Agenda item

Reporting Person: Councillor D Hughes

The Chairman introduced the Housing Topic Scrutiny Review Report, and thanked officers and members for their input on the report, at previous meetings and the viability case study group.  The recommendations set out in the paper link with the wider strategies and policies of the Housing department. 

Paragraph 6.14, point A) states ‘it was suggested that Planning Committee members receive training in understanding the viability argument process’, which had been conducted by an independent organisation and was available for all members.  Members advised that the briefing provided insight into how the viability process works which can then be applied when making future decisions.

The Chairman noted that recommendation (vii) was not a proper recommendation, and after discussions with the legal team, and support from members it was removed.

More detail on the viability case study work was discussed, and that the target of 35% affordable homes for developments in the town centre was difficult to achieve, which would have a knock on effect for HIF figures.  The target of affordable housing was more likely to be reached if builds were on green belt land, however that came with other implications and concerns.  Other options were raised in order to reach the target such as bringing empty homes back into use and developing sites that had been identified through HIF.

The ‘Earn your Deposit’ scheme was referenced in the report, which was a scheme for Thameswey tenants, these social and affordable housing numbers from the scheme may not be included in the figures as some were based outside of Woking, in locations such as Pirbright and Guildford.  It was unclear whether these figures were reported in the Green Book, and would be confirmed outside of the meeting.  It was suggested that as Thameswey assisted with the Council’s work on affordable homes and were leading on the Sheerwater Regeneration, they should be mentioned in the report.  Historically, government had funded affordable housing projects when deemed a priority.

The Housing Portfolio Holder advised that it would be appropriate for the report to go back to the Housing Task Group for final scrutiny and review of recommendations, before going to Council.

The complexities and reasons as to why homes may be empty were raised, and the aspiration of occupying the empty properties can take a long period of time.  Officers resources had been redirected during the pandemic, however work had begun on this project again, with results detailed in the Green Book.  Ms Strongitharm added that the properties brought back into use did not usually impact the numbers of the affordable housing supply.

Members were encouraged to advise the Housing team of any empty properties, which bought the conversation back to the list of empty properties that was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. It was agreed that no personal details would be made available and the list would only hold the addresses of the empty properties. Councillors were reminded that the information would be highly confidential.

RESOLVED that

(i)            recommendation (vii) be removed; and

(ii)           the report be reviewed by the Housing Task Group and the subsequent recommendations to be presented to Council.

The committee then moved to agenda item 8.