Local Government and Housing Committee

Welcome back, everyone. We've reached item 3 on our agenda today, which is our seventh evidence session on social housing supply. I'm very pleased to welcome, joining us here in person, Avril Roberts, senior property and business policy adviser with the Country Land and Business Association—croeso, Avril. Joining us virtually is Ben Murphy, estates director with the Duchy of Cornwall—croeso, Ben.

Okay. Let me begin, then, with a couple of overview questions. First of all, Avril, for you specifically, could you summarise the major challenges in increasing social and affordable housing supply in rural areas?

Absolutely. Firstly, thank you for having us speak to you today. It's such an important issue for the CLA, as it is for everyone across Wales. There are, I think, four general points to make with the difficulties of increasing supply. The first, particularly in rural areas, is identifying that need. What we see quite a lot is that the methodologies that are used to assess need don't accurately capture the true need in rural areas. Quite often, because of house prices, people have already been forced to move out of those communities and the assessments don't capture the people who've already been forced to leave, so that's a primary issue. Secondly, they don't accurately capture need that might be households that don't necessarily qualify at the lowest end of social housing, but that doesn't mean that they can still afford market housing and therefore they do need access to some affordable housing, and those households aren't identified on those needs assessments, either.

Secondly, because that need has not been correctly identified, then getting planning permission can be quite hard, and, again, that's a particular challenge in rural areas, because these villages, these parishes are often deemed to be unsustainable; they've perhaps lost their bus service over time, perhaps their village school is at threat, perhaps even closed already, the village shop might be not doing very well. And so, under how planning applications are assessed, those villages are deemed unsustainable. What we'd like to see is a flip of that, so, actually, if housing were enabled, would those villages become more sustainable? So, would the village school be able to be kept open because there are new families living in that community and who would, perhaps, use the bus service? So, we'd just like to see that flipped, but, at the moment, that's a major challenge.

Thirdly, I think the elephant in the room is planning. I think we might, perhaps, come on to planning in more detail later. But, we do know that this is a significant barrier, not least because developers, landowners, housing associations might be put off putting in applications because of the challenge of planning—very high upfront costs and, actually, if the outcome is so uncertain, as it is, actually taking that risk on those high costs so early on in a development is massively off-putting.

And finally, as a general point, the cost of development is still very high. Talking on behalf of landowners, I think we would think there's a misconception that land is always the barrier. Actually, if you're doing an affordable housing development, you value it on a residual land basis, so you take the cost of the development and you offset it against the income over a set period of years, and your land value is what's left out of that. So, yes, while there might be some disagreements about expected land values, actually, the price that can be paid is quite often not the barrier; it's about £2,300 per square metre to build in Wales, which is about £230,000 for a typical three-bedroomed house on a low spec, which you would expect with affordable housing. And that is, frankly, too high and that actually is just a massive barrier. So, I think they're the four general points that we would make.

Okay, Avril. Thank you very much indeed. And, Ben, could I ask you for an overview, really, of how you planned and delivered the development of Nansledan, if I've pronounced that correctly?

Thank you, John. You did, indeed. Nansledan is Cornish for broad valley. It's an urban extension to Newquay, where I'm based at the moment. It's the Duchy's second largest—well, it's the second strategic project, and it will be its largest in due course, with Poundbury being the first, which perhaps is more well known.

In terms of an overview, as a major landowner, we've found ourselves over the years becoming more involved in development because we were upset at the quality of what was being delivered on land, where we would step out of the way for a local planning process, when elected members would make a decision on the growth of the town. In this case, Newquay and also Truro were identified as major growth areas by Cornwall Council. But, Poundbury and now Nansledan are examples where we've taken much more of an active interest as a landowner. In the past, we would have just stepped out of the way because we're a rural landed estate, and relied on good-quality, local, private house builders to deliver local needs. We found, post war, that the quality, especially of social housing, wasn't to the standard it should be and wasn't integrated with affordable, wasn't creating the opportunities for jobs and a balanced economy. As a landowner, you have a vested interest in the success of these areas.

So, what happened in Nansledan was, in 2005, there was an inquiry by design. That was established by Cornwall Council. Originally, they were looking at 400 homes. It then transpired Newquay needed quite a lot of infrastructure—new doctor surgeries, schools and suchlike—and it was actually the head of planning at Cornwall Council who said, 'Let's put a bigger red line around Newquay.' It became the Newquay growth area and 4,000 homes, and the master plan was guided by the local community. That gave us the broader shoulders to deliver more of those local needs.

So, from the Duchy's perspective, it is an interesting point raised about land. We use our land as leverage. And of course there are those who want to sell to the highest bidder, and then land becomes part of the viability issue. From our perspective, we invest our own money and we recycle land receipts into delivering a lot of the social infrastructure, which helped in this case bolster the town of Newquay, regenerate the town of Newquay. We're delivering 30 per cent affordable homes at the moment. No-one is delivering higher than that. The policy level is 35 per cent, and our aspiration is to achieve 40 per cent.

But, if I could just give you a blunt assessment of the financial metrics of this, the Duchy chose—. It's a private estate, so it could potentially have pursued some Government support, but our role is to provide an income for the heir to the throne, for the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall, independent of the state. So, we've never sought any public support. Also, because of who we are and the aspirations of our previous boss, and now Prince William, our current Duke, we have a real patient approach to capital. What I mean by that is, if you were another landowner, you'd probably need support with infrastructure and perhaps subsidy to deliver the levels of affordable homes, because it's those two things that have put a drag on the financial metrics. By that, I mean the Duchy has spent about £32 million to date, will break even probably around 2030, and there is another 15 years of the project to go. Bearing in mind we started in 2015, the consent was 2012, and that means we're 15 years in before we break even. I don't know anyone in a private capacity who would ordinarily do that.

Thank you very much, Ben. That's very interesting. Okay, we'll move on to other committee members and, firstly, Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. I have some questions on delivery. Should there be more flexibility in housing standards? I'm particularly thinking about the Welsh housing quality standard and the Welsh development quality requirements. Do we need more flexibility to bring forward more social housing? I suppose that's a question for Avril.

Thank you. So, firstly, housing standards and particularly decarbonisation are incredibly important, but we do need to be realistic about what's possible in rural areas today. I'm not talking about in the future when we've put in, hopefully, the infrastructure to support these developments, but, today, the infrastructure is simply not there. If we want to reach a very high EPC standard for new-build housing in rural areas, we're talking about electrical heating, we're talking about car charging points, we're talking about putting a lot of extra strain on the electricity grid. And I think it was in our written evidence that 25 per cent of Wales is in a national park or a protected landscape, and so, if you want to put in overhead cabling to increase the electrical grid capacity, actually you're going to be restricted from doing that, so you might have to go underground, and then you might not get permission for that, and even if you did, it would be a lot more expensive. So, reaching those standards is a very long way away.

Additionally, if you've got a rural area that has got a particular vernacular style, and actually those materials are very old, they might not be properly assessed using the current methodology that's used on energy performance certificates, and, actually, if you wanted to reach those high standards, you might have to change the materials you're using, or potentially spend a lot more money on very fancy, for want of a better word, materials that have been developed. And, actually, if you're delivering social or affordable housing, as we know, the ability to pay more for the materials that are going to reach those standards might not be there.

So, in answer to your question, do we want more flexibility? I would say 'yes' for now, or if there can be some form of subsidy to meet those standards. But even with subsidy, I simply don't think it's possible, with the grid infrastructure as it is. So, yes, flexibility, but with a commitment that those homes, at some point in the future, will be upgraded, and a commitment to better the infrastructure so that we can get there sooner rather than later.

Ben, your development in Cornwall was limited because high standards were set. Were those standards a barrier to your development? And by the way, on the name Nansledan, you mentioned that the 'ledan' element means wide, and 'llydan' is the Welsh word for wide, so it's very similar in Cornish. There's a clear link between Welsh and Cornish, which can be heard immediately in that name.

Absolutely. Thank you. I wish I had some Welsh to respond to you with. I would say that all the street names here are in Cornish, and we are celebrating reviving the Cornish language as much as we can, but, obviously, the Welsh have led the way very much in that regard over the last generations. I think the strength of character and identity of what we're trying to deliver here in a Cornish vernacular is why it's been so well received and supported locally, and it's really helped bind the community together. So, thank you for your inspiration, I should say, from Cornwall.

On the quality, it sits uneasily with me, but I totally understand Avril's response. And I say that because we deliver tenure-blind homes, which is to say never underestimate the importance, I don't think, especially for young people, to help build their confidence and recognise they don't live on the wrong side of town in the low-spec social housing over there. The idea that you can have the same ladders of opportunity, that you can integrate affordable with private homes and have the same access to jobs, training and so forth, but also the standards—standards in terms of quality of the house and how you feel about yourself and where you grow up. It's a hard thing to define, but, I think, as I say, it's really quite important to young people, their aspirations and their attainment, to make the most of their life and opportunities that we hope are afforded to them.

On standards here, also, it's about economies of scale. You have Government subsidy or registered providers here in the UK that would otherwise be drawing money from the private sector alongside the subsidy, and they have real buying power, so they should be able to look through their supply chains and when you find standards improve, you'll find those costs come down. Otherwise, if you're looking to just keep the costs down because someone's claiming viability, it becomes a race to the bottom, and standards drop, and I would be concerned if social housing standards dropped far behind private house building, because invariably it's the same house builder that's building, and therefore they should be able to realise economies of scale in the delivery of those schemes, assuming they deliver integrated schemes, which is very much what the Duchy espouses to do.

And the other point, just to add on quality, is the pound to square foot you referenced is really interesting. We deliver quality with private SME house builders, so Cornish builders in Cornwall, Dorset builders in Dorset, and not the volume PLC house builders who have larger overheads and deliver lesser quality for the same price. So, we feel like we run a tight ship, we deliver quality efficiently, and why shouldn't people on the lowest incomes benefit from lower bills from thermally efficient, highly insulated, more sustainable housing?

To what extent is utilities infrastructure adequate to support house building? Avril has touched on this already.

Would you have anything to add, Avril, to what you said initially?

Yes, so I think the only other point that I would make is the phosphates issue, which we know is still a massive issue. If you take Powys as an example, half of that county still has effectively got a ban—not a a technical ban—on development. It just can't happen because there's still no solution for this issue. So, actually, an update on the plan to fix the phosphates issue and invest in that infrastructure—I don't think we've had an update since 2023, and so actually some sort of gusto behind that to actually think, ‘How are we going to deal with phosphates?’ Again, there might not be a solution, but, actually, if we can invest in infrastructure that would clean the phosphates before they enter the water courses, then, actually, that would be a step in the right direction. But at the moment the uncertainty is just killing off any ambition for development. That's the only other infrastructure that I would raise today.

Have events taken place in this area as far as you're aware, Avril? Because we've heard from the Minister that she's been bringing the main players together to try and find an effective way through.

So, we've been involved in some; I would say that there's still no clear pathway. I think we can all sit around a table and talk about the issue, but, actually, without a commitment on what's going to happen, where do we go from that? Yes, there have been events, we've heard the Minister saying she's going to events, but, again, no update on the actual plan.

Yes. Okay, Avril.

And finally from me, therefore, there's this question of using existing buildings rather than constructing new builds. Does more need to be done to support the acquisition and remodelling of existing buildings?

So, it's one part of the puzzle, and I think we would question what cost to acquire existing buildings, if that was being done by local government, for example, and where are they getting the resource to do that acquisition? If we're talking compulsory purchase, it takes a very long time and can be a very, very costly process. However, we would support the remodelling of existing buildings through incentives. So, actually, if we're talking about upgrading, for example, energy efficiency measures, and making those homes of a higher standard for anyone, whether that's private sector or within the affordable or social sectors, then that's absolutely something we would support. We think some of the incentives can be through the tax system, and I appreciate that that's difficult for Welsh Government to do on their own. It would take co-operation from Westminster, but, for example, the zero rating on energy saving materials doesn't apply if you're doing it yourself, so you have to employ a contractor. So, actually, quite a lot of our members might have an in-house team that can do works to their properties, but they don't benefit from that zero rating on energy saving materials because they're buying the material themselves. So, some sort of push to Westminster to amend that would be of use.

Secondly, we've got an issue in rural areas with how much these properties can actually be upgraded to be of a higher standard. So, if you take solid walls, for example, they were built to be breathable, and, actually, the current system of measuring energy performance encourages you to completely make a box out of those buildings and fully insulate them, which can then cause damp and mould issues. And we know of the issues in the social sector of damp and mould, and, actually, do we want to be creating those issues?

So, I think it's some sensitive remodelling of existing buildings through incentivising possibly private owners, possibly the social sector, and then using resource to actually build new. So, yes, it's part of the solution, it's not the only solution.

Diolch.

Siân, thank you very much. By the way, Ben, do come in whenever you wish to on any of the points.

Thank you, Chair. I was just going to, really, concur. I think incentives around refurbishing would be interesting. We've been listening to other landlords, because they would sometimes have to refurbish a property at cost and justify that by then upping the rent, which could probably put it back into the private market rather than the social market. We're not talking about the Duchy of Cornwall here, but that's a general point. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ben. Carolyn Thomas.

Thank you. Regarding delays in planning and consenting, what improvements do you think could be made to speed it up?

A big question and it's probably going to be quite a long answer, if you don't mind. So, the CLA does a planning survey, and our most recent one, a couple of months ago, said that 94 per cent of our members who are going through the planning system thought that there was a significant lack of rural knowledge within the planning system. And that's quite a big issue, because if a planner is not understanding the needs of a rural community, how can they make an assessment on a planning application for a rural area? So, I think—. That's not specific to your question, it's not a delay, but if they're pondering because they don't know, then that could cause delays. So, that's issue No. 1.

Does rural knowledge mean rural need or—?

Both. So, what is a rural area—infrastructure, what jobs might there be in a rural area? We know that rural communities are perhaps sometimes closer. There are difficulties with Nimbyism, more so, perhaps, than in an urban area sometimes, and actually a planner not understanding the sensitivities of the development and why that parcel—. So, we get quite a lot of them saying, 'Well, why can't you bring this parcel of land forward instead?', and, actually, there'll be a lot of background as to why that parcel of land might not be brought forward. But then also there are the needs of a diversified rural business. So, an urban planner with an urban background might understand farming because it's what farming looks like—you drive a tractor, you're on a farm—but, actually, what diversified businesses need might be how that translates into their development needs as well. So, that's the issue with understanding rural.

Secondly, there's the amount of houses that have been delivered in Wales, and you can tie this back to the planning system because although the permissions might be given, actually, the build-out rate has been low. I think it's about 30 per cent over 20 years decline in housing delivery in Wales. So, we're just not building the quantum of houses that we need.

The difficulties with planning and adopting a local development plan—again, I'm sure you've heard this before, but, I think, when I checked yesterday, there were only four local development plans in Wales that were in date and did not need review. So, there were some that were in date but needed review on what needed to be delivered. So, four out of, I think, 24 local development plans across Wales is not a particularly good percentage.

So, how can we solve this? I think resourcing is a big issue. We've called for two extra planning officers in every county or every local planning authority in Wales, at a cost of, I think, £6.2 million over the next five years. It'd be great if those were rural planners, and most counties in Wales obviously have rural areas, so it'd be great if they could be fully trained on really specific issues.

And then, secondly, with resourcing, there's obviously putting more people in, but then there's also taking off some of the strain. We're not saying fewer planning applications and fewer houses being delivered, but, actually, what we think is lacking in Wales is a system of permitted development rights. So, we know these have been hugely successful in England. They've allowed farms to diversify. They've allowed—. There have been some issues in urban areas with office conversions, but, actually—. So, class Q, in England, which is the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings, has been hugely successful in providing more houses for rural areas. And, actually, that takes off some of the strain from planning authorities. So, a common misconception with permitted development rights is that it doesn't require any involvement from the planners. That's not true, there is always an element of prior approval, so planners do still have some control back. So, you're taking out a lot of that resource strain, opening up the resource to approve more, bigger sites. So, yes, I think I'll stop there on planning because I could talk about planning for hours. [Laughter.] But I'm sure Ben's got a lot to say as well.

Okay. Ben, any comments?

Thank you. I certainly concur on resource for local planning authorities, which have been stretched. And then I was just thinking on the shift back to strengthening the need for having a valid local plan, and how the numbers are to be set, in terms of meeting local needs. And then the strengthening of rural exception sites, which is not quite like a permitted development site, but the idea that, obviously, if you can streamline the planning system for those people that are meeting the core criteria you wish to see—and that minimum 50 per cent social housing, for example, I think is certainly—. Down here in Cornwall, we'd want to see—. I know that Cornwall Council want to see 100 per cent, but it's a minimum 50 per cent for a rural exception site.

And we have here in Nansledan something that's not been utilised much, actually, in England or Wales, certainly not on private land—we have a local development order. And Cornwall Council basically said, 'We would rather plough our resources to raise the standards of some of the other applications coming through. And every time you go through an iteration of your scheme, you have to come back to planning, which is, frankly, costing you money and fees and us time and resource.' So, the local development order is a very flexible planning consent, to build these 4,000 homes, because our standards are higher than the minimum policy requirements. But as long as we're delivering certain criteria, it's basically saying, 'You can have the flexibility of that consent because your standards are higher', and that can be in terms of social impact as much as quality and sustainability more generally. And I think, if you can find a way of holding a developer's or landowner's feet to the fire over that—. And, of course, you can withdraw it if they're not performing. And so Cornwall Council audit us and we certify things in accordance with—. But it's empowering from the landowner's perspective, it gives confidence to the market to invest and deliver, and it's not actually taking away the powers of the local planning authority—they can come in and revoke this at any moment. And I just think, actually, it's a really interesting planning tool, in the right hands.

Okay. Thank you, Ben. Carolyn.

Is there anything else you'd like to add about bringing forwards rural exception sites and how this could be supported?

Yes. So, rural exception sites have been a big drive for the CLA. As Ben said, there's a huge untapped potential there. The first thing I'd like to say, though, is that the PPW that was issued in February 2024 has no reference to rural exception sites—it's been removed. It doesn't mean rural exception sites don't exist in Wales anymore, but even just what does that say to the people that perhaps want to bring forward rural exception sites. Affordable housing exception sites are still referenced in there—

PPW—'Planning Policy Wales'?

'Planning Policy Wales', yes, sorry. So, the removal of any reference to rural exception sites was a bit of a surprise, to be honest. So, in support of rural exception sites, the CLA has developed the planning passport. One of Ben's colleagues fed into that. And the CLA talked to housing associations, we talked to local authorities, national parks, private landowners, about what are the difficulties with delivering on rural exception sites. And the two main themes that came out were the resourcing of planning authorities and the cost of a planning application. And then, when we were talking to communities, and landowners as well, the issue was the reassurance that those homes are going to be affordable in perpetuity, and that they're not going to be built and then have one generation of affordable and then be sold, particularly in those sorts of areas where high property values are such an issue for rural communities.

So, we looked at existing planning structures that exist. So, we looked at local development orders, we looked at permission in principle, which is a two-stage process, and we looked at permitted development rights, and we said, 'What can be drawn from all of those planning processes and applied to rural exceptions sites specifically, to enable their greater use?'

What we landed on, after a lot of consultation with all those players, was a two-stage process called the planning passport. Using, primarily, permission in principle as its base, you have a stage 1 application, which sets out the quantum of the homes to be delivered, the tenure of those homes, an element of what community engagement have you done to get there, and the setting of that site. That's quite a low bar to jump over. So, again, investment in that site at a very early stage is limited. You go to the planning authority with that stage 1 application and they say yes or no, or, 'Amend it in this way'. Again, it also takes elements of a pre-app, but because it's a stage 1 application with a permission in principle, it's legally binding, which a pre-app is not. Once you've got that stage 1, that gives whoever's developing the homes, and the community, reassurance that they can spend the extra money on the stage 2.

The stage 2 is then the technical detail, so that's all of your highways assessments, your refuge, your window design, all of the things that you would expect of a normal planning application, but with restrictions. Because some of the feedback we also got was that perhaps there's a delaying tactic by authorities, perhaps for lack of knowledge, and worry of not collecting all of the right information. Planners can often ask for a vast list of information that perhaps isn't needed. So, again, the planning passport is quite rigid in what you will be expected to provide. Again, that helps with justifying the investment and knowing how much you're going to have to spend on that application.

Highways is often such a big issue, so if an application was granted before highways officers actually fed into it, I'm a bit concerned about how that would work, really.

So, it's not the permission itself. So, of course, you could get to stage 2 and you could still get a refusal, or the highways could still say, 'Okay, well, you need to amend it slightly'. I'm perhaps speaking out of turn about some people that have put forward sites, but highways can be an issue when you've spent vast amounts of sums on everything else. And we've got to trust that planners will have an idea of a site; that's what a planner's there for, and that's why we're talking about setting. So, is it well related to the development, is there a main road or is it a single bypass—it's all those kinds of things that you would look at at stage 1, to limit how much the technical details could say 'no'. But the point is you're giving reassurance that the planners aren't going to say 'no' on the basis of there isn't affordable housing need, the community hasn't been consulted—that's the key that we're trying to address.

James.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. The Welsh Government own an awful lot of land around the country. I'm just interested in what you think the guiding principles for the Welsh Government should be around publicly owned land. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, and obviously Ben's thoughts with England as well, what the UK Government's guiding principle should be with their own land. I'm sure you've had to deal with them when you've been dealing with matters concerning His Majesty the King, so I'd be interested. Avril, probably, to start, if that's okay. Thank you.

My previous job was doing affordable housing development. I was doing the land-buying early stages in the planning application stage, and quite often—this was in England—there'd be a police station that's not used anymore come up for sale and we were always outbid because there are valuation and maximising value principles with publicly owned land. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when you're trying to deliver affordable housing on those sites, you're always going to be outbid by the private sector.

I think there should be a reset with what maximising value for a local authority or for the Welsh Government means. Affordable housing provides a lot of value that might not be financial, but, actually, if you're the Welsh Government, what more value can you get than providing more affordable housing to clear your housing waiting lists? Of course you need to get financial value as well, but just looking at the balance rather than just going for the highest bidder.

I think they should also be looking at who the landowners are surrounding that land. Are there opportunities to offer the local landowners the opportunity to purchase that land? They might have another site next to it that they want to develop, but actually, to make it viable to deliver their site they might want to do an element of land pooling with the Welsh Government. So, actually just making an assessment of the surrounding areas as well rather than looking at the parcel of land in its own right.

It's interesting to hear Avril. I was area manager for the south-west for Homes England for a year before I joined the Duchy, and I was working in the Olympic park in London before that, but I fought tooth and nail to set a criteria based on quality as much as price. At that point, George Osborne had made a statement in Parliament about raising £5 billion from surplus public sector land, and that was before we knew what we were going to do with that land. I thought that was very curious, because there was clearly a case and a need always to make the best use of public assets.

In that case, historically, it was best value. I'm pleased to say that that's no longer the case. With Homes England and the current tenure, they're back to changing the criteria. I had to work really hard to make sure that we were selling the land to the people who would deliver the social impact and to try and set the criteria with strings attached, as it should, for public land. So, I think what I would say to the Welsh Government—as I would to any landowner—is be clear on the criteria, because I know of landowners here in Cornwall and across England who have regretted selling to the highest bidder in areas where they have a vested interest themselves and care about that community, and therefore retain control.

That's the other point: there's always someone sitting on someone else's shoulder telling them to cut corners and maybe not renege on obligations, but maybe to revisit and renegotiate. It's very similar for the Duchy, as I think it is for public agencies and public land, which is, if you can set some clear criteria, which is a commitment to quality outputs, don't be shy of working with private house builders rather than volume PLCs—people who are committed to the same quality outcomes you are. Because that's the other point: often, Homes England were selling to volume house builders. If you retain control through the disposal of land and enable the infrastructure, like we do, you're guaranteeing the quality outputs and the socioeconomic impacts you want to see. By retaining that control, you're turbocharging it through the delivery of infrastructure as well, so you can set quite high and exacting standards in return.

And that's the relationship we have. It's a bit like a patronage is the landowner of the process. I think there's a lot of landowners now wishing to follow suit, building a legacy movement, which His Majesty started, and I'm pleased to say that the Duchy has been at the vanguard of. I'd happily talk in more detail about that if anyone wishes at a future date.

If you could send us some written stuff about that, Ben, that would probably be useful, in the interest of time, if that's okay, Cadeirydd. The next question I want to go on to is the appetite amongst landowners and developers for building social housing and bringing those sites forward. I respect, Ben, that you're in a different position to a lot of people. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall is probably in a different position to a lot of different landowners and developers out there, but do you think, on the whole, there is an appetite within landowners, developers to actually bring these forward? Because what we do hear a lot of is on viability—that when we bring social housing forward, it's not as viable as when we put private housing in. So, I'm just interested to hear your thoughts on that, really. Do we lack that sort of enthusiasm to build social housing?

