Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provides an update regarding that the Council’s planning service maintains up to date evidence on housing needs mainly for the purposes of plan-making and also needs to maintain information on a 5-year housing land supply to ensure that there is sufficient land to meet those needs across the city. 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provided an update regarding that the Council’s planning service maintains up to date evidence on housing needs mainly for the purposes of plan-making and also needs to maintain information on a 5-year housing land supply to ensure that there is sufficient land to meet those needs across the city. 

The Principal Planner from City Development, presented the report, providing Members with the following information:

• This item was an update on the progress of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which maintains up to date evidence on housing needs mainly for the purposes of plan-making and also information on the need to maintain a 5-year housing land supply to ensure that there is sufficient land to meet those needs across the city.
• The previous iteration of the SHMA had been conducted in 2017, prior to the Core Strategy being developed in 2019. The new SHMA was developed in partnership with consultants Arc4 and Edge Analytics.
• Government methodology, as part of the NPPF reforms, for determining housing number requirements had changed, with an updated approach to size, type, location and tenure of housing development needs.
• A wide scope of consultation had been run, including 100 stakeholders, a public consultation and a steering group.
• An update on the following headline finding on the SHMA were outlined as:

o  Overall Housing Requirements - The requirement figure for housing using the Government’s standard method forecast the need of a 35% urban uplift. The overall housing requirement in the SHMA was a 3,022 average each year and 4,080 per annum including the uplift. this data informed planning and allocation which translates to delivery.

o  Affordable Housing Need – A significant uplift in affordable housing provision was required, with the calculations determining the net shortfall as 2,136 per annum, based against the previous 10 year backlog, over 900 new affordable homes were required per annum. This was reflective of the Council Housing waiting list, housing benefit levels and the cost of living crisis leading to significant demand despite best efforts.

o  Housing Mix – The current policy position was considered to have a narrow focus looking only at the number of bedrooms city wide; a more detailed model was in preparation to consider size, type and tenure across 11 sub areas as part of LLP2040.

o  Student Accommodation – Demand and supply had changed, with a stark increase in the number of student housing developments, which was outlined as part of the Unipol report at appendix 2. There was a shift away from the previous standard of co-living models to self contained units more concentrated within the city centre. These housing models largely catered for international students and postgraduates, with a decrease in demand forecast. The Council had approved over 17,000 bed spaces since 2017, with 7,500 over the past 2 years.

o  Older Persons Housing – There was a need for this housing type with a calculation for 8,805 new older persons units by 2040 calculated, as C3 class houses and extra care home bed spaces to support various needs.

o  Specialist Housing Needs – This housing type was to support various health and life experience needs, with a shift away from understanding this as age related. The exact needs requirements were difficult to scope but available data was to inform plans.

·  The reforms to the NPPF had implications in regard to the update to the standard method of the stock-based approach, with an increased affordability multiplier and the need to increase housing land supply. The new calculation outlined a target of 4,159 new houses per annum and an addendum to the SHMA was anticipated by the end of 2024 to set out the response to the reforms.

·  The Core Strategy was 5 years old, and the housing target was replaced by the Government standard method with the 35% uplift now applied. This impacted the 5 year land supply position, reduced from 7.7 years to between 6.1 and 6.4 years.

·  The next steps were outlined as the SHMA being published and used as an evidence base for LLP2040, becoming a material consideration as well as an updated 5 year land supply position to be calculated as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in 2024.

Members discussed the following key matters:

