Agenda item

To provide a more in depth analysis of the overall performance status for the basket of measures used at corporate level to monitor progress of the delivery of Council Strategy Priority 3 – ‘Enable the completion of more affordable housing’.

(Councillor Lee Dillon declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that he was an employee of Sovereign Housing. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate).

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11 by virtue of the fact that she was an employee of a property developer. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she was permitted to take part in the debate).

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning an in-depth analysis of the overall performance status for the basket of measures used to monitor the progress of delivery of the Council Strategy Priority 3 - Enable More Affordable Housing.

Catalin Bogos introduced the report to Members and explained that the information contained in the report presented a detailed analysis of the performance as at Quarter three. Members heard that the Strategy Board had also considered the priority to identify opportunities to deliver more affordable housing.  It was stated that the measure asked the service to investigate ways to deliver more affordable housing and Officers were present at the meeting to provide context around this target.

Andy Day advised that the Council was seeking to create capacity through volunteers within the Council to facilitate ways to move projects forward – from this the Collaborative Architects were formed. Councillor Hilary Cole advised that the volunteers received training from an external consultant who demonstrated the various skills required to drive, challenge and invigorate an effective review.

Paul Hendry (Collaborative Architect) explained that their role was to act as a catalyst for change. They facilitated a meeting between the subject matter experts (internal and external contacts) to dissect the subject and develop ideas. He advised that the first question the group considered was ‘the definition of Affordable Housing’. Members heard that the group agreed that affordable housing incorporated more than social housing and a broader definition was necessary in order to alleviate the pressure on current housing demands.

Mike Scapello (Collaborative Architect) advised that the meetings were attended by housing associations, Newbury Building Society, builders, Members, planning consultants and representatives from the Homes and Communities agency (HCA).

Paul Hendry explained that in discussing the current and future demands for affordable housing the group considered four keys key areas:

·         Increase housing density: Promote the change of use of agricultural land for affordable housing (AH) only.

·         Rural Housing Development Programme: Increase the density of developments to deliver more affordable housing and change the perception within the market place in West Berkshire, by identifying successful projects elsewhere to be used examples.

·         Incentives for affordable housing:A range of incentives (non financial) will deliver sites with a higher proportion of affordable housing than otherwise would be delivered.

·         Proactive Land Assembly Now Team: Create a team to re-assess sites that ‘missed the short list’ with the aim of securing more affordable housing through the release of this land.

The group proposed a set of recommendations based around the four key areas which would be presented to the Strategy Board for consideration.

Councillor Cole expressed her appreciation for the support and hard work of the Collaborative Architects associated with the first project since the scheme had been introduced.

In response to points raised by the Commission, Mel Brain explained that government policy was due to change and it was expected that the changes would detail how the government would help local councils and developers work with local communities to plan and build more affordable housing. She explained that the type of affordable housing provided by a development was assessed on a case-by-case basis but often the assessment would consider current provisions and local need. Mel Brain advised that the demand for 1 and 2 bedroom properties had increased since the Bedroom Welfare Reform Act was introduced. Furthermore, the demand for rented social housing was highest as these properties often offered accommodation for homeless people – that the Council had a legal duty to house.

Councilor Rick Jones asked whether there was sufficient confidence that the solutions offered sensible answers to problems which, he considered, might not have been defined. Paul Hendry stated that the discussions prompted suitable solutions but more detail was required before they could be pursued.

Councillor Johnston asked how it could be considered reasonable to suggest that ‘household affordable’ could be defined as: accommodation which is available at a price or rent which is not more than 30% of a household’s net income. He suggested that the definition failed to consider fluctuations in household earnings and financial changes within the District. Mel Brain advised that the percentage was used as a benchmark

Members heard that the project was in its early stages and as part of the process the suggestions developed by the group would be presented to the Strategy Board for further consideration and potential policy changes. 

Councillor Webster stated that the topic was very important and acknowledged that valuable work was underway to understand the current and future challenges.  She asked whether an annual target would be submitted in order to track the number of houses delivered against the Council Priority. June Graves advised that they did not plan to provide a target because it was considered that the Local Authority was an enabler and was not in the position to directly influence the delivery of affordable housing. Councillor Webster challenged this response and advised that numerous targets were monitored although they were considered outside the direct control of the Council. Mel Brain accepted the comments from Councillor Webster but insisted that the affordable housing target was very different and it relied heavily on the commercial market to drive delivery. Gary Lugg advised that the process for delivering properties could take many years and for this reason it may appear that the target has been missed until much further down the line. He suggested that monitoring the target on a regular basis could be misleading.

Members discussed the obstacles in place which limited the number of affordable housing units that might be included within a new development scheme. It was noted that a the Viability Assessment was a key factor in agreeing the percentage of affordable units – often the number was reduced in order to improve the financial viability of a scheme. Members suggested that it would be beneficial if all viability assessments were publicly available. Gary Lugg advised that the service had sought legal advice in respect of publishing such documentation.

Councillor Clive Hooker asked what plans the Council had to use agricultural land as a space for development and what impact they might have on the Development Plan Document (DPD). Councillor Cole advised that affordable housing could be delivered outside settlement boundaries due as rural exceptions and that this had been documented within the DPD. Councillor Anthony Chadley suggested that there was a lot of work to do in order to address the stigma attached to the term ‘affordable housing’. He considered that communities should be encouraged to embrace the development of affordable housing in their area.

Councillor Jones asked whether the Commission could reassess the target in due course. Andy Day advised that the Strategy Board would consider the recommendations in May 2016 and a degree of work will be required to understand the level of resources required to deliver the suggested actions. Members were invited to reconsider the item in September 2016 in light of the longer term target to deliver 1000 homes by 2020.

Resolved that:

1.    The topic would be scheduled for discussion again in September 2016.

2.    The report be noted.