Agenda item

Report of the Interim Strategic Director of Place

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members, highlighting the proposed standard methodology for establishing housing requirements at section 2 of the report which was suggested to come into effect from March 2018.  He explained that a higher figure than that arrived at through the standard methodology and formula could be planned for where there was to be a significant increase in economic growth.  He outlined the implications for the Local Plan, specifically for the review. He added however that there remained a number of uncertain areas and further detail was awaited.

Some members felt that the report could have been better presented, however they acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the lack of clarity from the government. 

In response to a question from Councillor J Legrys, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised that the consultation closed on 9 November, and a response would be put forward taking into consideration the comments made by the Local Plan Advisory Committee and agreed by the Regeneration and Planning Portfolio Holder. 

Councillor R Johnson referred to section 5.1 of the report and commented that the council had its own policies for affordable housing which never seemed to be enacted.  He stated that the Housing White Paper had never been laid before parliament and until this happened, he felt the tail was wagging the dog.  He stated that he was not happy with the proposals set out in the report. 

Councillor M Specht expressed concerns regarding two of the themes in the Housing White Paper, planning for homes in the right place and building homes faster.  He commented on the lack of qualified construction workers and the shortage of materials in certain segments of the construction industry.

Councillor T J Pendleton commented that housing policy was led by the private sector and market forces, and the market dictated whether a development was affordable. He made reference to paragraph 5.1 of the report and the infrastructure issues.

Following comments from Councillor V Richichi in respect of the consistency of approach in respect of the viability of developments, the officers agreed to provide an update to the committee members with the latest figures on affordable housing delivery. 

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised members that the Local Plan viability assessment considered in principle costs and did not consider viability for every individual site allocated in the plan.  He added that this was very different to when a planning application was submitted, where a site specific viability assessment was undertaken and any other local policies in place were taken into consideration.  Central government policy also dictated that the return for the landowner must be competitive enough in order for the landowner to be a willing seller, and the developer must have a reasonable profit of around 20%.  If there were no funds remaining for Section 106 contributions for infrastructure or affordable housing, a viability assessment would demonstrate that. 

In response to a question from Councillor J Legrys, the Planning Policy Team Manager advised that the standardisation figure would apply to England. 

Councillor M Specht reiterated that he felt that the consultation was premature in the absence of statute.  

Councillor J Legrys agreed that the consultation was premature and he made reference to concerns raised by Leicestershire County Council in respect of infrastructure.  He hoped that the work in co-operation with other east midlands councils would include Leicestershire County Council as they had a greater need for consideration on this issue in some respects.  He commented that the demand for economic growth would be along the A52 and A50 corridors in the northern parishes and could see developers pushing for higher economic growth against the will of communities. 

Councillor V Richichi felt that members should be brave enough to do what they felt was right and proper for the district and not just acquiesce to the demands of developers.

The Planning Policy Team Manager clarified that paragraph 5.1 of the report should be seen in the context of site specific viability assessments.  He added that viability requirements would still be in place and there was obviously a gap between needs and viability

Councillor T J Pendleton reminded members that control could only be exercised by having a local plan in place and he thanked the Advisory Committee for helping this process.  He made reference to the work being done by Leicestershire County Council as a stakeholder in MAG to ensure that infrastructure requirements were understood and co-ordinated. 

RESOLVED THAT:

a)    The proposals put forward by government be noted.

b)    The potential impact upon the preparation of Local Plans be noted.

c)    The comments of the Local Plan Advisory Committee be noted.