• There was a need to build more affordable student accommodation as current provision incurred substantial costs to students and was considered to contribute to an unfair system. High cost rent had also impacted other areas, with HMO’s previously occupied by co-living students being occupied by young professionals. This was a clear issue outlined by the evidence and a policy response was required.
• As the demographic of residents within the city centre had changed, well thought out policy was needed to respond to needs, including family friendly developments. The evidence gathered by the SHMA was more nuanced in terms of bedroom numbers and property size to inform policy development to compliment the amenities and services within the city centre, which were noted to be good for all demographics.
• It was confirmed that the housing income and cost data was based on a 2022 data set from the original commission of the SHMA. Consideration as to what up to date data would reflect was noted given further inflation and wage stagnation; policy needed to focus on meaningful affordability to combat the housing crisis.
• As less than 1% of dwellings within the city centre contained three bedrooms, policy needed to encourage more affordable and diverse housing options. Demand had changed for city centre housing and options for new development locations to meet needs were ongoing.
• The issue of affordability was to be understood via the lens of housing cost but also wage level and wider societal and economic change was integral to address the housing crisis, outside of the planning system.
• If targets were continually missed back claiming shortfalls was somewhat ineffective. It was noted that the new Government methodology reflected wage levels against house prices across different areas to determine targets and the SHMA considered net arising needs and contribution to back logs.
• Effectively increasing the variety of housing options was going to be through stronger, enforceable policy positions and the SHMA was a good evidence base to inform policy to cater to local needs.
• The economic benefits for purpose built student accommodation and the affluent individuals it brought to the city was recognised, whilst understanding the issue of affordable student accommodation as difficult given traditional student areas had become mixed or displaced and decent living condition were expected but not always provided.
• Cluster models for student housing was often more affordable and Members noted that young people should not be priced out of taking further education; it was important to get suitable housing and space standards for this type of housing.
• The issues of housing quality in HMOs and co-living models were mainly due to an increase in demand and competition for units.
• The Unipol report at appendix 2, and the student housing working group, were noted to be a useful source of data but were not bound to policy outcomes.
• The issues noted with purpose build student accommodation translated to supported living facilities within outer areas and resolutions were best sought through in depth understanding of wider communities specific to each area.
• A reduction in houses prices was outlined as undesirable to developers and also some house owners and increased wages was the best method for addressing the affordable housing crisis. Pre-reform methodology had not focused on need projections, whereas the revised approach was to consider location, size, and tenure across the eleven sub areas, being mindful of existing capacity to translate into need and land allocation plans.
• How housing need balanced against demand was queried, given affordable housing was required across all areas to support the economy and different job types.
• Although evidence for specialist needs housing and support living models for people aged 18 to 64 was difficult to scope, the need for supported living options should be captured in forthcoming policy, which would alleviate pressure on SEND provision. It was noted that approaches were being considered, including conditions which could be added to planning permissions and the SHMA identified gaps which required further research.
• The figures detailed on the number of people across all age groups with learning disabilities in table 4.13 at page 145 of the report were agreed to be checked again with the Adults Health and Social Care department and the relevant steering group, prior to publication. It was noted that delays in young people receiving Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) assessments and diagnosis impacted data that was required to scope needs.
• Whether reductions in affordable housing, for example through instances of right to buy, were taken into consideration as part of the housing need methodology and forthcoming policy considering the needs of sub areas, were queried. In response it was noted that affordable housing needs assessment as part of overall housing delivery considered remedying past effects of homelessness and waiting lists in order to maximise provision and reduce need and pressures from affordable homes.
• A balanced approach for the mix of housing option needs was to be maximised by policy and work with other services, including Regeneration assisted in delivery of affordable homes through specific providers as well as work to maximise the effects for Section 106 allocation.
• The 50% of affordable homes to be delivered on permissions for green belt land was also proposed by the reforms but viability issues may arise for developer delivery on other sites such as brown field and consideration of a realistic approach was to be considered.
• How in depth the data was for the sub areas was queried given that SHMA data was integral to neighbourhood plans; the SHMA had utilised data from the various output areas and from the Office of National Statistics to inform as required. Nuanced policy for each area’s needs was required to get housing supply levels correct which were considered by LLP2040 including a settlement hierarchy. Agent summaries were useful data, but strategies required a multi factor input.
• House prices were relative and, although dependant on mortgage payments, a reduction in overall housing costs equated to more affordable housing.
• Retirement complexes were a good model between independent and supported living, however, these models were forthcoming through a market response, but Officers agreed to review the approach for this.
• It was confirmed that the removal of section 21 evictions had be considered during student housing working groups.
• Average income was confirmed to be determined through median data and utilised Leeds specific data.
• Granular neighbourhood data needed significant consideration as areas nearby, including different areas of the city centre, had a very different demographic make ups and micro economies.
• To address future projections for city centre, in particular student housing, it was noted that a mix of provision was needed and that the Universities could hold influence of affordability rates.

RESOLVED – That the report, along with Members comments be noted.