Appraisal of Stirling’s HNDANote of Meeting between Stirling Council and CHMAWednesday 8 June 2011In Attendance:Tony Cain (Stirling Council - Housing)Steve Mason (Stirling Council - Housing)Claire Milne (Stirling Council - Planning)Donna Milton (Arneil Johnston)Joyce Logan (Scottish Government)Andy Park (CHMA)Charles Brown (CHMA)1. Taking minutesIt was agreed that Steve would take a minute of the meeting which would be agreedwith CHMA and distributed to partners along with the AppraisalActionSMCB2. HNDA, LHS & LDP : Timescales, deadlines & resourcesAndy made clear that the HNDA had advanced greatly since the last meeting and thatit was not far from being robust and credible. The recommendations were essentiallyones of detail that would assist in making the document more readable andunderstandable.Steve underlined the tight timescale to which the Council was working to ie LDP toCouncil in October and LHS in December. Both documents required the HNDA to beviewed as robust and credible. The tight timescales limited the amount of additionaltime that could be devoted to the HNDA.3. ReferencingIt was agreed that where additional referencing was suggested, this could be achievedby referring to documents that were on the Council website4. Cut off point for changing legislation & guidanceIt was acknowledged that it was appropriate to set a cut off date after which futuredrafts of the HNDA could not be expected to reflect subsequent changes in legislation& guidance. December 2010 or March 2011 when the HNDA was submitted are tworeasonable options.5. Review of RecommendationsRecommendation 1 : More recent data are available for some of the moreimportant analyses, for example house prices, and these should be updatedwhere resources permit.Agreement : These will be updated where the resources permit. CHMA wouldforward data to Steve.Recommendation 2 : The full methodology for the household projectionsshould be reported. This should draw the reason why the v1 projection was feltto be the most realistic. Full details of the methodology - including any
limitations - used to combine income data from six council surveys should beincluded in the HNDA. The assumptions and methodology underlying how theaffordable need figures have been projected forward should be reported in full.Full details of the containment and travel-to-work analysis should be includedin the report (perhaps as an annex). The triangulation report is useful and animportant methodological document. It should be included as an additionalannex in the report.Agreement : Where these sources are not fully referenced that will be put right.The main sources will be made available on the council website. Somemethodology will be written up in more detail.Recommendation 3 : The in-house household projections produce net counts ofnewly-forming households. A gross count of newly-forming households wasproduced by an external contractor in 2007. The decision to use the grosscount as the principle figure is robust. However, the decision to use one of thenet counts (to produce a range of figures for newly-forming households) cannotbe considered robust because net measures represent an undercount of newlyforminghouseholds. The use of the net figure should be re-visited.Consideration should be given to converting it to a gross figure, if possible, orremoving it from the HNDA. The CHMA can advise more fully on this issue.Agreement :Following discussion and further explanation, it was agreed that whenused as the lower end of a range, the net figure would be acceptable.Recommendation 4 : Two models are used to calculate the level of affordablehousing need, a Stirling-wide model and Stirling sub-area model. The latter ismore accurate and reliable because it is based on more data points. To avoidconfusion over the future use and interpretation of the results, considerationsshould be given to using the Stirling sub-area results on their own anddispensing with the Stirling-wide results.Agreement : It was agreed that the use of both models was confusing and that theStirling sub-area model would be used in preference. The reasoning behind thiswould be explained.Recommendation 5 : In chapters ten and eleven, there are a number of dataanomalies in the tables and corresponding text. In some cases figurescalculated using the tabulated data don’t agree with the text. In other casestables rows do not sum to total. Given this, a full manual check of the tablesand corresponding text should be undertaken. In a small number of cases thereis a lack of consistency between the figures reported in chapters ten andeleven, in particular where the figures relate to the flip-sides of the calculationi.e. affordable-market housing. Both chapters should be cross-checked for thesecases to ensure internal consistency.Agreement : These anomalies are acknowledged and will be sorted out.Recommendation 6 : Details of the HMP discussions should be included as anAnnex to add transparency here, for example minutes of meetings etc.Agreement : The minutes of the discussions will be made available on the councilwebsite.Recommendation 7 : The HNDA should include a fairly substantial statementabout what quality control mechanisms were put in place to ensure that thefinal housing need and demand estimates are fully accurate. As the HNDAcurrently stands, this is not clear.Agreement : This will be included
Recommendation 8 : Given that new equality duties come into force in April2011 it would be appropriate for the HNDA to contain a statement that makesreference to all equalities groups covered under the new legislation, includinghow the council proposes to assess and monitor specific housing needs in thiscontext.Agreement : A statement will be included making reference to all equalitiesgroups covered under the new legislation. Future iterations of the HNDA willdescribe how the council will assess and monitor specific housing needs in thiscontext.Recommendation 9 : Thought should be given to re-working the analysiscontained in chapter 11 based on values at the lower, median and upperquartile thresholds.Agreement : A number of tables and any relevant text will be relabelled to avoidany confusion.Recommendation 10 : In terms of the involvement of stakeholders, wherethere has been representation from a stakeholder expressing concerns with thedraft, the Council should respond and document this response as part of theHNDA. If specific assumptions or methodological approaches have been raised,the Council should either provide additional clarity or if it chooses, amend theassumptions used.Agreement :The response from Homes for Scotland and the replies from both theCouncil and CHMA will be referred to in the text and made available on theCouncil website.6. Timescales for achieving Robust & CredibleSteve hoped to be able to resubmit the HNDA by the end of the month. Holidaycommitments willing, CHMA should be able to review the changes relatively quickly.7. Drafting the LHSSetting housing supply targets : There was general discussion about setting housingsupply targets and the need to make clear about the assumptions that are made andthe reasons why. Housing Market interventions are important as are politicalconsiderations and the ability of the council/ RSLs and developers to meet the targetsset.Timescales for housing supply targets – The LHS is for 5 years but the guidance suggestslooking at 15 years to fit in with the LDP but the LDP is for 20 years. It was agreed thatanything beyond the 10 years of the HNDA could be extrapolated from data whichformed part of the HNDA calculations.Affordable targets : It was acknowledged that if the HNDA targets for affordablehousing were unachievable, ‘affordable’ types of market housing could not fill the gap.This is because in the HNDA calculation the need for affordable housing is for thosewho cannot afford market housing even in the lower quartile.