owned land may be
made available in Gloucestershire through the devolution process. It is not possible to quantify this source of
supply or include it within the trajectory at this stage, particularly as it does not currently satisfy the
deliverability criteria required by the NPPF. The Government is expected to make an announcement regarding
the release of public sector land in January 2016 and an update to the implications for land supply in the JCS
area will be made available to the examination during the hearing.
3.5
Figures 3 to 8 show illustrative trajectories for the JCS as a whole, the strategic allocations and the
individual districts. In response to the concerns expressed by the Inspector over the availability of a sufficient
development pool within the urban extensions to meet Duty to Co-Operate (DTC) contributions over the plan
period a further summary table has been prepared, shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 brings together in one table
the urban extension development pool available and the amount of contribution anticipated to be needed by
each authority over the plan period. These trajectories and tables are illustrative and are intended to show
the how the “development pool” approach to the DTC could operate based on the land supply position as at
31st March 2015. The actual DTC contributions required by each authority will need to be responsive to
delivery over the plan period to ensure each authority is able to maintain a five year housing land supply. A
full explanation of the apportionment of development is set out in the document “JCS Note Strategic
Allocation Apportionment” of 1st September 2015 (Exam 109).
Figure 3: Illustrative JCS Trajectory
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 2028- 2029- 2030- Total
Net 814 Net 974 Net 1044 Net 626 16 0 17 0 18 0 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0 25 0 26 0 27 0 28 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 20113458
50
42
130
580
877
447
171
131
100
100
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2651
0
0
0
0
434
874
674
560
448
305
270
193
100
100
50
25
0
0
0
0
4033
0
0
0
0
0
25
59
85
53
30
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
262
80
143
228
267
197
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
967
0
0
0
0
130
275
377
360
220
75
75
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1587
0
0
0
0
28
157
277
267
306
390
464
400
278
202
155
128
102
77
76
40
3347
0
0
0
0
0
0
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
2688
0
0
0
0
0
100
520
700
775
850
950
975
960 1025 1040 1110 1035
885
760
599 12284
944
1159
1402
1473 1666 1930 2270 2295 2094 1942 1974 1835 1530 1529 1437 1455 1329 1154 1028
831 31277
JCS Trajectory
Completed Sites
Sites Under Construction
Commitments
Existing Allocations
District Plans & Rural Area Completed and Under
District Plans & Rural Area Consented Delivery
District Plans & Rural Area Potential
Windfall
Strategic Allocations
JCS Annual Delivery
Figure 4: Illustrative Strategic Allocation Trajectory
Site Name
JCS Period 2011-12
Delivery Net
Delivery
2012-13
Net
Delivery
2013-14
Net
Delivery
2014-15
Net
Delivery
A1 Innsworth
1250
0
0
0
0
A2 North Churchdown
532
0
0
0
0
A3 South Churchdown
868
0
0
0
0
A4 North Brockworth
1500
0
0
0
0
A5 North West Chelt - CBC
2225
0
0
0
0
A5 North West Chelt - TBC
2560
0
0
0
0
A6 South Chelt Leckhampton - CBC
764
0
0
0
0
A6 South Chelt Leckhampton - TBC
360
0
0
0
0
A8 MOD Site at Ashchurch
2225
0
0
0
0
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
2025-26
2026-27
2027-28
2028-29
2029-30
2030-31
25
50
50
125
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
50
50
100
100
100
100
32
75
75
43
25
50
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
75
0
60
60
60
60
60
20
0
0
120
300
375
375
375
360
75
255
255
255
255
255
295
315
315
210
75
0
0
0
0
30
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
14
50
50
50
50
50
50
35
50
75
100
150
175
175
175
225
225
200
200
175
150
150
25
Figure 5: Duty to co-operate contributions from the development pool
Urban Extension Development Pool
A1 Innsworth
A2 North Churchdown
A3 South Churchdown
A4 North Brockworth
A5 North West Chelt - CBC
A5 North West Chelt - TBC
A6 South Chelt Leckhampton - CBC
A6 South Chelt Leckhampton - TBC
Total Urban Extension Development Pool
Contribution Required by GCC
Contribution Required by CBC
Contribution to TBC Supply
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 2028- 2029- 2030- Total
Net
Net
Net
Net
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Delivery0 Delivery0 Delivery0 Delivery0
0
0
0
25
50
50
125
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
0
0
1250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
100
100
100
100
32
532
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
50
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
43
868
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
75
0
0
0
1500
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
60
60
60
60
20
0
0
120
300
375
375
375
360
2225
0
0
0
0
0
75
255
255
255
255
255
295
315
315
210
75
0
0
0
0
2560
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
14
764
0
0
0
0
0
25
50
50
50
50
50
50
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
360
0
0
0
0
0
100
470
625
675
700
775
800
785
800
815
910
835
710
610
449 10059
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
315
3615
0
0
0
0
0
0
330
360
360
360
360
320
300
300
420
360
435
139
135
74
4253
0
0
0
0
0
100
140
265
15
40
115
180
185
200
95
250
100
271
175
60
2191
Figure 6: Illustrative GCC Trajectory
GCC Trajectory
Completed Site
Sites Under Construction
Commitments
District Plan Consented Delivery
District Plan Potential
Windfall
GCC Annual Delivery
DTC Contributions for GCC
GCC Total Delivery
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 2028- 2029- 2030- Total
542
427
412
347
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1728
50
6
66
237
303
161
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
917
0
0
0
0
266
367
236
202
161
130
102
100
100
100
50
25
0
0
0
0
1839
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
55
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
0
0
0
0
0
129
249
228
243
285
335
276
175
100
75
50
25
0
0
0
2170
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
896
592
433
478
584
569
657
693
549
498
479
501
440
339
264
189
139
89
64
64
64
7685
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
315
3615
592
433
478
584
569
657
693
549
798
779
801
740
639
564
489
439
389
364
364
379 11300
Figure 7: Illustrative CBC Trajectory
CBC Trajectory
Completed Site
Sites Under Construction
Commitments
Existing Allocations
District Plan Consented Delivery
District Plan Potential
Windfall
Urban Extentions in CBC
CBC Annual Delivery
DTC Contributions for CBC
CBC Total Delivery
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 2028- 2029- 2030- Total
Net 34 Net 229 Net 352 Net 192 16 0 17 0 18 0 19 0 20 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0 25 0 26 0 27 0 28 0 29 0 30 0 31 0
807
0
36
59
124
315
141
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
681
0
0
0
0
132
345
224
183
150
175
168
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1470
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
30
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
28
28
28
23
65
64
64
63
62
40
38
37
37
36
0
641
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
1148
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
120
120
120
120
80
60
60
180
360
435
435
435
374
2989
34
265
411
316
475
514
426
447
405
472
434
319
205
214
302
480
554
554
553
456
7836
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
-296 -300 -300
1264
34
265
411
316
475
514
666
687
645
712
674
559
445
454
542
480
554
258
253
156
9100
Figure 8: Illustrative TBC Trajectory
TBC Trajectory
Completed Sites
Sites Under Construction
Commitments
Existing Allocations
Rural Area Consented Delivery
Rural Area District Plan Potential
Tewkesbury Town Commitments and Potential
Windfall
Strategic Allocations in TBC
Urban Extensions in TBC
TBC Annual Delivery
DTC Contributions for TBC
TBC Total Delivery
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 2028- 2029- 2030- Total
238
318
280
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
923
0
0
5
219
259
145
75
127
100
100
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1053
0
0
0
0
36
162
214
175
137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
724
0
0
0
0
0
25
59
55
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
65
126
211
251
310
307
302
262
190
75
75
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2249
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
491
15
17
17
16
17
20
25
43
0
0
25
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
220
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
644
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
75
100
150
175
175
175
225
225
200
200
175
150
150
2225
0
0
0
0
0
100
380
505
555
580
655
720
725
740
635
550
400
275
175
75
7070
318
461
513
573
622
759 1151 1299 1191
991 1039 1081
986 1051
946
836
686
536
411
311 15761
0
0
0
0
0
0 -240 -240 -540 -540 -540 -540 -540 -540 -540 -300 -300
-4
0
-15 -4879
318
461
513
573
622
759
911 1059
651
451
499
541
446
511
406
536
386
532
411
296 10882
NB: Negative figures in the DTC contribution line indicate a net contribution to the “development pool” from development within the district boundary in that year.
