Agenda item

The report outlines some of the potential implications of the proposed changes and seeks to agree the Council’s response to the consultation.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management referred to an 8 weeks consultation document issued by Government on 6 August 2020 on the proposed changes to the current planning system and outlined to Members the proposed responses to the consultation.

Members noted some of the potential implications from the proposed changes:

·         New methodology for the standard method for assessing housing need with a greater emphasis on affordability which drives up the housing need in East Devon to potentially 1614 homes per year;

·         25% of all affordable homes should be first homes. The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management referred to 2 options for the remainder of the affordable housing requirement.  Option 1, to distribute the remaining affordable housing provision in accordance with local authority policy, which in East Devon’s case would be a 70% - 30% split or option 2 to negotiate the tenure mix separately;

·         First homes would not be required on sites for build for rent homes, specialist accommodation, sell for custom build or exclusively affordable housing.

·         Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans that have been submitted for examination within 6 months would be exempt from including First Homes requirements;

·         Pre applications currently going through the development management process would also be exempt;

·         To include local level varied discounts - The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management emphasised the importance as the standard 30% discount was unlikely to make homes affordable to many people but highlighted a potential opportunity to increase the discount up to 50% which could have a significant impact on delivering affordable homes in East Devon.

·         To raise the threshold for affordable housing from 10 or more unit sites to up to 50 unit sites in urban areas.  In East Devon these sites would include Exmouth, Honiton, Seaton and Sidmouth. – Members noted the number of affected sites was likely to be small therefore the loss of affordable housing would not be significant.  Members also noted a wider implication about whether this would generally help the smaller or medium sized developers;

·         Permission in principle was proposed to extend to sites to over 10 dwellings in size and to introduce a new fee structure and publicity arrangements.  Members noted that East Devon had not received a single application for permission in principle and that customers favoured the outline planning permission route.

The Chairman thanked the Service Lead – Planning Strategy Development Management and welcomed non-committee members to speak.

The Portfolio Holder Sustainable Homes and Communities raised the followings points:

·         Clarification was sought on first homes in East Devon and the 30% discount of market value.  Concerns were raised that there was a great need for social housing and affordable to rent housing which would reduce the number of affordable housing we have available to rent.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy Development Management reassured members that the proposed response was answered in consultation with the Housing Service who had raised some concerns about how this would impact on housing providers which had been addressed in the response to question 8.

·         Comments were made about whether it would be appropriate to not agree with either options to question 8.  It was advised it was for members to decide but officer’s preference was to secure the same mix of affordable housing from the remainder of the affordable housing based on our existing policy.

The Chairman welcomed comments from committee members.

Committee Members discussions covered:

·         Concerns were raised about the algorithm used to determine local housing need; 

·         A Suggestion was made to request more specific and detailed information about the working of the algorithm;

·         It was commented that although the central forecast may sound good in Parliament it does not show any relevance to local democracy and reality;

·         Cross party agreement that central government had got it wrong;

·         Concerns were raised that we were building houses we did not need and that we need to maximise social housing or affordable housing numbers.  It was disappointing that national government had failed to embrace the need to build only the houses we need on the sites rather than making a profit;

·         A comment was made about the table on page 18 - it was pertinent in terms of setting out the former GESP areas for local authorities and that projected housing requirements under the new algorithm and that if we were still working together with Exeter the overall percentage required would be lower.  In response the Leader referred to a key comment made by the Prime Minster in a recent webinar he had attended and said if we had continued with GESP with those large scale allocations all over the GESP area those would probably be irreversible, and said a bullet had been dodged;

·         A suggestion was made to strengthen the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management wording in his consultation response in relation to the overall numbers;

·         Members concurred it was a comprehensive and excellent report;

·         The Leader thanked the Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee for his valued input throughout the preparation of the report and acknowledged the close working relationship with the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management;

·         Clarification was sought on the evidence from the algorithm numbers and the uplift in the number of houses that were expected to be built.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised it was to do with supply and demand and said logically if there was an oversupply of houses compared to demand house prices would come down.  He also referred to other factors that would impact on the affordability gap including economic changes, increased lending to first time buyers and increased salaries;

·         We need to change our focus and build houses for people to live in, not for profit.  To use our Housing Forums and Panels to come up with ways of providing better housing for people;

·         Clarification was sought on how the district council that has two thirds of AONB build in an AONB area that is protected.  The ratio of affordability will be greater than the area we can build in.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management agreed with the comments and said we are a heavily constrained district and referred to the White Paper referring to taking constraints into account and suggested some of the comments would be better made in response to the White Paper.  He emphasised the need to fully understand how the government hoped to take account of these issues and how that would impact on the figures which had been addressed in the comments to the questions in the White Paper;  

·         Concerns were raised about the table on page 18 that the numbers did not add up and a suggestion was made to make sure the figures were correct before going out;

·         A suggestion was made to amend the resolution to reflect discussions;

·         Concerns were raised on the impact of Covid-19 on the entire economy;

·         Concerns were raised that the report did not tackle climate change or address strategic transport infrastructure.  As a country we are trying to meet a 2050 carbon neutral deadline.  A suggestion was made to add something to the response about tackling transport issues.  In response the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he could add something into the consultation and also confirmed the issues raised had been addressed in the White Paper in question 8 about standard methods;

·         Reference was made to the lack of evidence presented for question 8 and a suggestion was made to include the last housing needs review East Devon undertook through independent consultants.

The following amendment to the recommendation was proposed by Councillor Ian Thomas and seconded by Councillor Paul Arnott.

The committee to note the report and agree the proposed responses to the consultation and we publish our response to the consultation and in both the covering letter and publicity express our profound concerns to the algorithm used.

The Planning Barrister sought clarification whether a response to one of the specific questions would be better amended to reflect the algorithm that is being used.  In response Cllr Thomas advised it would not and said he was not comfortable with the scale changing in numbers based on the information received and would like to see and understand the detail of the algorithm.

The Chairman requested that a vote take place on the motion.  The motion was put to committee and with an overall majority the motion was carried with no abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That the proposed responses to the consultation be noted and agreed and to publish our responses to the consultation and in both the covering letter and publicity express our profound concerns to the algorithm used be agreed