To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Enable more affordable housing completions

To review this ‘red’ performance area to ensure that appropriate remedial action is in place (recommended by the Executive – Q4 2016/17).

Minutes:

Gary Lugg advised that a target had been set to deliver 1000 units between 2015 and 2020 – a key priority set by the Conservative Group notwithstanding the fact that this was recognised as an ambitious target.

Members were provided with an additional paper at the meeting which outlined the most up-to-date position against the affordable housing target. Members considered the following table:

Year

Net housing completions

Of which affordable[1]

2016/17

485

83

2015/16

625

158

2014/15

496

-15

2013/14

457

146

2012/13

552

182

 

 

 

Total

2215

 554

 

Members heard that the negative figure reported in 2014/2015 related to the demolition of a housing scheme and reflected the fact that replacement units did make up the full number lost. Bryan Lyttle explained that the target focused on delivery from 2015 to 2020 only and that in this period there had been 241 units introduced in West Berkshire - a shortfall of 759 units against the overall target of 1000.

Local authorities were required to demonstrate that they had a 5 year land supply for housing development in accordance with paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, there was a specific focus on the 3 year availability in respect of this target deadline. The forecasted delivery of affordable housing in the 3 year period was 444 units which resulted in an overall shortfall of 315 units against the target. However, there was a possibility that some of the 5 year forecasted units could be delivered sooner – noting that the Racecourse had outstanding permission to deliver a further 300 affordable housing units which they might choose to deliver sooner than currently planned.

Members were advised that windfall sites become available for development unexpectedly and were therefore not included as allocated land in a Council's development plan. However, where there were plans to deliver 5+ units then there would be opportunities to discuss affordable housing provision.

Gary Lugg advised that influencing the rate of delivery was challenging and that the service continued to liaise with developers to move work forward which, in turn, helped towards addressing the issue of  ‘land banking’.

Planning Officers had encountered issues around viability assessments which challenged the number of affordable housing units delivered in a scheme. Gary Lugg advised Members that Central Government were considering a national approach to the issue.

Councillor Ian Morrin asked whether there were other obstacles affecting the delivery of affordable housing units. Gary Lugg advised that the economic downturn had impacted the building sector significantly. Similarly, the costs of raw materials had increased combined with a shortage of skilled workers in/around the local area (due to financial incentives elsewhere). There were also concerns regarding the outturn from BREXIT negotiations.

Councillor Morrin asked whether the Planning Service made enquiries with developers to understand anticipated delivery. Bryan Lyttle advised that the service reviewed this information regularly and that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) meant that they were notified when work commenced on site.

In response to questions asked by the Commission, Gary Lugg advised that he would not expect the forecasted number of units to change (due to viability challenges for example) down the line. He stated that the report referred to units on Greenfield land which did not present the same issue around viability compared to Brownfield land. Bryan Lyttle added that affordable housing numbers for the next 3 years related to sites which had already received planning permission or were identified as part of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (HSA DPD).

Councillor Marigold Jaques asked whether the Council could do anything to overcome the challenges faced by viability challenges. Gary Lugg advised that the Government was considering policy changes but that the Planning Service allocated applications once viability had been confirmed. Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked how many, potential, affordable housing units had been lost as a result of viability challenges. Gary Lugg advised that he did not know the exact number but that these were recorded in the annual report for 2016/17 which he would circulate to the Commission. Updated figures would also be available in December 2017. Gary Lugg also made the point that there had been a recent reduction in the number of viability concerns being raised.

Councillor Richard Somner asked for the definition of ‘affordable housing’. He was acutely aware that some properties, labelled as ‘affordable housing’, were unobtainable for many and he wanted to know what could be done to address the divide.

(Bryan Lyttle provided the following definition after the meeting)

Affordable Housing is defined in the NPPF as:

Affordable housing is social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in Section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.

Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.

Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as ‘low cost market’ housing may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.

The Council uses the above definition of affordable housing and defines the term affordable as accommodation which is available at a price or rent which is not more than 30% of a household’s net income.

Affordable housing is normally and preferably provided on-site and through Housing Associations (Registered Providers; RP). Affordable housing can sometimes be provided on sites owned by the Housing Associations, but more often the provision comes through obligations placed on developments by the planning system.

Councillor Emma Webster highlighted that the Council allowed 3 years for developments to commence but she was aware that other local authorities had introduced a 2 year deadline. Gary Lugg advised that they reduced the deadline from 5 year to 3 years in line with Government advice but that the Planning Service had not reviewed the deadline since then. Gary Lugg advised that there could be some benefits in reviewing the deadline although delayed development was not a common issue in West Berkshire – these cases tended to be by exception only.

Councillor Lee Dillon requested that the affordable housing allocations statistics were listed according to the area across West Berkshire therefore, providing opportunities to identify gaps and need. 

Councillor Hilary Cole concluded that the service was acutely aware of the ambitious target they had to meet but that they worked tirelessly to drive forward and overcome obstacles which threatened delivery of much needed housing provision for residents. In her opinion, the Council would be in a better position to meet the target if it had access to its own land supply – but this was a separate matter to consider.

Resolved that:

1)    Gary Lugg  circulate the 2016 number of proposed Affordable Housing units which have not been delivered due to viability challenge. Updated figures would also be available in December 2017.

2)    Gary Lugg to request feedback from the Developers Industry Forum in terms of amending the development deadline from 3 to 2 years.

3)    Bryan Lyttle update the affordable housing statistics to reflect the areas in which they had been allocated.