The report on pages 49 – 56 was presented by Andrew Millard.

The Chair sought details on the current situation of Thurrock Regeneration Limited (TRL) and how confident the service was in achieving 32,000 homes by the end of the Local Plan period. Andrew Millard explained that TRL currently had no Board of Directors and there was a proposal to bring forward the appointment of new Directors and potential housing options. He said that the figure of 32,000 homes had been identified through the assessment of the Borough’s housing needs. The Council’s housing delivery rates have been an average of around 500 units per annum for the past 10 years. There were two factors that would significantly increase the Council’s ability to deliver the 32,000 homes with one being the allocation new housing sites through the review of the Local Plan. The other factor was the market conditions, which had been strong prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was recognised that Thurrock was a great place to live and that its place-making ambitions led the way in defining what good quality place making could be through the work that the Council was already leading on.

The Committee highlighted the importance of infrastructure and the possibility of building another village or rebuilding parts of Thurrock. It was important that the service did not overbuild which could worsen the infrastructure of the Borough with too many people and vehicles. Andrew Millard answered that the service was not just focusing on the delivery of new homes but also building on great places that would enhance people’s wellbeing. New developments had to be infrastructure led as well as high quality and infrastructure had to be able to accommodate new growth and address existing issues. Transport was important in this as well and a new Transport Strategy was being progressed alongside the new Local Plan.

Councillor Worrall sought more details on what the conflict of interests were that caused the disbandment of the Board of Directors at TRL and questioned whether there were issues in TRL’s accounts. She also asked how Belmont Road would be developed as there had been issues on the site previously and asked for clarification on recommendation 1.2. Andrew Millard explained that the previous TRL Directors were concerned about being Council Officers and TRL Directors at the same time but they had not thought that TRL was not viable. The report considered how TRL could be rejuvenated as part of the Housing Delivery Programme. Officers were not aware of any issues in the TRL accounts. With the Belmont Road site, this was owned by TRL and had been granted planning permission with conditions attached. On recommendation 1.2, Officers explained that some schemes would require a formal decision of the Council to be able to progress but the Committee would be kept engaged.

The Committee discussed the Culver Centre site and questioned why the Council was not developing the site; why the site was going through a planning application first as Members thought the Council was considering selling the land; and what the next step would be for the site after the planning application and whether further information would be brought back to the Committee. The Vice-Chair felt that the Council should develop the site for social housing for Thurrock’s residents.

Officers explained that no formal decisions had been made on the Culver Centre site yet and a planning application would help to identify options for the site to enable a decision to be made. The site was going through a planning application first before going to Full Council because a planning application would provide a greater assessment of the value of the site. The Committee would continue to receive updates on the site as part of the Housing Development Programme Updates. The Housing Delivery Team did not have the capacity to develop the Culver Centre site as the team was already delivering an ambitious Housing Delivery Programme as highlighted in the previous Agenda item.

RESOLVED:

It was recommended that Members of the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1.1      Noted and commented on the proposals to adopt a mixed approach to Housing Development Delivery, in order to improve the Council’s capacity to increase its delivery rate.

1.2      Noted that potential schemes will be brought forward for approval in line with the Council’s constitution in due course.