Agenda item
Self-Build Workshop
LBTH Approach To:
· Land Disposal
· Eligibility Criteria
· Allocation of Sites
· Planning Permission
· Consultation
Presented By:Mark Baigent
Minutes:
A workshop was held and attendees discussed the Council’s draft principles and offered their feedback on site disposal, eligibility and site allocation.
Feedback received has been summarised as follows:
Site Disposal - There was general consensus that land should be disposed of at a discount proportionate to the community benefits the Council receives. It was felt that if no discount was applied, then housing being affordable in perpetuity is an unrealistic ambition. More broadly, it was felt that covenants should only to be applied if a discount was applied to the land.
A further discussion took place over how to ensure affordability in perpetuity; it was felt that it would be built into the CLT model, however for other self-builders the Council needs to devise a way to make this feasible.
If sites were to be advertised without planning permission, concern was raised over how self-builders would finance planning application/advice. Applicants asked whether pots of funding were available to assist with the planning process. Similarly, the problem of overcoming the knowledge barrier was raised.
Forum members encouraged mechanisms to be established if bidders were to drop out.
Questions were asked about why the Council wasn’t considering using their CPO powers to acquire underused/vacant commercial premises for self-build purposes, as opposed to just identifying small sites that have been deemed inappropriate for alternative uses?
Eligibility - It was felt that the introduction of an income cap makes a small scheme difficult in viability terms. It was felt that perhaps the introduction of a discretionary panel vs standardised “hard structure” would be sufficient for relatively small number of sites, however the legal implications of this need further discussion.
Some concern was raised about precluding homeowners entirely.
Local connection needs to be defined; it was suggested that this connection could be as long as 5 years as opposed to 2 years.
The majority of attendees agreed that priority should not necessarily be given to those who first signed up to the register. Long standing ties to the area was generally deemed of greater importance.
Applicants stressed the need to distinguish between the “setter upper” and “end user” – the eligibility criteria are likely to differ.
Site Allocation - Restricting sites to self-build forum members was received positively; however as was pointed out, in reality this may apply to the lead bidder only.
There was general consensus that expressions of interest would be followed by a full application. The application will include financial capability and deliverability test, submission of a business plan and demonstration of social and economic benefits.
It was felt that if decisions were to be influenced by a design competition, assessors must be aware of the disadvantage this puts some applicants at.
General
Feedback suggested that the Council needs to make the parameters of the self-build discussion clearer from the outset. There was frustration from some applicants that the self-build register is open to everyone, yet the Council appear to only be considering a CLT/affordable self-build programme, therefore excluding some interested parties.
Additionally, applicants requested more information about how a prospective self-build project would be financed and the capital required.