Agenda item

Reporting Person: Jon Herbert

The Chairman introduced the Housing Team who would present the item, Louise Strongitharm, Director of Housing, Ernest Amoako, Planning Policy Manger and Jon Herbert, Strategic Housing Policy Development Manager, and explained the background to part one of three of the Housing Topic Scrutiny Review.

Ms Strongitharm and Mr Amoako provided an overview of the current housing position and needs of those within the borough.  The Core Strategy sets out a  housing requirement of at least 292 dwellings per year for the Borough, the housing requirement was informed by housing needs evidence contained in the 2009 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). At the time, the housing need for the Borough was 594 dwellings per year. The housing need was an objectively assessed housing need for the Borough. The housing requirements is what had been agreed with the Secretary of State to be provided taken into account environmental constraints and all other material considerations. The SHMA was reviewed in 2015, and the need had dropped to 517 dwellings per year. The Government had now introduced a new standard method for calculating the housing need. When the methodology was applied, the housing need for the Borough was 431 dwellings per year. The government decided that where a local authority could not make provision to meet its objectively assessed housing need, it would have to work with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Cooperate for the unmet need to be provided in their areas. Given that Woking is unable to meets its need, the unmet need was presently being met by Guildford and Waverley Boroughs. 

The Housing Register, which detailed those seeking assistance with housing was prioritised in line with the Allocations policy (band A being those needing emergency/urgent assistance).  The greatest needs of the Housing Register was identified as one and two bed properties.  However the wait times were longer for three and four bed properties as the turnover was significantly less.  Overcrowding was also a concern, with over 300 applicants who were overcrowded by one or two bedrooms. 

Homelessness was also discussed, noting that on average there were 100-150 people in emergency accommodation, which had been fairly steady as of recent years, however due to Covid there were now approximately 200 people in emergency accommodation.  The amount of time people spent in emergency accommodation was longer than desired.  On a side note Ms Strongitharm added that there were roughly a further 200 people waiting on a shared ownership property list, which was managed by Radian Housing Association.  The housing stock of the Council matched the needs shown on the Housing Register.  However as all the properties were currently occupied, and therefore created a challenging situation.

Members raised concern over the delivery to meet the demand and the knock-on effects of Brexit and Covid.  Louise added that the Housing Strategy was due to be updated and that the topic scrutiny review of Housing would feed in to it, along with other various schemes.

Following a question raised, those needing a one bed property tend to be identified as vulnerable and/or requiring supported/sheltered housing.  Ms Strongitharm explained the opportunities available for those looking to downsize and the data on homelessness which were usually families being evicted from the private sector.  However due to the ban of evictions as of recent, the homeless presentations now tend to be single person households who were entrenched rough sleepers, sofa surfers, those who had lost employment or experienced a family breakdown. It was reported the team had recently submitted a bid to government for the “Next Steps Accommodation Programme”, and were continuing to work with York Road Project to help the situation.  Programmes such as the Sheerwater Regeneration would also have a huge impact of the amount of property available.

Members believed that further information on the demographic of those on the Housing Register and also those in Council Housing would be beneficial.  A survey was also mentioned to understand more about incentives for residents looking to downsize.

It was noted that the Green Book reported WBC as meeting the housing requirement of 292 dwellings per year, but the number of affordable homes had not been met.  Mr Amoako explained that the Core Strategy sets an overall target of 35% of all new homes to be Affordable Housing - this target has not been met. The main reason given by developers for not meeting the target was the viability of a development. The expectation was that the development should meet the requirement for social housing. However, in exceptional circumstances where the target could not be met, the Core Strategy allowed scope for an applicant to provide evidence of viability to justify why it could not be met. The evidence would then be submitted for independent review by the Council, which was paid for by the applicant, which officers then reported to the Planning Committee. The Council had recently introduced an overage clause to help claw back some money if a development performs better than originally anticipated by the viability assessment.

Members expressed concern that the viability argument was perhaps too easy for a developer to use. A question was raised on how the viability arguments were agreed, which Mr Amoako confirmed it was via the Planning department and the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee had the final decision and access to all documentation. Following the concerns raised, the Chairman asked if it would be possible to share some examples of this and the clawback of costs with members.

The Chairman of the Housing Task Group, summarised the points mentioned in the report, and the proactive approach to achieve the number of affordable dwellings delivered in line with aspirations.