[ad_1]
About half of affordable housing in some of England’s most expensive areas will go unbuilt if ministers continue with planning reforms, an analysis by the councils suggests.
The government’s proposal to eliminate the duty of developers to build affordable housing on sites for up to 40 or 50 homes, would have led to 30,000 of those homes not being delivered in the past five years, according to the Local Government Association (LGA) .
Some areas likely to be hit the hardest are the least affordable and those under the most housing pressure, the cross-party group said.
Elmbridge in Surrey, where the median house price is over £ 760,000, has 486 affordable homes built under construction or with planning permission over the past five years. This would drop to 271 if the proposed threshold of 40 or 50 units is introduced, the LGA said.
Lewes Borough Council in East Sussex could lose up to 37% of its affordable housing, based on past trends. Council leaders in Cornwall have complained that the change could result in 300 fewer affordable homes in the county each year.
The warning comes as several conservative councils voice objections to the planning reforms, also complaining that they will limit local power over developments. Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, defended the plans in an interview with The Guardian, telling Tory rebels in the county that his party has a “moral mission” to build more homes.
The government admits that raising the threshold to include affordable housing from sites with more than 10 homes to those with more than 40 or 50 could reduce affordable housing delivery by 7% and 20%.
But his query on the changes to the planning system states: “We anticipated that raising the threshold would make more sites viable for [small and medium sized] developers and increase the pace of their delivery by eliminating the need for negotiation. “
LGA housing spokesman David Renard, who is the Conservative leader of the Swindon Borough, said the proposals were “of great concern.”
“We need to build housing that is affordable for the local population and help reduce homelessness, rather than contributing additional funds to the profits of developers and landowners,” he said. “These current proposals run the risk of allowing developers to tinker with the system by submitting blueprints for fewer than 40 or 50 houses, and thus avoid building affordable houses.”
Karen Randolph, Planning Portfolio Holder at Elmbridge, said: “We strongly oppose this approach. There is a great need for affordable housing in Elmbridge, which, along with the limited supply of land and dependence on small sites, means that every opportunity must be seized to secure affordable housing. “She said the average site size of Development in the district was 0.11 hectares, about a quarter of an acre.
Clergyman William Meyer, a member of the Liberal Democrats for Housing in Lewes District Council, said: “We have a massive shortage of land in Lewes and if small sites are to be excluded, it will make things worse.” The city of Lewes is located in the South Downs National Park, which has a rule that half of developments of more than 10 houses must be affordable.
But the change would affect other settlements in the district outside the park boundary, including Seaford and Newhaven. Meyer said building municipal housing instead of relying on private developers was the answer and that a cut in March in the cost of central government loans for that purpose had helped.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said the LGA was exaggerating the risk, because its proposal to raise the threshold for affordable housing contributions is planned to be in effect for only 18 months.
They added: “Our proposals will bring a new and simpler infrastructure tax to ensure that developers pay their way and deliver at least as much, if not more, affordable housing on site than they do today.”
