Agenda item

To agree the Council’s response to the Government’s Housing White Paper.  

That the proposed response to the ‘Fixing our Broken Housing Market’ White Paper, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be APPROVED as the Council’s submission to the government’s consultation, and to form part of a joint response of the Joint Core Strategy authorities, subject to the following amendments:

·         Question 10 – reword the response to remove reference to the airport; and

·         Question 31 – reword to strengthen the response in terms of affordable homes, particularly in rural areas, i.e. to note that, where appropriate, there could be local discretion in terms of the definition of affordable to increase the percentage discount.

98.1           The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 189-217,  set out a proposed joint response from the Joint Core Strategy authorities to the government’s Housing White Paper: ‘Fixing our Broken Housing Market’. Members were asked to consider the proposed response, as attached to the report at Appendix 1, and agree it on behalf of Tewkesbury Borough Council.

98.2           The Head of Development Services explained that, in February 2017, the government had published the White Paper which set out how it intended to boost the housing supply and, over the long term, create a more efficient housing market. The paper presented a series of proposals based around four key steps: planning for the right homes in the right places; building homes faster; diversifying the market; and helping people now. As part of the White Paper, the government was consulting on the changes that would result to planning policy and legislation and the deadline for responding to that consultation was 2 May 2017. In order to guide the consultation feedback, a series of questions around the proposals had been set out and the joint response to those was attached as an appendix to the report.

98.3           Referring particularly to the proposed response to question 10(b) – do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to make clear that, where land is removed from the green belt, local policies should require compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining green belt land?, a Member felt it was inappropriate to include airports that existed in the green belt as an example of a place where housing could be developed. He felt this gave an indication that Gloucestershire’s airport would be a good target for development and this was something that many Members were strongly against. Other Members agreed with this view and asked that this reference be removed. One Member particularly mentioned the Council’s Economic Development Tourism Strategy which included a statement of support for the function of the airport and he felt the wording, as set out at Appendix 1, was not helpful to that Strategy.

98.4           Another Member referred to the affordable housing issues identified at Page No. 215, he felt the proposed response went right to the heart of the problems faced in respect of the varying rents, particularly in rural areas; however, he questioned whether the response in that regard could be made even more robust – he suggested that working out affordable rents at 80% of the market value often resulted in them being out of reach for many that wanted to remain in the rural areas in which they had grown up and this was not acceptable. In response, the Chief Executive suggested that there may be a way to strengthen the paragraph in order to offer local discretion where appropriate to increase the percentage discount; the best wording to achieve this aim would be considered by Officers and the paragraph amended accordingly. Although the response was a joint one, if the other two authorities were not happy with the amendments made, they would be included as the view of Tewkesbury Borough Council alone.

98.5           Accordingly, it was