Q1 Answer: Yes. As the number of houses will be beyond what we have previously demonstrated being able to do, we may have to explore the possibility of reducing the numbers.
There are 4 components that are presenting challenges to reaching the numbers expected under the methodology used here:
1. The Housing Market Area shortfall, which requires urgent attention. A contribution of 2000 houses to the shortfall will almost certainly be
challenged by neighbouring authorities. To be able to make a more significant contribution to the shortfall we may have to look for ways to reduce the number of dwellings expected under the current methodology or deviate from it.
2. Using the 2014 based household projections published in 2016 to form our baseline, as opposed to the 2016 based household projections published in 2018. The 87 additional houses per year (increase from 680 to 767 dwellings per annum) may not seem significant on their own, but in the context of them pushing our plans from the deliverable into uncharted territory means that we may fail in what we set out to do. This level of housebuilding presents significant challenge to the resources of the Local Authority, will meet with significant opposition in some areas of the borough and brings with it reputational risk that hasn't been faced before.
3. Most significantly, the affordability uplift makes a big difference to the number of houses Solihull Council are expected to deliver (130 or 146 additional houses per annum, depending on which year's ONS projections are used). Whilst I am in agreement that affordability needs to be addressed, I am not convinced that simply building more houses alone will have any beneficial impact on homes becoming affordable to those in need. Whilst there are numerous factors at government level that present challenges in delivery of affordable homes (a guaranteed 20% profit margin for developers being front and centre in achieving improvements), there are local challenges. Affordable land is a significant challenge to delivery, at a local level. Whilst we have alternative mechanisms that are attempting to address our contribution to this issue of affordability, I see no reason why doing more by way of delivering affordable housing shouldn't offer some flexibility on overall numbers. Surely that is the ultimate objective of the government in creating this methodology. If we had binding targets on affordable housing, in absolute numbers, rather than as ratios (that can be avoided by developers), I can see a way in which as a Local Authority, we are able to make a greater contribution towards addressing the housing crisis, whilst also protecting more of our greenbelt.
4. Finally, the demographic composition of Solihull Borough means that there is a significant proportion of new building is for retirement/extra care properties. As these properties are exempt from affordable provisions, there is limited downsizing happening. Most worryingly, it means that the limited downsizing that is happening, is confined to vacating the least affordable properties. This is creating a compound problem.
These issues need attending to in conjunction and some are out of the remit of the Local Authority. Those outside the remit of the Local Authority need attention from Government. Failure to do so will run the risk of a spate of housebuilding that addresses none of the associated/underlying issues.