Agenda and minutes

At this point, members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

At this point in the meeting Members were asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Working Group held on 12 April 2010.

RESOLVED:                         That the minutes of the last meeting of the Local Development Framework Working Group held on 12 April 2010 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

 In Minute 19 under the comments to the report, the reference to Paragraph 17(i) to be amended to read – Members commented that the way the percentages expressed are misleading and that while 52% felt York’s economy should grow by 1000 or more jobs, but a much larger amount, 91% had suggested a 1000 or less amount would be preferable and the wording should reflect this. Members commented there were other examples of this throughout Annex A and Officers advised they would look into the matter.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak, regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the remit of the Working Group, may do so.  The deadline for registering is 5.00 pm on Friday 2^nd July 2010.

It was reported that there had been two registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme. An additional request to speak from a Council Member had also been received and granted by the Chair.

Councillor Gillies, referred to the lack of progress made since 2007 in relation to the provision of affordable housing in the city despite there being a number of planning approvals on sites. He pointed out that developments were not progressing despite there being an urgent need for affordable housing. He stated that there was a need to move forward and to assist this he recommended that a requirement target of 25% should relate to both brownfield and greenfield sites.

Representations were received from a representative of Persimmon Homes. She referred to the lack of consultation undertaken with developers in relation to this study and to her concerns in respect of serious flaws in the document, which did not reflect the current economic climate. She asked Members to reject the draft report to allow Officers to work with developers to ensure that the recommendations of the study worked for both the public and private sectors.

Representations were also received on behalf of the York Property Forum and the York Chamber of Trade. It was pointed out that the present 50% requirement had produced only a handful of affordable dwellings and was a disincentive to developers. He stated that it was premature to agree the proposed amendments in the current economic climate and that it would be in everyone’s interest to continue the dialogue between Officers and consultees. 

This report advises Members on the production of the Affordable Housing Study (AHVS) for York as required by national planning guidance in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing.

Members considered a report which advised them of the production of the Affordable Housing Viability Study (AHVS) for York as required by national planning guidance in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Housing.

It was confirmed that the study acknowledged the recent downturn in the national and local housing markets with the proposal for a short term target of 40% affordable housing on greenfield sites and 25% on brownfield sites without social grant on sites of 15 dwellings or more. Although it was acknowledged that changes in the housing market would require revisions of these targets over the plan period.

The Group received a presentation from Dr Richard Fordham of Fordham Research who was commissioned by the Council to produce the AHVS. This included an overview of the Study’s methodology, the results, current targets and threshold recommendations and the Dynamic Model.

Members questioned a number of points in respect of the presentation and report which included:

• Definition of the policy on affordable housing and details of the consultation undertaken with developers at a workshop earlier in the year;
• Evidence in relation to the cushions (landowner additional profit) which would be gained if there was an uplift in the market;
• Resubmission of applications/phasing of developments and the affect of these on affordable housing requirements;
• Tolerance of accuracy in respect of demolition costs on a number of sites;
• Concern that developers were still requesting rejection/deferral of a study which reduced affordable housing targets;
• Reference to the housing waiting list and the need for 1000 affordable units per year;
• That the proposed policies were evidence based and acknowledged changes in the market;
• Was it the target for 5-10 dwellings or site area which defined this target;
• Recommendation (iv) to refer to ‘Opposition Spokesperson’ rather than ‘Shadow Executive Member’.

In answer to questions Members were informed that evidence for the study had been gained both from experience of previous work undertaken by Fordham Research and information received from local and nationally recognised data sources. It was also confirmed that details of target definition would be clarified in a report to the Planning Committee which will set out the interim approach for Development Control, until the Core Strategy is adopted.

Consideration was given to possible deferral of the report to allow further discussions between Officers, Housing Associations and developers in relation to the assumptions in the model.

Following further discussion it was

RESOLVED:          (i) That LDF Working Group recommends to the Executive that approval be given for the publication of the Affordable Housing Viability Study as part of the Local Development Framework evidence base.

(ii) That approval be given to the use the principles of the Dynamic Model and the conclusions of the study to formulate the Core Strategy Policy which will be brought back to the LDFWG for consideration with the remainder of the Core Strategy Submission Draft.

(iii) To recommend that the Executive adopt the targets and thresholds in the Study for Development Control purposes and the Dynamic Model principles as an interim approach  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.