Agenda item
Affordable Housing update July 2015
The report provides an update on affordable housing issues as it relates to the Planning process. It seeks to set out to the Planning Committee that the concerns that Committee have raised during the determination of applications within the last year are being addressed by officers.
Minutes:
The Committee considered a report which provided an update on affordable housing issues in relation to the Planning process and set out how officers addressed the concerns raised by the Committee within the last year. Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) in giving a strategic overview of the report stated that Brent’s Core Strategy Policy CP2 to achieve 50% of new homes as affordable was still a target. He continued that subsequent higher level policy that had been published reflected the need to take account of development viability when determining the amount of affordable homes considered reasonable for a site to deliver.
Members heard that the adoption by the Council of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had reduced the element of discretion that the Council had in relation to infrastructure matters that previously would have been obtained via S.106 obligations. It was noted that Brent’s performance in delivering affordable housing had been good and in the period 2008-2014, delivered 3446 starts (the 6th highest in London) and 3091 completions (the 8th highest in London), against a background of significant reductions in Central Government and London Mayor funding.
The Head of Planning informed members that the Council (Planning and Housing joint procurement) was in the process of commissioning Strategic Housing Market Assessments (“SHMA”) which was expected to be concluded by the end of 2015. This should assist in negotiating both affordable and market housing mixes within development proposals. Without seeking to pre-judge its outcomes, the Council's target of 50% affordable housing in new developments would be retained with a 70/30 social or affordable rent / intermediate split rather than the Mayor's 60/40 split. It was also likely to show a large increase in the need for intermediate products. As a result of price rises in the borough households with incomes between £58,000 and £73,000 would be considered appropriate for 25% shared ownership properties.
With regards viability assessments, the Chair circulated a draft SPG from Islington Council and suggested the officers consider something similar for Brent. Stephen Weeks explained that much of the Islington Policy was lifted from the London Plan, and thus repeated existing policy. Brent Council could produce a shorter version but that would take some time and it was important that guidance should be available to developers sooner. He recommended that Brent issue a position statement/guidance that sought to ensure that as much of the information contained in viability assessments can be viewed by the public. Where the developer was adamant that commercially sensitive information which they did not want to disclose, the Council would require a document that provided as much information as possible in the public domain with an easy to understand executive summary.
The Committee was informed that officers had also been working with other London boroughs on a ‘London Borough Development Viability Protocol’ which would provide greater clarity around the variables within viability assessments, such as benchmark land values and levels of developer profit.
In welcoming the proposals, members emphasised that they would resist applications for separate entrances (“poor doors”) on housing developments. Stephen Weeks explained that Brent requires entrances to look the same from the outside although they might be different once you stepped inside (‘tenure blind’). Private tenants would have services, such as concierge, but Registered Housing Providers had stated social tenants would not be able to afford the same facilities due to the service charges involved. Members requested the position statement be circulated to all members of the Committee including alternate members.
Finally the Chair asked the officers to look into whether the Mayoral Concordat – which would require developers to first market their properties to Londoners rather than abroad – could be considered for future Brent developments as a planning condition or legal obligation.
RESOLVED:
(i) that it be agreed that the publication on the website of a position statement requiring affordable housing viability assessments be provided in a form that is open to member and public scrutiny as much as possible, including an easily understandable executive summary and a wider commitment to a more comprehensible housing related advice;
(ii) that closer work with London Boroughs on an affordable housing protocol and joint procurement of a consultants’ panel be agreed in principle.
Supporting documents: