Agenda item

Cabinet to note the responses to the Scrutiny Review of Housing Viability Assessments which have been put forward to Regulatory Committee for agreement.

Councillor Wright, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, introduced the scrutiny review which had been conducted in 2016 when Cllr Ayisi had chaired the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel. There had been a wide range of attendees at the evidence gathering sessions including: housing, and planning professionals/ organisations and developers, examining increasing the number of viability assessments that will allow higher numbers of affordable housing units to be included in a development and challenging developers to meet these planning obligations.

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny spoke about the predicament of Councils having limited options to solely finance affordable housing and having to source the provision of affordable housing, via section 106 agreements, to meet London Plan requirements .However, at the same time needing to attract developers to invest in the development of housing which meant the development needed to provide a return to the developer. This created a policy tension, especially when the viability assessments calculated a lower ratio of affordable housing than required by the Planning authority or where there was no affordable housing assessed as viable to the developer.

There was London- wide concern that the development viability calculation was neither transparent nor fit for purpose for delivery of affordable homes, .There was a collective view of the need for a London wide protocol for housing viability.

The Mayor was keen to take forward London wide statutory planning guidance to increase the numbers of affordable homes and the Council was involved in a London wide borough Planning network to address these issues.

The scrutiny recommendations included: a request for a supplementary planning document, for future planning documents to reflect the principles of a London wide protocol being collated, called for viability assessments to be public documents, and requested that the Council adopt its own tighter arrangements on review mechanisms for viability as well as meeting future London arrangements.

Councillor Doron, Chair of Regulatory Committee, reported Regulatory Committee’s comments on this scrutiny review. The Committee had approved the responses and commented on the Council’s need to ensure robust mechanisms were in place to ensure planning obligations were complied with. A new staff member post, assigned to monitor the viability process, was welcomed as this would further help build confidence in the planning system. The Committee also welcomed training for Planning Members to enable them to better discuss the issue of viability in planning meetings.

Councillor Strickland, Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning, further thanked the panel and spoke about the importance of viability which was a complex issue that the scrutiny report set out well. The Cabinet Member highlighted that the Planning service already works hard to tackle and challenge developers on viability and report reflects how to improve this further.

Most of the recommendations were accepted and some suggested actions were already being applied. The Cabinet Member mentioned the Planning service involvement in the London boroughs working group made up of senior officer across London and was pleased that officers are playing a lead on this London wide issue.

The Cabinet Member reported on the progress of the London SPG and a new proposed approach for increasing affordable housing whereby 35% or above inclusion of affordable housing, in a development, will qualify developers for lighter touch approach to the development arrangements.

RESOLVED:

1. To note the Scrutiny Review recommendations and Regulatory Committee comments outlined in appendix 1 and the tabled paper.

2. To agree the responses, to the recommendations, outlined in appendix 2.

Reasons for decision

The evidence supporting the Panels’ recommendations is outlined in the main body of the report (Appendix 1).

Alternative options considered

The evidence supporting the Panels’ recommendations is outlined in the main body of the report (Appendix 1). The Cabinet could choose not to accept the recommendations, despite endorsement by the Planning Service.