Agenda item

A broad discussion on what can be done to speed up housing delivery in Guildford.

Some briefing papers have been attached for the Board’s information and background reading.

Tim Dawes, Planning Development Manager and Nick Molyneux Housing Development Manager will be in attendance to facilitate the discussion.

The Lead Councillor for Housing and Environment explained that he wished the Board to consider what steps could be taken to speed up housing delivery in Guildford.  The Local Plan for Guildford had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and if approved, this Council would have to deliver some 650 dwellings annually for the foresee-able future.  Last year, this Council only achieved delivery of 158 dwellings and had granted more permissions than had actually been built out.  1653 permissions remained outstanding in 2016/17.  It was crucial to understand what barriers the Council had inadvertently put up to stop development.  Potential solutions suggested included:

·         To lobby developers;

·         Hold meetings with developers to understand what might be restricting them from building out permitted developments;

·         This Council sometimes lost appeals on larger developments.  Additional training to planning committee members could therefore address this.

·         Streamline the pre-application process;

·         Review conditions applied to planning approvals.  We currently state that developments had to be built out within three years.  Why not reduce this to one or two years?

·         A condition was also applied to planning approvals that stated that no work was to be carried out until the materials were agreed with the Planning Authority.  This could be changed to state that no work above ground could start until the materials had been agreed.

·         Consider the roll-out of more pre-fabricated housing in the mix of developments being offered;

·         Improve Guildford’s infrastructure to accommodate more housing.

The Board heard from the Lead Councillor for Housing and Environment that he wanted to form a small Task Group to establish what we as a Council could do to speed up housing delivery in Guildford.  Quick wins were sought that could be achieved through small changes to our current procedures.

The Planning Development Manager endorsed the setting up of a Task Group and agreed that there were areas, which could be reviewed within the planning process that would have positive outcomes.  Areas of note were:

·         The length of time it took to deal with and consider appeals, especially for larger applications;

·         To speed up the implementation of permissions so that developers were not able to land bank and stall developments for periods of 6-8 years.

·         The Government was planning on stopping the use of pre-commencement conditions at the planning application approval stage.  Rather, they wished to facilitate discussions between the developer and planning authority during the application phase. 

The Board heard that this Council’s validation performance results were good as was its performance in turning around applications.  The monies sought as part of S106 Agreements was not perceived to hold up the planning process unnecessarily. 

The Housing Development Manager reported that his main priority was to ensure the Council provided affordable housing with the right mix.  If the Council could secure early agreement with a developer that, they would provide a compliant scheme that incorporated all of the affordable housing of the size and type required, was there a way we could speed up the planning process for such developers?

The Chairman of the Housing Board endorsed the recommendation to set-up a Task Group that could work with the Housing Board in seeking to speed up the rate of housing delivery in Guildford.  The Council was working with partners to provide more rented and socially affordable housing.  The Chairman of the Housing Board along with Councillor Parsons and the Housing Development Manager would shortly visit a modular housing site to understand to what extent such housing could be provided in Guildford. 

The Board made the following comments and suggestions:

·         Huf houses were a good example of an expensive version of modular housing that was delivered quickly once permission had been granted.

·         What powers would the Council have in regulating developers?  Some developers were very good at consulting with local people and providing a scheme that was acceptable to all parties versus other developers who pursued schemes according to their own requirements, not taking into consideration local opinion despite having gone through a supposed consultation phase.  Such developers wasted the Council’s time and resources and better controls were therefore required to mitigate such scenarios.

·         The planning permission granted by the Planning Inspectorate for Guildford Railway Station was reduced from three years to two years to be built out.  Therefore, it would seem appropriate that the Council could apply such conditions to applications.

·         Landlords were renowned for increasing rents and whilst not within the gift of the Board’s powers, a review of the Rent Act was desired.

·         Out of the 1653 houses that had not been developed, the Board wished to ascertain whether it was related to any particular size of development or potential infrastructure problems such as utilities and transport.

·         How many empty council houses or flats did Guildford have?  What potential was there to re-use council owned properties used for businesses for houses?

·         Was it the case that flats were built out quicker than houses and if that was the case should those applications be prioritised and agreed as part of the pre-application process?

·         How are we addressing potential infrastructure problems with sewage, water supply and drainage?  Are we hoping to secure the provision of suitable infrastructure as part of pre-application discussions with developers?

·         Need to understand what is holding back large developments and how the Council can assist with progressing them.

·         The Board noted that only 6% of all planning applications went to appeal and therefore the quick win sought was relatively small.

·         Developers were driven by the market absorption rate, basically, how many houses could be sold in a year.  Approximately, 142-161 units per year, per site were sold and was directly relevant to developments of over 2000 houses or more.  The maximum number of houses built in a year was 538 achieved in Cornbrook, Manchester, greatly assisted by the fact that all of its infrastructural requirements were already in place and that development was over ten years.  For the following nine years, 238 houses were built per year. 

