Agenda item

Purpose: To examine the process for delivering affordable housing within new developments.

(Councillors Sheila Ellison and David Goff joined the meeting at 18:45)

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 10) concerning the process for delivering affordable housing within new developments.

Councillor Brian Bedwell introduced the item to the Commission and reminded Members that the topic was agreed following a Call-In which sought to focus on the processes for delivering affordable housing in the District.

Gary Lugg advised the Committee that the planning policies and processes covered a broad area supported by the Council Housing Strategy 2010-15 which set out the Housing Vision and key Housing aims.

One of the key actions set out within the Council Housing Strategy was to increase the supply of affordable housing through the adoption and implementation of a Local Development Framework Core Strategy. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), introduced in March 2012, provided the Local Planning Authority (LPA) with the framework required to determine planning applications. Furthermore, the NPPF provided the definition of ‘affordable housing’ and ‘viability’.

The NPPF required LPAs to develop an evidence base to ensure the delivery of full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.

Gary Lugg advised that the NPPF specified the policy for meeting the affordable housing need on a development site. However, consideration would be given to off-site provisions or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value if reasonably justified.

The NPPF stated that to ensure viability and deliverability “the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened.  To ensure viability, the cost of any requirement likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal costs of development and mitigation, should provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable”. In addition, where obligations are being sought, local planning authorities should be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being delayed.

Gary Lugg advised the Commission that the Government further relaxed the rules on the provision of affordable housing in the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013. Section 7 of the Act related to the “Modification or discharge of affordable housing requirements” which allowed a developer to appeal directly to the planning inspectorate to remove the requirement for affordable housing or reduce the level of affordable housing.

The Council’s Core Strategy was developed in line withnational planning policy and contained the local policy on affordable housing (CS6).  The Inspector made a number of changes to the wording of the Council policy following a public examination.  Overall, the West Berkshire Core Strategy Policy was, at the time, groundbreaking due to the number of development sites which it specified would require an affordable housing contribution (The national standard was 15 units and West Berkshire set 5 units or more).

Gary Lugg provided Members with the content of Core Strategy Policy 6:

“Provision of Affordable Housing:In order to address the need for affordable housing in West Berkshire a proportion of affordable homes will be sought from residential development. The Council’s priority and starting expectation will be for affordable housing to be provided on-site in line with Government policy (48).

Subject to the economics of provision, the following levels of affordable housing provision would be sought by negotiation:-

·                     On development sites of 15 dwellings or more (or 0.5 hectares or more) 30% provision will be sought on previously developed land, and 40% on greenfield land;

·         On development sites of less than 15 dwellings a sliding scale approach would be used to calculate affordable housing provision, as follows:-

o   30% provision on sites of 10 – 14 dwellings; and

o   20% provision on sites of 5 – 9 dwellings.

Proposed provision below the levels set out above should be fully justified by the applicant through clear evidence set out in a viability assessment (using an agreed toolkit) which would be used to help inform the negotiated process.

In determining residential applications the Council would assess the site size, suitability, and type of units to be delivered. The affordable units will be appropriately integrated within the development.”

Gary Lugg provided Members with information regarding the Development Control processes. He advised that the pre-application stage involved confidential discussions between the developer and the Council. The discussions were site specific and largely focused on policy requirements and processes.

Upon receipt of the application the LPA consulted the Housing Service and the assigned Planning Case Officer assessed the proposal against national and local policies. Consideration was given to other material considerations which included viability. If a Viability Assessment was required then independent consultants would be appointed on behalf of the developer and the Council.

Following receipt of consultation responses the Planning Case Officer would consider the application and whether it was appropriate to request a re-consultation with the Housing Service.  Gary Lugg advised the Commission that the LPA would consider the application for approval or refusal and determine the recommendation either under delegated authority or through the appropriate area Planning Committee.

 The final stage of the planning process could involve the application being considered at appeal or the Council using Enforcement Powers to enforce against non compliance with a legal agreement (although it was unusual to use such powers for affordable housing).

Councillor Brain Bedwell stated that West Berkshire clearly had a need to deliver a percentage of Affordable Housing for residents. He asked how the Council managed the demand to deliver affordable housing set by the Core Strategy target. June Graves advised that the Council sought to deliver a percentage of affordable housing within each new development (as set out within CS6) but it also strived to achieve as many affordable housing units above the CS6 target. In contrast, if the viability assessment provided a justifiable case for a reduced number of affordable housing units then it would be possible that the target would not be achieved.

Councillor Mike Johnson asked how the section 106 contributions were assessed and allocated and whether it was possible to adjust the allocation towards affordable housing in order to manage the impact upon other services. Gary Lugg advised that Section 106 contributions mitigated pressures exerted on local services through the development of additional dwellings. The level of affordable housing contribution, committed through the Section 106 agreement, was flexible and national guidance provided advice on how Local Authorities could work towards achieving the set target. Councillor Mike Johnson suggested that, through the Viability assessment, affordable housing contributions could be considered secondary to the other elements of a Section 106 agreement. Gary Lugg acknowledged Councillor Johnson’s comment and advised that in some instances affordable housing contributions could be relaxed in order to proceed with a viable development plan.

Councillor Jeff Brooks asked what the current level of demand for affordable housing was within West Berkshire. Furthermore, he emphasised that the Council strived to deliver 30% of affordable housing but it was not known whether the target was feasible and necessary. Officers advised that it was difficult to quantify the exact level of demand. The Council strived to meet the target but each development was considered individually to assess viability. Gary Lugg advised that Officers worked closely with developers to shape the delivery of affordable housing from the offset.

Councillor Quentin Webb acknowledged that the Commission had been requested to consider the planning process rather than the policies therefore, he asked Officers whether they felt the process could be improved. Gary Lugg suggested that there was a perception that processes were ineffective or required improving. The process for negotiating Section 106 contributions, including affordable housing, was challenging but in most cases worked well.

The Commission acknowledged that a large proportion of Section 106 negotiations related to the level of affordable housing contributions. It was agreed that Members could benefit from understanding the Viability Assessment process and how decisions were made. Councillor Hilary Cole advised that a presentation had been organised for Members in November 2014.

Resolved that

1.    That the report on affordable housing be noted.

2.    That Councilors’ Bedwell, Brooks and David Lowe meet with the Chief Executive to discuss the affordable housing lessons learnt from the Parkway development.