I genuinely don't think so. Obviously, I can't speak on behalf of all landowners. I think some things are of a theme, and it's remarkable how familiar they are across the country—the UK, I mean. So, as a landowner, often, they know it's a very expensive process, the planning process. It's fraught with difficulty and uncertainty, certainly in recent times. So, you have to have deep pockets just to promote a scheme for development. And what often happens is they renege control and agency of the process, because they might be land rich but cash poor. I honestly can think of many occasions, just in the last few years alone, where landowners have regretted selling their land too early and losing control of the process.

They obviously need to think about why they're selling that land, and often, of course, it would be inheritance and so forth down the line, and maybe their own straitened times, who knows. But I always encourage landowners to not cede control of the process and to be patient about the capital, because there's a greater dividend by staying in the process. I know, you're right—we obviously are a privileged landed estate. It's not mortgaged land, it's land we own, so we start from a position that's more comfortable than perhaps a smaller, say, farm holding where someone is just trying to make ends meet. But I think the cost of the planning process is a concern, infrastructure costs are a concern, and all of these reasons—. And if affordable homes aren't able to cover the build cost, then all these things affect the viability, and the landowner eventually cedes control to maybe a house builder who might not be interested in delivering social.

But I can tell you, just in Cornwall, there's a whole movement. It's called Homes for Cornwall, and it's major landowners who—. Cornwall Council has said, 'Well done for convening—we can't normally engage with these people.' But often it's because they don't want to see poor-quality homes built on their land that don't deliver local needs. They don't feel that they have agency over the process, and they don't have the funding to promote through planning. But if you speak to these landowners, the only way they would want to see productive agricultural land taken out of being agricultural land is if it did deliver local needs. They just don't feel they're empowered in the process, because, to your initial point, I think, you kind of need deep pockets to work through that process yourself.

So, I think greater engagement of landowners and support through planning would lead to better quality outcomes. I genuinely believe that. Because landowners suffer if local people can't afford to live in those areas, because they're the workforce, they're part of that balanced community that they have a vested interest in.

I've not much to add to what Ben said. Of course, there are instances where a landowner feels forced to sell the land to the highest bidder. They might have bills to pay. They might, as Ben said, have inheritance considerations. So, there are cases of that. But I think, no, there's not a lack of enthusiasm at all.

As Ben just said, landowners are also suffering from the housing crisis, particularly in rural areas. We have got members that are trying to expand their business. They can't recruit, not because of a—. In some cases, it's because of a lack of labour, but quite often they'll get a lot of applications for a job, and they actually can't recruit for that job, because then there's no housing available. Again, traditionally, an estate might have houses to offer to workers. Those houses might have, over the years, been put into the private rented sector, they might have been sold off, they might just already be full and, actually, that business is expanding. If those houses aren't there, that really limits that business's ability to grow and be dynamic and survive.

So, there's not a lack of enthusiasm. I think there's, sometimes, a lack of understanding, and that's where the CLA plays a role. One of the things that I've really tried to do since I've been at the CLA is to make landowners aware of things like rural exception site policy and, if they don't want to do it themselves, how to tap into the knowledge that's within housing associations, what community groups might be available to help you to develop. And we do get a lot of member queries on, 'I want to give something back to my community, I want to sustain my community and build some affordable housing, but I just don't know how to do it or I don't have the resource to do it myself.' So, absolutely not a lack of enthusiasm, I think, just that the systems are not in place yet to enable it at a great scale and to realise that enthusiasm.

Okay, thank you. My final question, Cadeirydd. The Welsh Government has announced that it is going to consult on the new compulsory purchase powers under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. How should these new powers be used, and should people be cautious about these powers? I'm just interested in what your views on that would be.

Yes, so, completely openly, we fought quite hard to see those powers not introduced. That's the removal of hope value for sites that are for affordable housing, education and healthcare. Again, I said very early on that I think it's a misconception that land value is sometimes the barrier to affordable housing development. Hope value is a concept. It's not necessarily the actual value of the land, so to say you're going to remove it, I think, should be an absolute last resort. