The survey found that only around half of councils feel they can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply as required. While some regions had higher percentages that could demonstrate supply, the results varied significantly between regions. Those without a supply figure were taking steps like completing strategic housing market assessments and land availability assessments or revising relevant plans and policies. The vast majority of councils without a supply indicated interest in guidance on calculating, monitoring, and updating supply figures. Common requests included a uniform methodology, guidance on case law, lobbying efforts, and sharing of best practices.

1. Annual survey April 2014
“Five year land supply”
Council telephone survey
Anonymous results
May 2014 www.pas.gov.uk

2. Contents
1. Overview
2. Results
3. Implications for PAS
4. Thoughts

3. 1. Overview
• PAS usually do a survey each year. It’s
usually used to review / inform our work
programme
• Through March and April 2014 we asked
councils about their housing land supply
• Can you demonstrate 5 yrs ?
• If not, what are you doing ?
• If yes, how are you monitoring it ?

4. 1. Overview
• It matters because of para 49 of the NPPF
“Relevant policies for the supply of housing
should not be considered up-to-date if the local
planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-
year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
• This is a point being argued at application
appeals.

5. 86% of councils took part
• Only 2 authorities actively declined
• 38 no answer / away / busy
region no yes Grand Total % yes
E. England 7 48 55 87%
E. Midlands 6 28 34 82%
London 7 27 34 79%
NE England 2 11 13 85%
NW England 6 34 40 85%
SE England 7 62 69 90%
SW England 4 35 39 90%
W. Midlands 4 26 30 87%
York & Hum 4 19 23 83%
Grand Total 40 289 337 86%

6. 2. Results: Q “Do you have a land
supply ?
• Regional differences are strange
• High number of “don’t know”
region no don't know irrelevant yes imminentlyGrand Total% cover
London 2 2 23 27 85%
E. Midlands 4 3 1 19 1 28 74%
SW England 6 8 1 19 1 35 59%
SE England 18 11 1 32 62 52%
E. England 17 8 22 47 47%
York & Hum 7 3 2 7 18 44%
NW England 10 10 13 1 34 41%
W. Midlands 11 5 10 26 38%
NE England 5 2 4 11 36%
Grand Total 80 52 5 149 3 289 54%

7. “Do you have a land supply ?”
• “Yes”
– Although some mentioned being worried
• “No”
– Mostly working on it
• “Don’t know”
– Includes work on out of date figures / method / absorbing
the implications of national & local decisions / awaiting
inspectorate decision
• “Imminently”
– Following plan publication etc
• “Irrelevant”
– : national parks believe they don’t need one

8. What are you doing to establish a
supply figure ?
• For the “no” and “don’t know” groups
• Lots of SHLAA
• Not much Duty.
No Yes as %
SHMA 42 99 70%
SHLAA 20 121 86%
Housing projections with neighbours 65 76 54%
creating / revising plan policies 35 106 75%
creating / revising allocations 27 114 81%

9. 3. Can we help ?
• 70% interest !
no thanks 79 28%
already had 21 8%
yes please 177 63%

10. 3. What can we do ?
• Overwhelming need for
method / guidance
• “a uniform method for
calculating, monitoring
and updating”
• Case law and appeals
not settled down yet
• Most common “asks”
follow
method 105
case law / appeals / decisions 13
lobby 12
critical friend 11
best practice 10
councillors 5
Duty 5
networking 5
housing strategy 3
London 3
community engagement 2
Low growth 1
permitted dev 1
viability 1

11. 3.1 Method
• Liverpool vs Sedgefield
• Common methodology
– Backlogs, buffers, targets
– Shortfalls, plan periods, phasing
– Deliverability
– C2, windfalls,
• Consistency
– Councils, inspectors, developers
• Timing

12. 3.2 Case law, appeals, decisions
• Emerging case law and the NPPG
• The inspectorates approach
– “A central resource cataloguing appeal decisions
with regard to land supply so authorities can see
how inspectors are thinking”
• How to defend a position with regard to land
supply

13. 3.3 lobby
• “A new way of looking at housing”
• Government is making planning more
complicated (duty)
• The policy is delivering perverse results
• Needs a national, not just local, response
– Housing policy
– Investment in housebuilding
– Building rates (not land supply)

14. 3.4 Critical friend
• Mixed bag.
– Review SHLAA
– Talk to councillors
– Monitoring
– Time and weight
– Detailed and specific, not general training

15. 3.5 Best practise
• Similar to the requests made in 3.1 method –
the distinction is probably just a learning style
• Note some councils are offering their
experience

16. 4. Thoughts
• We asked a simple question, but this is not a
simple issue
– The regional results are strange. Is the North East
figure low because it is not a priority ?
• Only about half of councils feel “safe”
• A surprisingly high number don’t know

17. 4. Thoughts
• The comments make clear the range of
knowledge and comfort amongst planners
– A small minority understand the issue completely
– A large minority have not been able to keep up
and just don’t get “objectively assessed need”
– It may be a size / resource issue. 22% of districts
just don’t know, compared to 12% of Unitaries.

18. 4. Thoughts
• Overwhelming need is for a commonly
accepted method:
– Establishing requirement
– Evidence
• Deliverability. Viability.
– Monitoring and the market
• Some feel frustrated that the policy is badly
framed and won’t deliver houses in the best
places

19. end
• The survey was done in confidence (sorry)