Agenda item

This report updates the Committee with the Quarter 1 Performance Outturn for the Key Performance Indicators for the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Group Head of Planningpresented the report which set out the performance of the Key Performance Indicators at Quarter 1 for the period 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022. It was explained that this Committee had one KPI to note [CP36 – Number of new homes completed].

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised, including:

·         clarification was sought on when new homes got counted and included in this KPI, for example when they were ready to be lived in or at an earlier stage in the process

·         the location within the District of these completed new homes

·         whether this figure included all new homes or only affordable ones

·         whether the report referenced in the commentary box of the KPI, regarding housing delivery targets and whether the market in the area could actually deliver the required number of homes, would be available to Members and what the timescales involved were

·         whether more detail was available to contextualise the ‘not achieving’ status, for example how far was Arun from reaching the targets, and what needed to be done to achieve them

·         whether Arun was in a similar situation to neighbouring Local Authorities in not achieving this target

·         the issue for Arun to accommodate higher numbers of houses whilst being bordered by both the sea and a National Park

·         that it would be helpful for Members to have a briefing to see how these things have progressed before publication of the housing target deliverability report

·         dissatisfaction with the amount of housing Arun has needed to accommodate as part of its Local Plan housing requirements

·         the meaninglessness of this target when presented without context

·         the unfairness of the Planning Department having this as a target when they are not responsible for building the houses, and therefore whether this Key Measure should be reviewed as it only reflected what builders were building

·         the Planning Department, and by extension Arun, being set up to fail with an unrealistic target as it could not force the implementation of approved but yet to be commenced development

·         whether the Policy and Finance Committee should be asked to re-evaluate this KPI and seek to amend it so that it was more meaningful in what Arun rather than a third party could actually deliver

·         the need to have the figures for planned and unplanned development and the consequences for unplanned development when approved planned development was not built out

The Group Head of Planning provided Members with responses to points raised during the debate, including:

·         explanation that the report contained the best interim figures available, which had been taken from new Council Tax records and applications and Building Control completions (recognising that Building Control did not deal with every development within the District as developments could have appointed Inspectors), until the more thorough end-of-year data (which also included site visits, site inspections and direct contact with developers) collected for Annual Monitoring Report purposes became available, which would be reported in January. This report would also include the location of the houses and the figures for planned and unplanned development, which would be resource-intensive poor use of Officer time to report on a quarterly basis

·         confirmation that the figure included was for all new homes

·         confirmation that Members would receive a briefing on the housing target deliverability report ahead of publication but that Officers were very keen that the report only became available when it was certain that it looked at the issues that it needed to look at, and confirmation that Officers were in active ongoing conversation with the consultants on its preparation

·         a finished useable report might be able to be brought to the November meeting of the Committee, though the January meeting was more likely in order to provide Members with a briefing on the report and for it to pass through the Corporate Management Team (CMT) process first

·         explanation that the targets were assessed against the Standard Housing Methodology, which had to be used for the purposes of the Annual Monitoring Report, and involved significant amounts of evidence and data feeding into how those targets were achieved in a context of changing targets

·         Arun being in a unique position within the context of Local Authorities and housing number requirements in terms of the amount of development it had been asked to provide, the contrasts with other Districts with similar requirements (Horsham, Mid Sussex) that were performing better in meeting their targets but that were also more attractive markets being closer to London and Gatwick etc

·         explanation that the targets were set by Arun’s statutory Local Plan and how locally agreed targets would be meaningless in the context of planning applications and planning appeals as the Authority would still not be meeting its statutory targets and as an Authority needed to know where it was in relation to its statutory targets at all times

The Chair confirmed that this report was an information paper with no recommendations for the Committee to consider. The Committee then noted the report.