The report was presented by Keith Andrews.

The Chair questioned why there had been no ‘take ups’ from SMEs. Keith Andrews answered that the first round of engagement had a mix of responses where some had misunderstood the tender and some had missed the bidding deadline. SMEs showed an interest in coming back and the service aimed to improve the messaging for next time to promote the opportunities and to work better with the SME sector as it was recognised that SMEs generally found it difficult to engage with Local Authorities. He went on to say that this was a national pilot to promote these opportunities and hoped for a more positive response next time.

Councillor Redsell questioned whether there were other garage sites considered for the Site Options List. She also commented on the quality and design of the Claudian Way development in Chadwell St Mary and suggested that the same developers be used for other sites in Thurrock. Keith Andrews answered that the service worked closely with the Housing Team and that garage sites had been reviewed but some were not practical as they had access and overlooking issues. The service would bring forward any suitable sites once these were identified. He went on to agree that the Claudian Way scheme was good and the service was pleased with the outcome as it was important to invest time and energy into the design to deliver a good quality product.

In regards to the garages on Lyndhurst Road, Councillor Worrall asked whether the service had informed the people that owned those garages that the site was being considered for housing development. She also commented that she was not happy with the process of the Site Options List as it was unclear how sites were added on and then it was taken off or paused. She felt that the list did not have the right pieces of land. Keith Andrews answered that they had not been contacted yet as the requirement was that the sites be brought to Committee at an early stage and that the land contained only garages, not homes. The service would be engaging with those garage owners to discuss the options and the site. He explained that the process for identifying sites had begun 18 months ago and part of the process was to bring the Site Options List to committee to ensure transparency. He said that the March Cabinet report had set out that a process that still needed to be discussed and for a report to come back on the options on how housing delivery could be achieved using the Council’s assets. Once this was identified, it would be brought back to Committee which would help to give more certainty to the delivery programme.

Referring to the Claudian Way development and other developments, Councillor Worrall said that the process at that time had been to take those sites to Property Boards with Councillors and then to forums so the sites had been looked at in detail before it had been published. She felt that the same process had not been undertaken this time and that the service should consider property boards with Councillors. She said that she had enquires about the Richmond Road site where users were concerned that they would lose this site and she felt that a consultation should have been undertaken. She went on to say that another process needed to be considered as people were finding out about their sites through Committee which caused them worry. The Chair highlighted that stakeholder engagement was essential in a project and that people should have been consulted to identify any concerns and issues. This would have helped to bring a more realistic list to Committee. He said that he appreciated the service’s intention was to be transparent but agreed with Councillor Worrall’s point of view. Keith Andrews explained that he was aware that there had been a need for transparency at the start of the project but would take Members’ comments into consideration and review the process of introducing new sites onto the list. He said that how information was presented to Committee remained fit for purpose.

Councillor Worrall sought detail on the Prince of Wales pub and said that it was a perfect site for development. Keith Andrews answered that there had been some late objections raised in relation to the method statement for demolition. This had resulted in a withdrawal of the application and to resubmit with more information.

Councillor Abbas asked how many properties were SMEs expected to build and how many of these would the Council buy from them. He also asked if a budget had been allocated for these purchases. In regards to Richmond Road, he asked if the service had considered options for other places that the users could use for their meetings. Keith Andrews answered that there had been a tendering opportunity with a capped value on the number of units between 10 – 15 depending on the location and type of properties. He said that the service had the ability to fund development through the HRA using Right to Buy receipts and potentially through Homes England grant where it was appropriate. The process for these types of projects for a decision to go ahead would be to go through Cabinet to seek budget approval as was usually the case. In regards to Richmond Road, he stated that no decisions were being made and if the site was to progress with development, options for users could be considered to include re-provision of facilities on site or through working with other Council departments to find alternative places. The service recognised that there were existing and valued users on the site and was aware of the need to engage with them.

RESOLVED:

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee were 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 addition of a site at Lyndhurst Road, Stanford-le-Hope to the Site Options List.

Note the deletion of a site at Crammavill Street, Stifford Clays from the Site Option List.