Council stands behind ‘at least 25%’ affordable housing

Major developers have challenged the legality of a council plan to demand that at least one in every four homes built in Telford are ‘affordable’.

Council officials were this week defending a requirement for major housing developments in urban Telford include a minimum of 25 per cent ‘affordable’ homes, with 35 per cent in Newport and the rural areas of the borough.

Satnam Choongh, of the Wappenshall Consortium, said: “We fundamentally disagree with this.

“It holds out the certainty of being a great big legal mess.”

Mr Choongh told inspectors carrying out a an examination of the proposed local plan that the policy is “unlawful and unviable and a recipe for disaster.”

He added: “At any level it is unworkable and not thought through.

“I haven’t come across this policy at any time.”

Developers told inspectors Mike Worden and Catherine Carpenter that the policy would affect the viability of schemes and could lead to an early review.

But council officers said that Telford & Wrekin has achieved 28 per cent of affordable homes over the last 10 years and 25 per cent over the last five years.

The ‘disagreement’ between the two sides boils down to how the affordable homes can be paid for.

Developers told the inspectors that they can only put forward how much they can afford in section 106 contributions.

The council side says the developers can find ways of getting grants from Homes England to hit the policy requirement. Developers say this would be counter productive because homes built with grants are less valuable than market homes.

James Dunn, a council director, told the inspectors that a development of homes in Donnington Wood Way achieved more than 50 per cent of affordable homes with “zero section 106 money.”

The policy also has political backing from the top elected leadership of the council.

Mr Dunn said money is available from Homes England in the form of grants to registered providers like the Housing Plus Group.

Mr Dunn told the inspectors that the council has a “track record of delivery”.

But Matt Spilsbury, also of the Wappenshall Consortium, said developers supported the “kind of laudable objectives” on affordable housing.

But he added that a ‘misunderstanding’ of how such homes are funded is “fundamentally flawed.”

“It is fundamentally flawed because you can’t do that.

“Affordable housing has to be secured by section 106 and can’t benefit from grant funding. That is a fundamental issue.”

Mr Spilsbury claimed that the council’s own evidence showed that 15 per cent affordable homes was ‘realistic’.

Developers asked that the policy be modified to “make it consistent with the evidence.”

Mark Rose, representing Bloor Homes, said the policy would be “setting an expectation that can’t be met.”

He said the viability of homes in Bratton are based on each home sale providing £15,000 to pay for new infrastructure.

Developers told the inspectors that there could be ‘reputational risk’ if the issue is left to individual planning applications and they are blamed for reducing the number of affordable homes.

Council barrister Freddie Humphreys, of King Chambers, said there is evidence base for the policy which if reduced would mean that it cannot be raised again.

“It just sets a target,” he said. “How you get there does not really matter.”

The inspectors are testing whether the local plan is legally sound and Mr Humphreys said it is.

“The policy is an entirely normal, standard policy wording.”

Inspector Mike Worden asked the council if it was “reconsidering” the policy.

Mr Humphreys said: “Not at this point in time but if you would like us to we could look at the wording.”

Mr Worden said the inspectors would “need to go away and consider what we need to consider and recommend.”

The hearings continue.