Positive figures indicate that the authority will receive a contribution from the development pool in excess of development within the district boundary.
4.0
Development Expected in Each Area
The JCS has previously made use of sub areas to identify the likely distribution of windfall development. The sub areas are identified in Figure 9. The table shown in
Figure 10 uses the sub areas to provide an indication of the distribution of residential development anticipated over the plan period. This information updates the
distribution shown in Exam 112 in conformity with the published annual monitoring reports and provides some commentary on development concentrations.
Figure 9: JCS Sub Areas
Figure 10: Distribution of development across the JCS area
JCS Sub Area
City Plan Potential
Cheltenham Plan
Potential
Service Settlements Tewkesbury Borough
Plan
Sub Total - District
Plans
2016
to
2021
2021
to
2026
2026
to
2031
Plan
Period
Total
1134
961
75
2170
Distribution to be guided by
district plans.
172
293
148
641
Distribution to be guided by
district plans.
91
200
200
491
1397
1454
423
3302
GC
101
100
100
527
GSC
293
42
40
570
GSW
622
20
20
1913
GW
643
545
120
2184
GNE
83
65
65
321
Area E
Area F
1183
764
760
1253
235
1205
3034
3370
Development
Concentrations
Comments
Distribution to be guided by
district plans.
Major
development
forming an
urban
extension
within
Gloucester City
at Kingsway
(former RAF
Quedgely).
Canal side, St.
Oswalds and
City Centre
regenerations
schemes.
Greenfield expansion to the
city allows a mixed housing
market to be maintained in the
earlier stages of the plan
period ahead of Green Belt
release. Excellent record of
delivery in this location likely
to be sustained.
A number of higher density
schemes in this central area
are supported by the City Plan
and ensure a mixed housing
market is maintained.
Local Plan
Allocation at
the former
Brockworth
Airfield
(Coopers Edge)
and North
Brockworth
Allocation
Brownfield opportunities to
the east of Gloucester at
Brockworth have delivered
well over recent years. This is
an active market that is likely
to be able to sustain this level
of development.
Longford
development
together with
adjacent
allocations at
Innsworth and
North and
South of
Churchdown.
Development in this area is
currently led by development
at Longford, which has
delivered well over the past
year. The Innsworth portion of
this development is likely to be
more attractive to the market
as it becomes the new
urban/rural transition zone.
Development at Churchdown
is likely to take place in the mid
to latter stages of the plan
period and the attractiveness
of this area is likely to be able
to support this level of
development.
JCS Sub Area
2016
to
2021
2021
to
2026
2026
to
2031
Plan
Period
Total
CA1
220
117
35
610
CA3
286
141
55
588
CA5
725
233
205
1675
CA4
312
360
314
1250
CA2
549
330
1840
3072
Development
Concentrations
Central
Cheltenham
South
Cheltenham
Allocation
North West
Cheltenham in
Cheltenham
Borough.
North West
Cheltenham in
Tewkesbury
Borough.
Area H
1148
1400
85
2791
Area A
255
100
55
530
MOD
Ashchurch
Allocation
Area B
563
1000
900
2514
Predominantly
to the north of
Bishop Cleeve.
Area C
993
230
80
2141
Area D
282
140
5
713
Area G
112
15
15
172
10531
8305
5797
31277
Total
Comments
Considerable master planning
of this site taking into account
the needs of the new
community has enabled the
very high build rates envisaged
by the North West Cheltenham
consortium. The very strong
housing market in the area is
likely to sustain this level of
development.
Development at this location is
supported by the HCA at MoD
Ashchurch has been awarded
Housing Zone status to
expedite delivery of the site.
This is the only major
development site proposed to
deliver outside of urban
extensions during the latter
part of the plan period and is
likely to be well received as an
alternative to the urban
markets.
Delivery in this area is
particularly strong and is led by
the Homelands developments
currently under construction.
A further considerable consent
at Cleevelands may slow
delivery at Homelands into the
middle of the plan period but
the market could sustain these
substantial extensions to
Bishop’s Cleeve.
5.0
Updated Five Year Supply Calculations
Three five year supply calculations for the JCS and for each authority under two scenarios are provided
below for the period 2017/18 to 2021/22. The first calculation assumes 100% implementation of all
permissions. The second and third calculations show a 97% and 90% implementation rate respectively.
