25 people in attendance. After a review of progress to date Richard Hornby summarised the key findings of the 102 page Housing Needs Assessment report prepared by AECOM. The latest NP newsletter circulated to all households in May had also included the key findings.
The meeting split into smaller groups to discuss matters arising from the report with feedback at a plenary. The agreed conclusions were as follows
1 Tenure and Affordability
• The split 60:40 in favour of rental, as discussed in the AECOM report for new developments, was supported though given need 65:35 should be considered
• Council/Social Housing for rent was considered preferable to private rental ownership
• Therefore developments should ideally be led by Council/Registered Social Providers in partnership with the private sector
• Rental properties should be excluded from any ‘right to buy’ provisions
• Priority for rental should be for local residents and those working in the immediate area
• Further discussion needed about mechanisms for affordable home ownership and eligibility. Affordable needs to target first time buyers
• Given the need for around an additional 400 units and the current DCC policy of new developments requiring 25% affordable (either rent or purchase), it was recognised over 1000 units would be required were private sector to lead.
• Therefore large sites would be required. Possibilities were Mullards. the former Gilesgate School and obviously Benthouse Lane where Banks have acquired land. Other thoughts covered land to the south of Rennys Lane towards Sherburn and a further extension of Durham Gate towards the A1M
• Considered the Scrambles, land surrounding Belmont Community Centre and Dragon Park should not be used for housing and protected from development.
2 Type and size
• While it was felt there was sufficient housing stock with four or more bedrooms for purchase, there was probably a shortage of affordable properties for large families both for purchase and rental.
• Priority should be three bed terraced family homes built to a high specification. Thus would cover insulation, to cope with not only energy efficiency, but noise. Adequate shared outdoor communal space a necessity.
• Recognised there was also a need for one bed accommodation for singles, possibly utilising low rise build.
• A mix of both types would be desirable on new developments
3 Specialist Housing
• Bungalows were considered far preferable to multi generational housing. The latter was more likely to be targeted at children in their 20s/30s living with mam and dad
• Specialist Housing should therefore focus on the increasing elderly population. possibly with particular health needs and wishing to live independently
• While there was a need for private ownership there should be provision of additional bungalow units for rent
• Further information needed about M4/2 and M4/3, but clearly provision has to be of a specification suitable for the demographic.
• Developments should be on level ground close to services (shops, surgeries, social venues) and bus routes.
• Ideally, developments should be small and not lost on large estates.
• Possible small developments could be envisaged on open areas eg on the Sunderland Road estate, and in the parish area. Recognised this requiores further discussion
- Houses in multiple occupation
• Noted verbal statements from the University regarding current and future student numbers remaining at a maximum of 21,400
• Essential that Policy 16, including the Article 4 direction, should be reviewed immediately
• If at all possible the NP should include policies to restrict “sandwiching” and use of frontage as well as radius.
• HMOs should be liable for council tax or business rate and landlords required to maintain the properties and curtilage to an agreed standard that would be enforceable.
• More discussion required about definition of ‘student. Would this include trainees eg nurses
- Second Homes / AirBnB
• Concern about number of empty homes falling into disrepair. Could compulsory purchase be explored?
• Business rates should be charged on second homes.
• The growth in unregistered Children’s Homes was a concern and this could be a matter for consideration in the NP
PC/120624