To receive a verbal update from the Deputy Director for Places.
Minutes:
Mr Rob Harbour, Deputy Director for Places, provided the Panel with a verbal update.
House prices in Rutland had increased significantly over time to the point of Rutland being ranked 13th most expensive county in England and Wales, with average house prices at £317k, higher than the national average. Rutland had higher housing prices than those of neighbouring areas, which created a significant problem with population in particular with young people. Many young people found it difficult to access affordable homes due to a disparity of local wages and rising house prices, leading them to find housing in other counties.
There was also a lack of supply across the county of smaller homes with one, two, or three bedrooms, and these were the houses that sit at the more affordable market.
There were also issues with housing for the ageing population with people living longer and looking to move to Rutland to retire. Rutland currently did not have enough smaller accessible homes for the elderly with good mobility access, and they would stay in oversized homes rather than downsizing. This would have a knock on impact to the health service if they could not manage their needs in an oversized house as they would be moved into health care for what could be a long period of time, meaning less beds in hospitals. If their homes were more suited to their needs it would be a lot easier for them and the hospitals.
It was important for Rutland to have a choice for people across the housing market, providing options such as starter homes, and shared ownership to make homes more affordable as well as renting. Renting can range from open market rental through to affordable rent via a number of products such as intermediate rent, affordable rent, and social rent.
Government had recently made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Previously it was possible for developers to overpay for land and come back to local authorities planning teams claiming they were unable to build the amount of affordable houses asked for as the developers could not afford to build them. The changes made to the NPPF made it more difficult for developers to renegotiate affordable housing numbers.
During discussion the following points were noted:
i. The Council monitored the sale of shared ownership homes. Shared ownership homes were first made available to those within the County, and if they were not sold, the area the house was available to be expanded until there was an occupant. Mr Brown suggested that it could be worthwhile to provide training to Members regarding the understanding about arrangements for social housing and shared ownership.
ii. Affordable housing was currently exempt from CIL payments from developers.
iii. The Council had working relationships with local providers for social housing such as the Longhouse Group, Spire Homes, and the Waterloo Housing.
iv. The Council was currently reviewing Section 106 agreements with the housing providers to make sure it was fit for purpose, up to date and that the wording was clear.