Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public.

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 11 January 2019.

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 11 January 2019.

(B)      WRITTEN QUESTIONS

(i)            Affordable Housing

56.1      Charles Harrison put the following question:

“I am aware that the B&HCC City Plan Part One has requirements for providing affordable housing on all sites of 5 or more homes.
How many private development sites in the City of Brighton & Hove have delivered these requirements for providing onsite affordable housing?”

56.2      The Chair provided the following reply:

“Policy CP20 Affordable Housing in the adopted City Plan Part One sets out the council’s targets for affordable housing contributions in new residential developments. For sites of 15+ units, the target is for 40% affordable housing to be provided onsite; for sites of between 10 – 14 units, the target is for 30% affordable housing either as onsite provision or as an equivalent commuted sum (financial contribution) and for sites of between 5-9 units a 20% commuted sum is sought. The plan sets an overall implementation and monitoring target of 30% of all new residential development to be provided as affordable housing.

Annual monitoring data indicates that over the last 5 years a total of 2487 units of new housing have been delivered in the city (from all sites) and of this, 546 units have been delivered as affordable housing which is equivalent to 22% overall. It should be noted that these figures do also include direct provision of 173 new council homes by the council itself.

In terms of just private development sites of 5+ units, a total of 1320 housing units have been delivered over the last 5 years from a total of 73 sites. Ten sites delivered 306 units of affordable housing onsite. This is equivalent to 23% in overall terms. In addition, a total of £2.8 million has been collected as financial commuted sums. (NB: more detailed information can be provided in a table format).

It is acknowledged that affordable housing delivery in the city has proven more challenging in recent years due to changes in the way that affordable housing is funded and viability factors in scheme delivery. The government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) allows a developer to make a case for less affordable housing to be delivered when it can be shown that delivering more would impact upon the overall viability of the development.  

This Committee recently agreed a move to an “open book” approach on viability assessments. Where planning applications are not offering policy compliant quotas, viability statements will have to be presented at the time of application, and follow a standard methodology in terms of scope and type of information supplied. This will increase accountability and transparency for example where applications fall under the 40% quota. Where applications are determined with lower quotas of affordable housing, the council is also able to apply a ‘review mechanism’ so that the viability position can be re-assessed at a later date. Where viability is shown to have improved, then more affordable housing will be required”.

(ii)          City Urban Fringe Assessments

56.3      On behalf of Dave Bangs, Kim Turner put the following question:

“What planning and consideration has so far been given to the development of other City Urban Fringe Assessment sites apart from those currently subject to Joint Venture Board projects (at Whitehawk Hill, Coldean Lane, and Mile Oak)? Please answer on a site by site basis. For instance, what planning and consideration has so far been given to the development of the two Warren Road Downland sites: Site 32 & 32a, Land at South Downs Riding School and Reservoir; and Site 33, Land north of Warren Road (Ingleside Stables)?”

56.4      The Chair provided the following reply:

“Many of the urban fringe sites identified as having potential for housing development through the Urban Fringe Site Assessments are now proposed as site allocations in the Draft City Plan Part 2 in Policy H2. This includes the two Warren Road sites that you refer to.

This follows on from the allowance made in the adopted City Plan Part One for around 1,000 new homes to be provided from the city’s urban fringe. The need to look at the city’s urban fringe arose during the City Plan Part One examination when the Planning Inspector instructed the council to look much more positively at the city’s urban fringe to find additional housing opportunities to help meet the city’s significant housing shortfall.

The proposed site allocations set out in Policy H2 of the draft City Plan Part 2 largely reflect the findings of the 2014 and 2015 Urban Fringe Assessments. The 2015 Further Assessment study included detailed landscape, ecological and archaeological assessments where the 2014 study indicated these were key considerations. It also sets out detailed measures to mitigate likely impacts. 

Public consultation on the Draft City Plan Part 2 took place over the summer of 2018. In response the council received a wide range of comments on Policy H2 as a whole and on individual urban fringe sites. This included responses from statutory bodies, landowners and developers, local organisations, councillors and residents. A consultation statement summarising all the comments received will be published on the Council’s website in February. The comments received will help to inform the next (Pre-Submission) version of City Plan Part 2 which is due to be published Autumn 2019.

It should be emphasised that any development proposals coming forward will still be subject to detailed assessment at the planning application stage. The supporting text for Policy H2 emphasises that the urban fringe allocations are by their nature sensitive locations for development and it requires that planning applications are supported by detailed information/assessments on landscape, ecology and archaeology.

We will provide you with a full written response which will detail the latest planning position on a site by site basis set out in a table. This will detail which sites already have planning permission; which are subject to current applications and those for which requests for pre-application advice has been sought.

I would also like to clarify that the Mile Oak site is not part of the Joint Venture Scheme”