Issue - meetings

To approve a protocol and the delegation of powers for consent to the development by Hyde of amenity sites for the provision of affordable rented housing.

RESOLVED

1)      That the proposed protocol at the revised appendix be approved and that the Head of Housing and Environment Services be authorised, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, to give the Council’s consent to the development of amenity sites, excluding garage sites, as she considers satisfies the criteria in the protocol, unless there are significant objections from the ward member or parish council.

2)      That authorisation for the Council to enter into a Deed of Release for each site and any other related documents is delegated to the Head of Housing and Environment Services without referral back to Cabinet, following the grant of planning permission for the consented proposal.

3)      That the Council forgoes making a charge for the release of the covenant, where warranted by the circumstances of the individual case and where the land is to be developed for affordable rented housing.

The Cabinet considered the report circulated with the agenda, and the revised set of recommendations and Appendix circulated with Supplement 2 to the agenda (copies attached to the official minutes).

Mrs Taylor introduced the report. She explained that one of the major constraints encountered by Registered Providers in providing affordable housing was the lack of available land at an affordable price in a very competitive market dominated by private developers. Therefore, the potential of any suitable land already owned by a registered provider should be maximised.

This would be in accordance with Priority two of the Housing Strategy which focused on making the most effective use of existing stock

The Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) of the Council’s housing stock in 2001 to what was then Martlet Homes included “Amenity Land”. Under the terms of the Transfer the Amenity Land could not be developed without the Council’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld if social housing was to be built.

Possible appropriate sites had been identified by Hyde in addition to approximately five sites that had been identified by parish councillors and ward representatives. In order to facilitate the speedy release of appropriate sites for development, adoption of a protocol was being recommended, to delegate the formal legal requirements required under the LSVT to the Head of Housing and Environment Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member rather than go through Cabinet in respect of each individual case which would delay matters.

Further, it was proposed that the sites be developed to meet affordable housing needs within that community, which, if appropriate, could include bungalows which were not favoured by developers, thus enabling older residents to downsize within their existing community whilst at the same time allowing families to move into the larger properties.

A protocol for reviewing the suitability of Hyde garage sites for redevelopment had been adopted in 2003. In the last year, three garage sites had been successfully developed to provide 24 affordable homes and since 2003 at least 130 affordable homes had been developed on over 15 garage sites.

The attached protocol was initially based on the 2003 protocol but, following concerns raised by councillors as to the degree of consultation, the protocol had been revised and strengthened to give ward members and parish councillors access to the parking reports and consultation statement setting out the views of residents. If there were significant objections then the matter would go before Cabinet.

The sites in question would still be subject to the planning process.

At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr Oakley thanked Mrs Taylor for accepting some of the points he had raised. However, in relation to amended paragraph 6.4 of the report, he asked what would happen if Hyde obtained planning permission for a different scheme after the covenant had been released, and how recommendation 2.2 would apply to such a situation. He further asked that the word ‘significant’ be removed from revised recommendation 2.1 in order to remove the element of subjectivity.

Mrs Taylor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31