Agenda item

To consider the Draft Corporate Plan 2020-2025 in accordance with the Council’s constitution

Councillor S. Sinden and Councillor S. Walsh arrived at the meeting.

Members considered the Draft Corporate Plan 2020-25 in accordance with the Council’s constitution. The Executive Member for Housing and Benefits, Councillor G. Knight introduced the item. He thanked the work of both Members and Officers who had worked hard to develop the plan over a two-year journey so far. He also thanked the Head of Corporate Policy for her work on behalf of himself and the Leader. The plan is now in a period of consultation and as part of that the Committee were due to provide feedback on the draft plan.

Councillor Knight noted that it was an ambitious plan. It included new areas of focus on both housing and environmental sustainability. It set the direction of travel for the Council. Over the coming weeks and months, Members would start to see more detail about items set out in the plan, such as the housing delivery strategy. The plan commits the Council to delivering high quality services. The Council needs to generate more income to do this, due to the cut in government funding. It had already established the Commercial Ventures Executive Sub-Committee, and the capital strategy explained how the Council will develop its commercial approach.

He also asked for the Committee’s views on how the Plan had been developed, including Member engagement. Did it reflect the areas where the Council should be focusing its activity? The consultation started on 16 July 2019 and was due to close on Monday 16 September 2019.

Committee Members had a number of questions and comments in the discussion that followed:

·       Work of the Council – Members praised the inclusive way that the Corporate Plan had been drawn together. The plan reflected the full width and breadth of the work and services of the Council which was of interest to residents in the Borough. The Executive Member was thanked for the two presentations that had been given to groups in the north of the Borough.

·       Partnership working – it was identified that co-ordination with partners such as Surrey County Council was very important. Residents wanted a one stop shop so they could access services at a single point. Members welcomed what had been done so far.

·       Housing – it was noted that Council is developing a detailed Housing Delivery Strategy to deliver the priority in the draft Plan. It has just re-confirmed its core planning strategy. It would be sensible to reflect this in the updated Corporate Plan as it set the scene. Members asked for more detail about the housing objective to deliver a minimum of 30 per cent affordable housing on all housing schemes on Council-owned land.

The Executive Member for Housing and Benefits said that the housing delivery strategy would have more detail in the next three months or so. The Council was concerned that there were many young people and those who worked in the community such as teachers, health care workers, police officers and local government officers who found themselves priced out of the market. The strategy would look at different stages of the housing cycle from addressing homelessness to social housing, through discounted market rent and into shared equity and shared ownership, to the top step of full ownership housing.

This was something new for this Council as previously it had concentrated on getting developers to develop social housing. It had seen through experience that developers had tried not to deliver that affordable housing, claiming these schemes were not economically viable. But if young people were forced to move out of the area to places that were more affordable, this then led to a lack of coherence within our communities. It was possible to sell a two-bedroom flat in Clapham for £800,000 and move to buy a house for £500,000 in the Borough. But for those people working here, they were unable to afford to buy in the Borough. This was something the Council needed to address so it could have a strong local economy.

It was noted that the average earning was £34,000 in the Borough. Therefore the Council has to encourage developers to develop the right properties. The Council’s Local Plan target for affordable housing in urban areas was 30 per cent and already a stretch target for the borough. Had the Council looked at what it was practical to deliver as opposed to what it would like to deliver? The test was in the results we delivered for our residents – not just an aspiration.

The Executive Member for Housing and Benefits said the current Local Plan target was building 100 affordable homes a year. He would like to see the Council exceed this number. It needed to bring in new partners and new investors in the discounted market rent housing. These were the people the Council needed to work with, from Homes England downwards, to be able to deliver these targets.

Members noted the Corporate Plan target was to deliver 30 per cent of affordable housing on Council-owned land. What did this mean and what about land that the Council did not own? The Plan (on page 50) set out that nearly 3,500 homes had been built since 2012 which was 500 per annum. Was 20 per cent probably a more realistic target than 30 per cent?

The Executive Member for Housing and Benefits said that 30 per cent was a realistic target that had been tested through the Local Plan process. There were local workers who deserved to be housed in this Borough. He would not be happy to see a target of 20 per cent. The Council needed to be ambitious and achieving the 30 per cent target on Council-owned land was in the Council’s gift. It would be hard work but the Council could bring in partners who would make it their mission to provide additional social housing.

