Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and to make the following resolution:

That an additional £51,000 commuted sum monies be allocated to The Hyde Group to fund partly three affordable rented housing units at Parsonage Estate Rogate. 

RESOLVED

That an additional £51,000 commuted sum monies be allocated to The Hyde Group to fund partly three affordable rented housing units at Parsonage Estate Rogate. 

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report (copy attached to the official minutes).

The report was presented by Mrs Purnell.

Mrs Grange and Mrs Rudziak were in attendance for this item.

Mrs Purnell explained the background and the proposal with reference to paras 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1 and 7.1 of the report.  She pointed out that most of the housing registered providers had advised CDC that they were no longer interested in delivering small sites as those were relatively expensive to deliver. In many cases their objective was now to maximise economies of scale as a result of reduced funding and government cuts. The average commuted sum received by CDC from developers in lieu of an affordable house on site was £75,000; the grant per unit in this case was £64,000.  This Hyde scheme would make a good use of the commuted sums funds, meeting two of the four objectives set out in the recently approved Housing Strategy Review namely (a) to attract investment to meet specific local needs eg bungalows, disabled units, redevelopment of outdated or difficult to let housing and (b) to make small schemes viable eg rural schemes, those with high design costs or with additional amenity requirements (para 3.2).

Mrs Grange and Mrs Rudziak did not add to Mrs Purnell’s introduction.

Mrs Keegan, who was the ward member for Rogate where the site was located, spoke first and contributed further during the debate. She spoke against the scheme and made the following points:

·       Small sites such as this one were normally expensive to deliver and tended to be chosen to meet a local demand. Here, however, there was a strong objection by residents in Rogate to this development. She had undertaken a survey in the parish, which revealed that people were in favour of affordable housing but not on that site. Local people felt that their opinion was not being heard.

·       The proposed site had well-known and ongoing problems with foul drainage. The problems endured by residents were worse than disgusting. Given the sewage issue it was very difficult to see how the site would be bought privately. 

·       There were car parking issues by virtue of the estate roads being used by drivers at the start and end of the school day to deliver children to and collect them from the adjacent primary school (which wished to expand and would thereby exacerbate the problem). Local residents had hoped that this site could be used for car parking, thereby alleviating the congestion during each end of the school day. It was very important in principle and in view of the concept of community land trusts to have due and serious regard to the wishes of local people as to how this site ought to be used in the best possible way.     

·       It was possible to find a much better site within the parish for affordable homes.

·       There was a concern locally about the proposed units being either unoccupied or used by people from outside Chichester District. She personally doubted that these three homes would be made available only to Rogate residents.

·       Although the parish council had originally supported the proposed use for this site that had been a mistake, hence the change of mind, which was unrelated to a change in the parish council’s membership.  

·       In short there would be a lot of pain for a tiny gain (three properties), losing the opportunity to make a better use of the site that insofar as this scheme was concerned would be subsidised by CDC for the totally wrong purpose.  

Mrs Grange responded to members’ questions on the following points of detail:

·       There were 191 households on the housing register within the South Downs National Park (SDNP) area of Chichester District  and currently there were only three prospective new affordable rented homes in the whole of the SDNP area (all in Midhurst) and there were no more due to be built in the foreseeable future. CDC was working hard with housing associations and community land trusts to identify other sites.

·       A neighbourhood development plan (NDP) door-to-door survey in September 2015 showed that 44 respondents were in favour of more affordable housing for local families within the parish. The draft NDP had yet to identify any suitable affordable housing sites in the parish.

·       Hyde was well aware of the foul drainage issues and was seeking funds in part to address those problems. Southern Water had recently carried out works to improve the existing drainage and it appeared that there had been no recent problems.

·       The scheme would provide 13 (instead of the usual five) additional car parking spaces on this site with a vehicle turning space, all of which would have to be provided prior to occupancy commencing.

·       In 2016 there had been a slow turnover of vacancies in Rogate, largely associated with changes in Hyde’s allocations team being moved from Chichester to London and a number of properties were wrongly advertised which had caused a delay.

·       This was a brownfield site in a settlement policy area. If Hyde did not develop the site for affordable housing it was likely that it would sell the site on the open market for market homes to be built, an outcome not desired by the parish council.

·       There would be nomination rights to ensure that occupants were local people rather than coming from, say, London. CDC had a local connection requirement in its general allocation policy.

Mrs Purnell emphasised the need for affordable housing in the parish (and beyond) and this site had the requisite planning permission for three houses. The drainage and parking issues were not, therefore, relevant. Originally the parish council had supported this use of the site and the proposal had been taken forward accordingly but since then the parish council had changed in its composition. CDC no longer operated an open housing register. The use of the site for parking should have been raised and considered much longer ago.

Mrs Plant, Mrs Lintill and Mr Dignum spoke in favour of the scheme in view of the need for affordable housing, the local connection requirement, the risk that the site would otherwise be lost to market housing and that the drainage and car parking issues were not relevant in the light of grant of planning permission. 

Decision

The Cabinet voted by a show of hands on the resolution below. There were six votes in favour of the recommendation in para 2.1 of the report and Mrs Keegan voted against it.

RESOLVED

That an additional £51,000 commuted sum monies be allocated to The Hyde Group to fund in part three affordable rented housing units at Parsonage Estate Rogate.