It was noted that, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, notice had been given that Councillor Ruchira Yarsley had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Travis Hesketh and Councillor Sam Kemp had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Alex Hall.

Councillors David Hall and Neil Jones attended the Meeting as an observer.

At this point in the meeting, Members were invited to declare any relevant interests.  None were received.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 September 2023.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 September 2023 were agreed as a correct record.

Actions from the last meeting.

The actions were noted as complete.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager informed Members that following last month’s meeting, his team had put in a great deal of work and effort into send out individual settlement scoring spreadsheets to all of the Parish Councils and Ward Members and that the responses were starting to come in.

To receive a report from the Planning Policy and Research Manager.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager presented a report to Members for them to consider whether the current affordable housing contribution percentages (%) and trigger were appropriate, given the evidence in the updated Economic Viability Assessment.

Currently in the Local Plan there was a trigger of 15 houses or more

and the level of affordable housing varied across the district.  Members were informed that there were 3 different value areas, as follows:

Coastal (low value area): 0%

Inland (medium and high value areas): 30%

Woodhall Spa (very high value area): 40%

The report contained a number of options and recommended choices. The recommendation for the 3 different value areas within East Lindsey were:

Coastal: keep this at 0% contribution.

Inland: reduce this to 25% contribution.

Woodhall Spa: maintain this at 40% contribution.

In relation to the trigger, the recommendation was to reduce to 10 units or more and 5 units in the Wolds AONB. 

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager referred Members to the Economic Viability Assessment (EVA), pages 25 to 98 of the Agenda refer, which looked at how much it cost to build houses on the ground.  Members were also advised that there were contributions that the developer had to pay for NHS and education.  This was to pay for the impact of more people living in a certain locality.  Biodiversity net gain, carbon reduction measures and electronic vehicle charging infrastructure were also mentioned as additional costs placed on a developer.  All of these elements were used to work out the residual valuation of the land and if there was no value left in the land then there would be no incentive to develop on that piece of land.

The EVA was to look at how much affordable housing could be provided on the sites once all development and additional costs were taken out.

Currently, the 0%, 30% and 40% was based on the previous EVA; there was an updated EVA and there were differences in the recommendations to now take into account biodiversity net gain and the other pressures.  It looked at a different range of sites to see what the different range of viability would be depending on the size of the site.  It was noted that there were differences as larger sites had to provide more significant infrastructure. 

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager reported that the updated EVA suggested that it was still 0% viability on the coast, inland was between 20% and 30% and the suggested contribution in the high value area was 50%, which was an increase from 40%.

Following which, Members were referred to the map (figure 2) on page 18 of the Agenda which outlined the different value areas.

The recommended choices for East Lindsey of 0%, 25% and 40% would allow the policies in the Local Plan that related to affordable housing to remain aspirational, but realistic.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager then went on to explain the second element to affordable housing which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To receive a report from the Planning Policy and Research Manager.

Simon Milson, the Planning Policy and Research Service Manager presented Members with a report on the 5-Year Housing Supply, pages 201 to 210 of the Agenda refers. 

The report was intended to provide an update to Members on the current 5-Year Housing Supply position. It served as evidence as to how the Local Plan was performing in relation to housing delivery.

Members were advised that the report related to the 5-Year Housing Supply calculation that the Council, as Local Planning Authority must produce on an annual basis. 

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

A Member queried whether there was any liaison with neighbouring authorities as Holton Le Clay had had big developments which were affecting the facilities there.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager advised that there was liaison with neighbouring authorities as part of the Housing Need assessment and neighbouring authorities could take on housing need when an authority was struggling to provide within their own authority area as outlined in the strategic housing market assessment.

Following a query from a Member asking whether Planning Officers had contacted developers and landowners, the Planning Policy and Research Service Manager advised that this was part of the ongoing work updating the Position Statement. Some had been contacted but there were a lot to get through and they usually chose the bigger sites first.

A Member queried whether contributions should sway a Planning Committee when having to approve or refuse planning applications.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager advised there was a difference between legislative requirements and policy requirements on a site and the things that had been referred to were policy requirements, for example affordable housing, NHS and education and it was down to the planning officers and members of Planning Committee to decide whether the benefits of the development effectively outweighed the downsides of the development.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager commented that his team managed the funds for the contributions and payments were authorised regularly with the money going out to improve those facilities where the contributions were designated.

A Member referred to Box 2 and Box 4, on page 208 of the Agenda, and queried what the completion rate was on the coastal figures.

The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager commented that he was unsure, however thought it would be around 10% of the overall completions across the district.  He advised Members that he would provide this information for the next meeting.

A Member queried whether the 5-year housing supply meant that further applications would not be considered.  The Planning Policy and Research Service Manager advised that housing figures were generally not a ‘ceiling’ and that anything above that would be welcomed. 

Following which it was,

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The date of the next Meeting was confirmed as Thursday 14 December 2023, commencing at 6.00pm.