Members identified that as the Council knew it was not achieving the 30 per cent target on Council-owned land and developers could make the point that it was not viable to put in affordable housing, how could the Council combat that to have any chance of achieving this target?

The Executive Member noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this year effectively downgraded economic viability as a reason for not providing affordable housing. The Council needed to be more ambitious. It could not allow the community to turn into a dormitory community. It needed to have a vibrant economy. Members identified that they supported the Council’s ambitions but the clause in the NPPF was very vague. It did not say how it would downgrade the economic viability reason and in this area of high land prices it was not evident how this could happen.

Members identified that in planning applications, it was tightening up on the analysis used on economic viability especially in large developments. It was aiming to improve on present performance to achieve results for the benefit of our residents. It was identified that this was a welcome statement. The meeting noted the Committee’s concern around affordable housing and said it would come back to this topic later in the year when it discussed the Council’s housing delivery strategy.

·       Refugee families – one of the successes of this Borough had been the help it had given in the resettlement of Syrian families. The original plan was to take up to ten families and Members asked for an update on this. The Director of People identified that the Council had just agreed with the Home Office to receive its tenth Syrian family who were due to arrive in the next few months. It was currently in discussions about potential opportunities and costs associated with receiving additional families. It was doing work behind the scenes to see what would be involved. The Council was aware of the resource commitment and that it would need to avoid taking resources from the current housing register.

·       Population figures – it was noted that the facts and figures were very useful but a figure should be included about the number of households not population. It was important to recognise that the population could ebb and flow, for example, as students went to university.

·       Communities and community safety – Members welcomed the aspiration to fund community development workers in target communities across the Borough. It was identified that these would be better supported if community hubs had more available back room space as charities such as Furnistore needed large community spaces. If the Council wanted to support flourishing communities it would be good to match the actions of neighbouring Councils and provide facilities at peppercorn rent for charities to help them.

·       Vulnerable residents – Members noted the statistics presented on the number of vulnerable residents in the Borough. It was good to have the aspiration to do more to support vulnerable residents. It was identified that the primary responsibility for this group was Surrey County Council and this should be reflected more strongly in the plan.
 

·       Economic prosperity – it was identified that Members had received complaints from small businesses and existing small shops about the high level of business rates. The rates were outside the Council’s control but it was asked what it could do to help small shops and businesses which were part of a thriving community. The Executive Member for Housing and Benefits said that the strategy included looking at how to support smaller businesses. He noted Councillor E. Humphreys, Executive Member for Place and Economic Prosperity had been very proactive in encouraging inward investment and helping existing businesses and start-up businesses in the Borough. He had presented the Corporate Plan to the recent Banstead Business Guild and they had discussed a range of ways of how they could help themselves. The Plan would underpin economic prosperity strategy and the Council would do what it could to ensure businesses survive and prosper in the Borough.

It was noted that infrastructure requirements had been discussed at the Reigate and Banstead Local Committee. It had identified that infrastructure projects needed to be identified early so that they were ready to go when funds were available. The Council should have this list brought forward at the appropriate time. The wording in the Plan should be strengthened on this subject. The Executive Member confirmed there were several projects in the pipeline. Also now the Leader was on the Board of Coast to Capital this would raise the profile of the Borough for infrastructure investment.

The Chief Executive said that the LEP funding had been secured for Horley Business Park, and two further bids had been submitted for the Marketfield Way scheme and Horley town centre.

The Chair noted that work on the level crossing in Reigate was important to all in the Borough. It would be useful to involve Members more widely in identifying other projects.

·       Shaping our places, Clean & Green Spaces and Environmental Sustainability – Members noted that in 2010, the Government had required that every new home was going to be zero carbon but this was not a government requirement any longer. Councillor J. Essex said that he would put in writing some additional feedback, however he felt that if it wanted to be a green Council then Reigate & Banstead should have a zero carbon transport policy.

Members asked if the Committee could be given the opportunity to see the final amended Corporate Plan before it went to the Executive. It was identified that this evening’s meeting was part of the statutory consultation and the Committee had been asked to provide feedback which had been achieved. The final Corporate Plan would go to full Council for adoption once updated.

RESOLUTION – that the Draft Corporate Plan 2020-2025 and Members observations on it be noted and reported to the Executive in accordance with the Council’s constitution.