The implementation rate has been applied to all consented development where construction has not
commenced.
5.1
The first scenario shown in Figure 11 applies the NPPF buffer to the housing requirement only.
The second scenario shown in Figure 12 applies the NPPF buffer to the housing requirement and any
shortfall anticipated in meeting the housing requirement prior to 2017/18. A composite of 5% buffer for
CBC and GCC and 20% for TBC was agreed as an appropriate amalgamation of the land supply positions
for each authority during the Stage 1 hearings and these figures have been used in the calculations.
Figure 11:
Five Year Supply Calculations with NPPF Buffer applied to the housing requirement
2017/18 to 2021/22
JCS – NPPF Buffer GCC 5%, CBC 5%, TBC 20%
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
7625
NPPF
Buffer
760
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
-576
97%
7625
760
-628
9013
10467
116.1%
90%
7625
760
-750
9135
10216
111.8%
Total no.
of
dwellings
required
3043
Total no.
of
dwellings
required
8961
JCS
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
10575
Percentage of
Five Year
Requirement
Met including
NPPF Buffer
118.0%
GCC – NPPF Buffer 5%
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
2825
NPPF
Buffer
141
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
-77
97%
2825
141
-96
3062
2691
915
117.8%
90%
2825
141
-140
3106
2623
960
115.4%
Total no.
of
dwellings
required
3104
CBC
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
2184
DTC from
Urban
Extension
Development
Pool
1200
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met with
Buffer
109.0%
GCC
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
2720
DTC from
Urban
Extension
Development
Pool
900
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met
including
NPPF Buffer
119.0%
CBC – NPPF Buffer 5%
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
2275
NPPF
Buffer
114
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
-715
97%
2275
114
-729
3118
2154
1250
109.2%
90%
2275
114
-763
3152
2085
1300
107.4%
Total no.
of
dwellings
required
2814
TBC
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
5671
DTC from
Urban
Extension
Development
Pool
-2100
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met
including
NPPF Buffer
126.9%
TBC – NPPF Buffer 20%
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
2525
NPPF
Buffer
505
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
216
97%
2525
505
168
2862
5622
-2165
120.8%
90%
2525
505
57
2974
5508
-2260
109.2%
Figure 12:
Five Year Supply Calculation with NPPF buffer applied to the housing requirement and
anticipated plan period shortfalls 2017/18 to 2021/22
JCS – NPPF Buffer GCC 5%, CBC 5%, TBC 20%
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
-576
Total no. of
dwellings
required
9001
JCS
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
10575
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met
including
NPPF Buffer
117.5%
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
7625
NPPF
Buffer
OAN
&
Supply
800
97%
7625
801
-628
9054
10467
115.6%
90%
7625
805
-750
9180
10216
111.3%
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
-77
Total no.
of
dwellings
required
3047
GCC
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
2720
DTC from
Urban
Extension
Development
Pool
900
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met
including
NPPF Buffer
118.8%
GCC – 5% NPPF Buffer
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
2825
NPPF
Buffer
OAN
&
Supply
145
97%
2825
146
-96
3067
2691
915
117.6%
90%
2825
148
-140
3114
2623
960
115.1%
Total no. of
dwellings
required
3140
CBC
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
2184
DTC from
Urban
Extension
Development
Pool
1200
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met with
Buffer
107.8%
CBC – 5% NPPF Buffer
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
2275
NPPF
Buffer
150
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
-715
97%
2275
150
-729
3155
2154
1250
107.9%
90%
2275
152
-763
3190
2085
1300
106.1%
Total no. of
dwellings
required
2814
TBC
Number of
dwellings
anticipated
5671
DTC from
Urban
Extension
Development
Pool
TBC – 20% NPPF Buffer
Implementation
Rate
100%
5 Year
Requirement
2525
NPPF
Buffer
505
Under or
over
supply
from
earlier in
the plan
period
216
-2100
Percentage
of Five Year
Requirement
Met
including
NPPF Buffer
126.9%
97%
2525
505
168
2862
5622
-2165
120.8%
90%
2525
505
57
2974
5508
-2260
109.2%