·         The construction industry would refute the claim of landbanking owing to the fact that they currently have a 200,000-manpower shortage.  They need approximately, 700,000 construction workers by the year 2021, which would be further compounded by Brexit. 

·         The average build out time was 14 months and 8 months longer than 2013-14.

·         55% of current construction workers were aged 60 or over and would therefore be retiring shortly. 

·         Only way to achieve the housing targets was to deliver via modular housing which took 12-14 weeks to build out as opposed to traditional housing that took 6-8 months.  With modular housing, the ground works could be laid the build was taking place at the same time, so building costs were reduced significantly.

·         Modular housing was built to last for 80-100 years.  The Faro Islands was cited as an example, which had no natural resources, and every house had therefore been imported.  A family and its succeeding generations had lived in such a house for the last 2000 years.

·         China was investing in five off-site building factories in the U.K, as were Legal and General Insurance Company and Berkeley Homes.  In addition, 35,000 modular homes were planned locally in neighbouring boroughs such as Reading and Woking.

·         Consider Community Led Housing and Self-Build schemes.  Could the Council look to support and promote such schemes to local groups that were eligible for funding.  The scheme was restricted as there was no right to buy however.

·         Was there scope to pre-approve finishes on pre-fabricated houses so that the development could proceed more quickly?

·         Through the North Downs Company, the Council could set the design standards for modular housing to include features such as dementia sensors for dementia sufferers.

·         Needed to address viability arguments presented by developers who frequently employed solicitors to work out how to provide as little affordable housing as possible.

·         The Board noted that 58 Councils in the UK had set up housing companies but in the last year only produced 528 units of which only 182 units were affordable or 34%.  The total out build was 176 units per year so was very similar to the national average.

·         How can the Council encourage companies such as Thames Water to get more involved in relation to sewage issues that may arise which they do not deem to be their responsibility?

·         Could the Council examine other delivery models, alongside the North Downs Housing Company to provide housing owing to the government looking favourably on Councils' identifying innovative ways of getting around the cap on borrowing to provide Council houses?

·         The Board noted that Woking was pursuing a pilot scheme with Natural England on the licensing of protected species.  As long as a significant pond existed for great crested newts in the local area, then the ponds identified on a potential development site would not be subjected to scrutiny by Natural England and development more easily facilitated.

·         Pursue the speeding up of the completion notice process.

·         Could the Council tax premium on empty homes be increased from 50% to 100%?

·         It was essential that the Development Management policies in addition to the Guildford Design Guide were in place when the Local Plan was adopted, as it would assist the speed of the planning application to development phase. 

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that:

·         Frequently contractual arrangements existed between the landowner and developer that set the heights and densities of developments, which a developer was contractually obliged to follow through from application to appeal therefore making it very difficult to provide a basis for negotiation and flexibility.

·         Confirmed that land values in Guildford were high and pushed up the densities of proposed developments.

·         Guildford was lucky, as it had not been subjected to many schemes where viability had been an issue.

·         Guildford Planning Authority held a Planning Agents Forum, which met twice a year and 20-30 agents attended that could be used for engagement.

·         Approximately, 2,500 applications were submitted annually to the planning department of which only 110-130 were subject to appeal.

·         Confirmed that various elements such as materials could be conditioned at planning application stage rather than waiting until the end of the process which could speed the process up.

·         Thames Water staffing along with the Environment Agency had been cut back and therefore only standing advice was issued to the Council.

The Housing Development Manager confirmed that:

·         This Council was corporately robust in its application of viability policies, which in turn had secured the provision of a number of affordable homes in the borough.  Guildford had done better than its neighbouring authorities’ and significantly better than the London authorities. 

·         Provision of affordable homes was necessary to meet the needs of the borough. 

·         This Council only had two empty homes available in East Horsley but there were certain issues with these properties, not making them immediately viable for living in.  A total of 2,500 people were on the waiting list for a council home. 

·         There were approximately, 200 empty homes in private stock however a lot of those were in probate and long term empty properties often had structural or amenity issues that could not be solved easily. 

·         Was looking to re-develop council sites at higher densities, but was difficult to implement when the Council no longer owned a street of houses owing to the right to buy scheme. Therefore, buying such properties back was costly and time-consuming to the Council.

·         Modular housing was not a panacea for housing delivery.  The Council had enough delivery models and needed more land to build on which should be more easily delivered when the Local Plan was adopted.

·         Needed to encourage more groups to come forward to build their own houses through funding available via Surrey Community Action and target key workers such as the police, nurses and teachers to pursue such developments.   

The Board agreed that four of its members should form a small Task Group.  The Task Group would identify quick wins for speeding up housing delivery in Guildford.  The Board was mindful that it did not want to duplicate work, given there was already a Housing Board.  The Task Group would rather work with the Housing Board on this specific issue and report back to the next Borough EAB meeting in May 2018 on the quick wins.  Board members were requested by the Chairman to the Committee Officer to confirm their interest.