Agenda item

The Head of Finance and Customer Services presented the Quarter 4 Performance Outturn Report for 2023/24.  Members were advised that the report detailed performance in relation to a range of measures and this data had been provided for Members’ information.

During consideration of this item, it was noted that the report had been pre-scrutinised at a meeting of the Finance and Budget Working Group held on 19^th July 2024.  The group had agreed recommendations which had subsequently been considered at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board held on 23^rd July 2024.  One of the group’s recommendations, which had raised concerns about information not being included in the report in respect of Levelling Up, had subsequently been rejected by the Overview and Scrutiny Board on the basis that the report had been drafted before information on that subject had emerged and it was therefore recognised that this recommendation was not appropriate to take forward.

In respect of the other proposals from the Finance and Budget Working Group, which had been published in a second supplementary pack for the consideration of Cabinet, Members were advised that the group had felt that report authors were not being realistic about the dates on which they were programming reports for future consideration by Cabinet.  This lack of clarity on dates had been raised in respect of finance reports specifically at the meeting of the Finance and Budget Working Group but it was noted that this was a wider issue at the Council.  Cabinet was advised that the consequence of this situation was that it weakened Members’ confidence in the democratic process and decision making at the Council.

Members discussed this recommendation and in so doing noted that at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board held on 23^rd July, reference had been made to the potential for items to be recorded on the Cabinet Work Programme, which gave notice of forthcoming items, as due for consideration “not before” a particular date.  Use of this functionality could help to provide some flexibility, although the Leader also noted that Cabinet Members should be monitoring progress with all items within their remit on the work programme with a view to ensure that reports remained on track for consideration in a timely manner.

Cabinet was also invited to consider two other recommendations made by the Finance and Budget Working Group in respect of this report, which related to planning policy, specifically in terms of affordable housing, which had been recorded in the following manner:

1)          “The Council seek maximum threshold of developer contribution (as set out below) in respect of the rate / proportion of affordable housing delivered for housing developments taking place in the District;

The thresholds, as per the Council’s Local Plan, are:

·             Up to 40% affordable housing (or a higher % if proposed [by a developer]) on greenfield sites or any site accommodating 200 or more dwellings.

·             Up to 30% affordable housing (or a higher % if proposed [by a developer]) on brownfield sites accommodating less than 200 dwellings.

2)    The 40 % thresholds referred to above should be extended to any site accommodating below 100 dwellings, to narrow the ever-increasing gap between Market Houses and Affordable.”

In presenting these recommendations, Councillor McDonald commented that there was a significant gap in terms of the availability of affordable housing in the District and he expressed concerns that this gap appeared to be widening.  Cabinet was informed that the current average cost of a property in Bromsgrove District was circa £349,000 and people on average earnings would struggle to get a mortgage to pay for a house of this value.  Consequently, Councillor McDonald commented that people born, raised and working in the District would feel unable to remain living in the area and there was a risk that Bromsgrove District would become a commuter location.

To address this, at present, the Council could require 40 per cent of a housing development to be affordable once more than 101 properties were due to be developed at a site that was subject to a planning application.  The recommendations were designed to enable this requirement to be implemented for developments consisting of fewer than 100 houses, preferably as low as 11 houses or more.

Cabinet subsequently discussed the recommendations in relation to planning policy.  Members recognised some of the difficulties that local residents were experiencing in terms of affording to buy properties in the District.  Concerns were raised about the data in respect of the numbers of residents aged 30 – 39 who could afford to buy properties in the District, as this generation were likely to be raising young families and without them the number of children and young people living in the District were likely to decline.

Concerns were also raised by Members regarding the approach of some developers to the Council’s rules in respect of affordable housing provision for large developments.  Historic cases were cited where Members noted that the developers had managed to reduce the requirements for affordable house numbers as part of their application due to affordability and other considerations and it was suggested that this could have a detrimental impact in the local community.  However, it was also noted that on brownfield sites, a rigid insistence on compliance with these rules could impact on the viability of development at those sites and potentially deter developers from submitting applications.

Members commented that these matters would be more appropriate for consideration at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Steering Group (SPSG).  The role of the SPSG was to review the content of the Council’s Local Plan and meetings of the group had been taking place in recent months.  In this context, it was proposed that those recommendations should be noted by Cabinet and referred on to the SPSG for further consideration.

Consideration was also given to the content of the Quarter 4 Performance Monitoring Report and in doing so Members commented on the potential for the layout of the reports to be amended to align with each Portfolio.  Members also noted that this was the last time that Cabinet would receive the report in this form as, following approval of the Bromsgrove Council Plan 2024 – 2027, the content would be updated to focus on the new Council priorities and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

RESOLVED that

1)          subject to updating the Cabinet Work Programme to schedule items for consideration “not before” particular dates, to ensure that when deadlines are provided in Council reports, these are realistic and are being adhered to; and

2)          the Finance and Budget Working Group’s recommendations in respect of planning policy and affordable housing, as detailed in the preamble above, be NOTED and referred to the Strategic Planning Steering Group for consideration.