Agenda item

The Regeneration Project Manager presented a report on the options for the delivery of housing on the Windsor Street site in Bromsgrove. This paper was submitted for discussion by Overview and Scrutiny Board prior to consideration of the report by Cabinet in November.

The Regeneration Project Manager recapped on the details in relation to the Windsor Street site development. It was noted that the site had stood derelict since 2014 and that Council had been successful in obtaining £3,490,000 for the redevelopment of the site from various sources. No Bromsgrove District Council funding had been used in the project to date.

It was noted that residential use was considered as most appropriate for the site, and only development opportunities for housing had been considered in this report. The three potential delivery options were set out as follows:

·         Option A: Obtain outline planning permission and dispose of the site on the open market

·         Option B: Develop through Spadesbourne Homes Ltd and retain market value properties (dispose of affordable units)

·         Option C: Enter into partnership with a private developer or a registered social landlord (RSL).

Members discussed and evaluated the three potential delivery options for the Windsor Street site and in doing so commented on the following:

·         Option C, to enter into partnership with a RSL, was identified as a preference by the majority of Members present.

·         Some Members expressed the opinion that the option to transfer to an RSL would protect the site from being sold off. The option would also secure the most affordable housing units.

·         A Member asked if development of mixed housing / entertainment venue(s) was possible on the site. Officers replied that given the size of the site, it would not be financially viable to provide mixed use on the Windsor Street site. However, the Nailers Yard site would be utilised for mixed use.

·         The building of flats was considered but it was identified by Officers that the greatest demand in the District was for 2- and 3-bedroom houses.

·         Some Members expressed strong disapproval of the proposal to build houses on the site and argued that, given there was a recognised demand for young people to have affordable opportunities to enter the housing market, small flats should be provided on the site.

·         A Member noted it was important to verify how many young people with demand for flats or maisonette-type properties were on the Council’s housing waiting list.

·         Given the site’s location in Bromsgrove Town Centre, it was suggested by some Members that this should be a car-free sustainable development as there were transport links available (with Birmingham via train etc.) and car club / car share opportunities.

·         A Member expressed the view that the site could deliver 50 dwellings rather than the 29 units as per current calculations if housing was built. It was argued that this development provided an opportunity to encourage town living which was most suited to longer-term sustainability and that this development was an opportunity to shape the Local Plan. Allowing for 50 units would also likely result in more private developers expressing interest in the site.

·         Other Members argued that there should be some parking provision allowed for in the development and that there could be a mixture of properties with and without parking.

·         The suggestion was made to consider the residents with disabilities on the housing register and to check with the housing associations on the specific needs of people with disabilities and whether this could be accommodated as part of this development.

·         It was clarified by Officers that at this stage, the make-up of housing types on the site had not been determined and this report only concerned the preferred delivery option.

·         Indicative layout of the site – Members were advised that there was a right of way running through the houses and a listed building near the site and consideration had to be given to the scale and massing of the buildings on site.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.

[Following consideration of this item, the meeting was adjourned between 9.00pm and 9.07pm].

(During consideration of this item, Members discussed matters that necessitated the disclosure of exempt information. It was therefore agreed to move to exclude the press and public prior to any debate on the grounds that information would be revealed that included information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)).