Agenda item

Sally Meyrick presented the report and answered the members’ questions with Ian Bakewell and Mark Hand.

Challenge:

Regarding the priorities highlighted in the strategic housing development: first, to seek to respond to increased levels of homelessness – what is that rate?

It is hard to answer definitively because the overall number of households that we are dealing with hasn’t changed significantly from previous years. What has changed is the type of household – because Welsh Government’s requirements have changed (ending rough sleeping and youth homelessness), we are dealing with more single people, often with significant support needs. Because of the change in profile, we are having difficulty moving those people on. As a result, we have significant numbers of people in temporary accommodation – an increase from pre-pandemic. the team is focused on ramping up our preventative work and trying to increase our permanent accommodation.

The other priority to progress ambitions to set up an in-house development company – could that be elaborated on, given that it is a subject that has been discussed for several years now?

Debra Hill-Howells is leading on this, and would be best placed to provide an update, but she is on leave this week. Our latest understanding is that there is still an appetite for the development company but there is consideration as to what the land supply pipeline looks like, which is a factor of the replacement local development plan, and therefore still a work in progress. We will arrange for an email update to be sent to the committee.

What is the effect of the high house prices on the population, specifically young people, and how can this be addressed?

From the perspective of housing need, the house prices compound the situation in Monmouthshire. We are trying to work up solutions to meet these needs but face the same problems: land is expensive, properties are expensive to buy, and rents are high too. The need for affordable housing is a key part of the local development plan, and those demographic changes are considerations of planning colleagues in relation to the review of the development plan.

Affordable housing is one of the huge challenges for this county, and for our young people to remain in the county, if they wish to do so. It is a huge driving force behind the RLDP. There is the discussion about what happens if we build more homes and more people from outside the county move in, to which there are two answers: first, our natural population is declining, so people moving in is vital. In terms of how we ensure that housing is there for local people – meeting its intended purpose – affordable housing is very clearly and carefully governed so that people from the waiting list are given the housing (according to criteria concerning a local connection). Second, we continue to review for deposit plan stage any other policy tools or legal mechanisms to look at how we help, for example, care workers that we desperately need but who aren’t on high wages. We also look at housing mix policies so that not everything is 4-bed detached houses, and other legal mechanisms raised by Councillor Jordan under the Housing Act that might allocate some of the housing for local people.

147 households are in temporary accommodation – is this an increase? Does it include children who have been made homeless and have returned to their parent’s home?

We have several households referred to as ‘homeless at home’, which aren’t included in that figure.

There is nothing in the report about how we can achieve 468 affordable units per year, or what a sensible minimum number to recommend to Cabinet would be. Why is there nothing about the council having its own development company?

468 is not necessarily a target for delivery but represents the need. It is arrived at by considering the current housing waiting list data, the committed supply of affordable housing, projections about incoming need, and population projections. Some of those people will be able to satisfy their own housing needs so 468 is not necessarily a target. It’s difficult to put an exact figure on the target e.g., last year, 146 units of affordable housing were delivered over the financial year, this year, 80 have been projected. RLDP takes targets for delivering affordable housing into consideration, so that will be looked at. Regarding the development company, we have 3 RSLs currently operating in Monmouthshire, with others potentially set to do so, which are proactive about finding land and looking for opportunities to develop new housing and convert existing properties.

The preferred strategy on which we consulted recently would have provided 2,450 affordable homes; 731 of those are already in the pipeline. 230 would come from ‘windfall’ sites, or small sites, and 1,489 from new allocations (table 7, p85). As a matter of clarity, when the Planning and Housing teams talk about affordable housing, we do so in the strict sense of what Welsh Government guidance says – other areas, particularly in England, use other definitions. Welsh Government’s 20,000 affordable housing target includes Help To Buy, but we don’t count that. We talk about social rent, intermediate rent, and low-cost home ownership properties, with the clear criteria as mentioned.

We have a Social Housing Grant of £7.5m. Can we guarantee that we will use all of that, and ask for more if we do?

We’ve had a big increase in the budget: last year it was £2.9m and this year it is £7.5m. Yes, ideally, we would be able to spend it all and be able to spend more. There is an overall budget for Wales; if any local authorities have an underspend, then there could be slippage from other LAs. But there are issues that make it hard to deliver in certain parts of the county e.g. phosphates, high land values, viability of developments, etc. As things stand, around £5m has been allocated. We communicate regularly with the RSLs and are always looking for opportunities to put the money to good use. We can’t guarantee we will spend it all, but we will try our best.

Do the RSLs apply for the £7.5m as a grant or how much does the Council directly spend on properties? What about dual flushes in flats above shops for addressing the phosphate problem?

Properties accessing the social housing grant need to meet the property standards. These are set by Welsh Government, which has just released new ones, the Welsh Development Quality Requirements 2021. So, there are high standards concerning the size and standard of properties to be eligible for social housing grant. Spaces above shops are very unlikely to meet the standards in DQR. This is another factor we must consider when looking to bring forward affordable housing using the SHG. We would still look to acquire those properties and use them for affordable housing, as do the RSLs, but they wouldn’t necessarily be eligible for grant funding.

We are working through a range of solutions to the phosphate problem, which is holding up applications, particularly some affordable housing schemes. Dual flushes affect how much water is used by the toilet cistern, so wouldn’t be a solution. In the phosphate catchment area i.e. the northern two-thirds of the county, it is far harder to deal with things like refurbishment of existing properties and change of use, as there isn’t the available land for installing package treatment plants. It is quite a challenge. We are seeking guidance from Welsh Government and NRW on this matter regarding affordable housing, in particular.

It is very frustrating that, often, we find places to build houses, but the people living there complain, and the site is turned down by Welsh Government e.g. Raglan and Pandy.

This is a key consideration in the RLDP. There are community concerns about new developments, of which we must be mindful, but building houses is one of our core objectives. Pandy is a prime example, as it is caught up with two policy issues. We haven’t fully concluded the flooding issues that Planning was considering, and it also has the phosphates challenge.

Regarding homelessness, where have grants been spent previously and where will they be spent in the future?

We can provide the committee with an overview of what we have done in recent years and what we are currently doing, with the different funding streams, etc. Schemes that have had funding and been recently completed or are due for completion this year include a scheme of 8 flats in Chepstow (Melin), a couple of schemes in Chepstow that Pobl are involved in, converting some supported accommodation for young people. Also, there are two rural schemes, one in Devauden and one in Llanishen, a couple of units in Sudbrook, and some schemes that have received Innovative Housing funding – these are also in Chepstow, done by MHA.

Regarding the Local Authority Prospectus, one of the issues with meeting this housing need is in the local connection criteria. Can the prospectus include something about the need for local criteria in rural and urban settings?

We only have a contribution towards affordable housing on the very small sites. There is a rural allocations policy: when we develop affordable housing in rural communities, people apply for them on the housing register, but priority will be given to people who can provide evidence of a local connection. The overall housing register recognises local connection, but it needs to be recognised that there are limitations in terms of what we can do – we are governed by housing legislation etc. In terms of homelessness, under the current legislation local connection is a criterion for assessing applications; WG has asked us to suspend that, and we expect them to legislate for the local connection to go. but we find that the vast majority of people coming through on the homeless side are Monmouthshire people.

Presumably, the local connection is more of a concern in the rural areas where prices are higher. Are we making representations to Welsh Government about this change?

It is an ongoing conversation. We anticipate that for the change in legislation they will engage with local authorities. The government recognises that Monmouthshire is unique, with unique difficulties, and are doing everything they can to support us.

Chair’s Summary:

Thank you to the team for its hard work in a difficult situation. The recommendations were agreed.