Issue - meetings

To present the annual update on affordable housing delivery in the borough.

Members were informed of the delivery of affordable housing in the borough. During discussion, the following points were raised:

·         The more proactive parish councils seemed to receive a greater proportion of affordable housing

·         The recent scheme in Markfield had resulted not only in housing local people, but the repatriation of those who had had to leave Markfield previously

·         The lack of protection against the risk of affordable housing being sold on at market value and no longer being affordable, except on rural exception sites

·         The lack of protection in relation to resale of shared ownership properties, except on rural exception sites

·         The improved housing market leading to fewer developers trying to reduce numbers of affordable housing based on viability

·         The need to discourage developers from building certain styles of properties due to the risk of social landlords not bidding for the properties

·         The notion of gifted units was supported.

A member asked how many of the 828 completions were still in the social rented sector, how many were in shared ownership, how many of those had been sold on and which housing associations were responsible for those properties. It was agreed that a report answering these questions would be brought to the April meeting.

RESOLVED –

(i)            The report be noted;

(ii)           The above requested report be brought to the April meeting of the Scrutiny Commission.

To inform members of the cumulative impact of viability assessments submitted through the development management process on delivery of affordable housing. This report was requested at a previous meeting.

Further to a request at a previous meeting, the Commission received a report on the cumulative impact of viability assessments submitted through the development management process on the delivery of affordable housing. During discussion, the following points were raised:

·         The threshold for provision of affordable housing being four units in rural areas

·         The site of the current leisure centre, which would soon be subject of competition for a development partner

·         The potential allocation of the former depot site to the wholly owned company

·         The importance of commuted sums for off-site provision of housing.