Minutes:
76.1 Christine Thurlow, Professional Lead - Key Sites and Infrastructure introduce the report and explained that the Housing Deliver Test Action Plan had been an introduced by Government, as detailed in the introduction of the report. Both Councils were to review the Action Plans in early 2020, however due to the Covid-19 Pandemic lockdown period this had been delayed.
76.2 She drew Members attention to paragraph 4.21 to 4.23, which detailed the key facts for the report.
76.3 Councillor Ekpenyong referred to paragraph 4.21 and asked what the relationship between the outstanding planning permissions, the deliverable site and the figure in the list were.
76.4 Robert Hobbs, the Corporate Manager - Strategic Planning, explained that for the purpose of the Five-year Housing Land Supply, sites had to be deliverable for development within five years. Planning permission, which were outstanding would not necessarily be completed within five years, as this depended the developers.
76.5 Councillor Carter referred to section 3 in the report and asked if the themes were in order of priority. He then referred to section 11 and asked at what point would the environmental impact assessment be undertaken.
76.6 The Assistant Director - Sustainable Communities, responded that the themes were not in any order and were all equally important and that section 11 applied solely for the implication of the delivery of this report rather the wider housing issues.
76.7 Councillor McCraw queried if the evidence base used to produce the figures in the report and appendices were also the figures used to respond to Government consultations and if these figures were still applicable.
76.8 The Corporate Manager for Strategic Planning responded that the figures used as evidence was validated and would not be discarded.
76.9 Councillor Scarff referred to page 55 -56, Appendix A and that due to the Covid-19 Lockdown, it had not been possible to conduct an effective engagement with stakeholders. He thought that a better engagement process was needed and asked when these would now take place.
76.10 The Professional Lead - Key Sties and Infrastructure responded that engagement with lead stakeholders would take place in January 2021 before the new Housing Test figures were issued.
76.11 In response to Councillor Grandon’s questions, the Assistant Director - Sustainable Communities explained that engagement with the housing industry was ongoing on a permanent basis and that many developers preferred virtual meetings. This had been apparent during the past few months.
76.12 Councillor Welham queried how completion figures were recorded when they were either below or above the year on year target figures. He asked with regards to market requirements in the Districts what the Council could do to ensure that smaller houses and bungalow were built.
76.13 The Corporate Manager - Strategic Planning, explained that the figures for completions include a caveat to excluded non completed sites for the target figures and that the Hosing Delivery Test were recorded over a three-year period.
76.14 The Corporate Manager – Housing Solutions explained that it was a matter of negotiating with developers with regards to bungalows, but that developers were reluctant to included them. The Suffolk Housing Board were in the process of developing a strategy based on needs and availability for the elderly, to understand future development requirements.
76.15 In response to Councillor Ekpenyong’s comments, the Assistant Director – Sustainable Communities, responded that there were other options for the Councils to develop accommodation for elderly people, such as multi tenancy options.
76.16 Members debated the issues, including:
· That it was not just the elderly, who wished to live in bungalows, but that the cost of bungalows often made a less attractive options for families.
· That the new planning regulations announcements from Central Government were out for consultation between the 1st and 20th of October 2020.
· That the report did not include, how the Councils dealt with stalled development sites.
· That Appendix F and G detailed the ‘Unblocking Stalled Site’ project
· That there were several reasons for why sites may not come forward for planning permissions. However, if a developer decided not to bring a site forward then there was little the Council could do.
· That it was difficult to find buyers for affordable housing development sites.
76.17 Councillor Scarff commended the officers on the report and thought that progress had been made. Developers had their reasons for not bringing sites forward to be developed, often to avoid flooding the market with too many houses of the same kind. The White Paper would not be able to prevent this. He though that there were quite a few planning applications brought to the planning committees, which would help the Housing Delivery Test during the next three years.
76.18 Councillor McCraw referred to the Babergh Housing Delivery Test Action Plan, page 60, which was similar for Mid Suffolk. There was a clear structure of the analysis conducted, and that the action plan was well constructed. He thought that it would be difficult for the Committee to make any recommendations. The White Paper still required primary legislation, and this was a transitional period. There were serious issues still be addressed, which Central Government was addressing. He was satisfied that the figures and methodology were robust, and commended officers on the work undertaken.
76.19 Councillor Carter stated that more bungalows were required for adaption for the disabled. He then referred to the environmental impact assessment for development in relations to the use of cars and whether the Council would be able to produce a report on the subject.
76.20 The Chair reminded Members that the Housing Delivery Test Action Plan was not a vehicle for an environmental impact assessment, and that this was question for planning developments and the Joint Local Plan.
76.21 Councillor Muller proposed recommendation 3.1 and 3.2 in the report.
76.22 The Chair suggested that recommendation 3.1 be amended to:
That the contents of this report and appendices together with verbal contributions at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be noted and taken forward as part of the HDT Action Plan review (for both Councils) so that new HDTAPs produced for 2021 are informed In part by this scrutiny process.
76.23 Councillor Muller accepted the proposed amendment.
76.24 Councillor McCraw seconded the amended recommendations.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the contents of this report and appendices together with verbal contributions at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be noted and taken forward as part of the HDT Action Plan review (for both Councils) so that new HDTAPs produced for 2021 are informed in part by this scrutiny process.
Supporting documents: