Agenda item

The Planning and Policy Implementation Manager introduced the report. The Housing Delivery Test was an annual measure of the delivery of housing in a local authority area and it compared the total net homes delivered against the number of homes required over a rolling 3 year period. The government had published the 2022 Housing Delivery Test result in December 2023; Welwyn Hatfield had delivered 65% of homes against its target for the 3 year period, which equated to 1,283 homes delivered against 1,971 required. This result meant the Council was again required to produce an action plan looking at causes of under-delivery and actions to improve it; the last action plan was published by Welwyn Hatfield in October 2022. In addition to producing the action plan, as delivery was still below 75% the Council was required to continue to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development when determining planning applications.

The action plan looked at factors that might impact housing delivery such as local plans, planning performance in terms of determining speed of applications, and the Council’s efforts to increase housing supply through its housing schemes. Some key actions were: to determine applications for Local Plan housing sites as quickly as reasonably possible; contacting landowners/ developers to invite initial discussions when planning applications for Local Plan site allocations had not been received and/ or to understand delays in sites coming forward; progressing implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); and amending the structure of the Development Management service to be more responsive to the progression of the most significant planning applications. It might take some time for any improvement in the housing delivery test to be recorded as it was a retrospective rolling 3-year calculation. Additionally, the lead-in time between planning permission being granted and site completion was usually 2 – 3 years.  

A member asked how the presumption in favour of sustainable development was applied. Officers responded that they needed to consider the delivery of houses; all planning decisions were a balancing exercise and staff needed to factor in the Council not having achieved the number of homes delivered against its target. This was not about sustainable scheme specifics (such as solar panels) but about factoring in the undersupply within the Council’s decision making.

A member observed that a high proportion of delivery that had been missed had been during 2021 – 2022 when the impacts of the pandemic were being felt and asked if that had been a contributory factor and whether other local authorities had been similarly impacted. Officers said the principal reason was because the Local Plan had only recently been adopted meaning there had not been housing sites available; however other factors had impacted delivery including the pandemic and the timing of when developers wanted to bring forward sites. The action plan looked ahead in terms of putting in place measures to improve delivery and now the Local Plan was in place it was anticipated that sites would come forward, contributing to delivering against the Local Plan’s housing target. The only local authorities in Hertfordshire delivering above the Housing Delivery Test targets were North Herts and East Herts; other neighbouring councils were roughly on par with or slightly below Welwyn Hatfield.   

A member asked about EV charging in respect of new builds. Officers believed this was a requirement under building regulations; the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan (written a while ago) did not have this requirement on a plot by plot basis which was why it was important to review and update policies as required.

A member asked about the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Officers said it provided a standard method for calculating housing need; authorities starting a new local plan were told what their housing numbers were as a starting point. Welwyn Hatfield’s adopted Local Plan was less than 5 years old and had identified a housing supply of over 5 years when the examination concluded so the Council was not currently required to provide an annual update on its 5-year housing land supply. However because of the situation with the housing delivery test, Welwyn Hatfield did not have protection against the presumption of sustainable development. An imminent new government might make changes to the NPPF and if so, this would set a clear direction of travel although the process would take longer if legislative changes were required.

A member wondered whether it was viable for the Council to deliver on its housing needs, associated infrastructure and its commitment to sustainability and biodiversity in the next few years if the economic situation did not change, given developers were sometimes giving back sites eg the Shredded Wheat site. Officers said this was a test of delivery; the adopted Local Plan had significant housing numbers, not many of which had yet been physically delivered, and that was the test’s purpose. It appeared that developers were willing to bring forward the majority of the sites allocated in the Local Plan; the Wheat site was slightly different as it was more complex to deliver given its brownfield nature but a new owner was engaging with officers on a new scheme. Despite the difficulties the member had been highlighted, developers were keen to deliver sites in the borough because of the demand which had taken some time to be met through policy with the adoption of the Local Plan.

A member asked how developers could be influenced to start work once approval had been granted. Officers replied that the action plan set out that they would write to developers engaged with a pre-application; additionally, there would be changes to the Development Management service so that the team was more focused on helping deliver larger schemes.                            

A member commented that the Panshangar airfield site was first approved some years ago but nothing was built and the housing figures required for the site had now increased; he wondered if a new developer could conceivably hold off building for three years. Officers felt this was an unlikely scenario given the demand; Homes England had now bought the site and appointed a development partner. Landowners and developers were incentivised to deliver their allocations. 

A member reflected that the report said 69% of housing sites in the borough not owned by the Council were completed within 2 years (89% being completed in 3 years) and suspected the percentage might be skewed if compared to the number of actual dwellings. Officers advised the 69% figure referred to 1,267 dwellings and the 89% referred to 1,550 and agreed they would put together a clarificatory paragraph for members. {Post-meeting note: a supplementary note is appended to these minutes}.    

A member asked about the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Officers explained this was a tool to bring in money to support infrastructure and would in the main do away with many S106 agreements which could take a long time to get in place; positively, CIL would speed things up and would mean landowners knew how much they would need to pay. An item about CIL in respect of the recent consultation and next steps would be brought to the next committee meeting.

RESOLVED

CPPP:

a)   Recommended to Cabinet that the Housing Delivery Test Action Plan be approved for publication; and

b)   Agreed for the decision to be taken by the Executive Member using their delegated powers under paragraph 18.1 (b) of the Cabinet procedure rules.