The report, which can be found on pages 21 – 28 of the Agenda, was presented by Keith Andrews.

Councillor Abbas raised concerns in the way that the sites listed had been identified for development. He felt that a map should have been attached to the report to highlight where these sites were as well as the sizes and the red line boundaries as mentioned in the report. Referring to the Aveley Hall, he sought clarification on the development plans and the nine units listed as potential capacity on the site. He also noted that an indication for potential expansion of development had been given for Richmond Road where the Thurrock Adult Community College. He was concerned that the services from the college would be removed and sought clarification on the development plans for that site.

Keith Andrews explained that the red line boundaries had not changed and the infographics for the sites had been included in an information pack for Committee back in February 2020 when the item had been heard. The information pack could be brought back to Committee again if required. Some of the sites had been renamed for better transparency following Members’ advice but the red line boundaries had not changed. If there were any changes, the process would be to bring these back to Committee.

In regards to the Thurrock Adult Community College, Keith Andrews said that there was no suggestion of a loss of the facilities on the site. There was potential to make the site more accessible and if this was the case, there would be a consultation process to follow which would then bring the site forward for redevelopment.

With regards to the Aveley Hall, Keith Andrews explained that the Housing Team would only become involved and have more details if the site was made available for development. If it became a housing project, the service would then look to provide affordable housing through that site. Councillor Abbas felt that Aveley Hall and Thurrock Adult Community College on Richmond Road should not have been mentioned on the site list if there had been no plans in place. He went on to say that there had been concerns on the sites from local residents who worried the facilities from the sites would be removed.

Carol Hinvest explained that the concerns of what would happen to the Thurrock Adult Community College would be better to be directed to the Education Team who managed the college. She went on to say that the sites in the list was listed if anything was to happen to those sites and that Councillor John Kent had raised the query of the college to the Corporate Director of Children’s Services who was aware of Members’ concerns. The site had been mentioned in the report because if the Thurrock Adult Community College was to move, the site would then become bigger than it currently was. However, the site mentioned in the report did not currently include the land that the college was on.

Councillor Redsell commented that listing the site gave reassurance that there would be a consultation process should the site become available. Referring to the delivery of 699 new homes, she questioned whether these included the Tops Club and Chadwell St Mary. Keith Andrews answered that the Tops Club, Chadwell St Mary and Calcutta Road in Tilbury were all in addition to the 699 new homes.

In regards to Richmond Road, Lynn Mansfield asked whether there were homes on the site that would be demolished or if the land on the site was currently empty for properties to be built on. Keith Andrews explained that the red boundary line of the site surrounded the existing buildings on site but there were no plans to demolish any of those buildings and only to infill the site. If the wider site did become available, it would only be then that the red boundary line could potentially be expanded.

Welcoming the removal of Enborne Green from the sites option list, Councillor Worrall said that its removal would allow residents to continue to enjoy their green spaces. However, she was disappointed to see that Elm Park Road was still on the list as the site had a park that residents across the Borough used particularly during the current pandemic. She hoped that the Portfolio Holder for Housing would remove the site from the list after hearing residents’ opposition to the site being on the list.

Councillor Worrall mentioned that Thurrock Regeneration Limited (TRL) was no longer operating in its current format and asked for an update on the TRL. Carol Hinvest answered that there was speculation around the future of TRL but Thurrock Council had made no formal decisions on the organisation yet. TRL still existed and was still managing the St Chads development in Tilbury.

Councillor Worrall questioned how the development of the 699 new homes would be financed. Carol Hinvest answered that with the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), it would be a combination of borrowing and the use of the Council’s Right to Buy Receipts which was how previous HRA developments had been financed. Keith Andrews added that if any of the units were developed for shared ownership, the Council would be able to access Homes England grants.

Referring to the land of Culver Fields, Councillor Worrall commented that the land was owned by Thurrock’s residents rather than the Council and queried the process of selling that land over to private developers to ensure the best value was gained from the sale. Keith Andrews explained that the selling of Culver Fields would be a decision for Full Council to make and that the requirements for achieving best value for the sale of the land was a statutory requirement that was placed on Thurrock Council as the local authority. There would be a scrutiny of that report before it would go to Full Council for a decision.

Councillor Worrall questioned why the Housing Development List consider Houses of Multiple Occupancies (HMOs) which was needed for homelessness situations and why the Council did not build HMOs in the Borough. Carol Hinvest answered that the service had purchased the Brook House Hostel last year which was now run as a Council owned and managed hostel. The service was also working with Headstart and with the Children’s Services Department on where HMO opportunities were available. The service tended to focus more on permanent housing solutions rather than on new temporary accommodation.

Councillor Worrall commented that Thurrock Council paid other Local Authorities to use their HMOs and could save on costs if Thurrock had their own HMOs. It would prevent families from being displaced as well. Carol Hinvest explained that a lot of HMOS would be needed in Thurrock for the number of families that Thurrock had and that there were objections to HMOs from the Planning Committee. The service was working with Headstart, which was owned by Thurrock Council, to identify potential properties to develop into HMOs but these were difficult to find. Councillor Worrall questioned if the service was still working St Mungos on HMOs to which Carol Hinvest explained that the contract had been re-let and the contract was now with Sanctuary Housing.

Referring back to the Culver Fields, the Vice-Chair said that the green spaces in the area was well used by local residents. He questioned whether some parts of the Culver Fields could be left undeveloped. Keith Andrews explained that the site had been through detailed consultation processes and there had been strong resistance from the local community to building on those green spaces in the area as the Vice-Chair had mentioned. He went on to say that the last set of designs retained much of the open space which acknowledged the concerns from the local community. Although not all of the Culver Fields had been retained, a significant portion had been. The Vice-Chair commented that the local community was unhappy and wanted the Culver Fields to be left as it was and it was an area that was used for recreational purposes by the local community.

The Committee discussed the need for HMOs further and agreed that a report on HMOs in private housing needed to be brought to Committee. There were some private HMOs in the Borough and in some, young adults were not looked after at night and caused issues of anti-social behaviour in some parts of the Borough.

RESOLVED:

            Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to:

1.1         Note progress on the list of housing development sites to be taken forward for further detailed work, involving engagement with stakeholders and communities.

1.2         Note the removal of site Enborne Green from the sites option list.

1.3         Note the completion of the Alma Court (formerly known as Tops Club) Housing Revenue Account new build project.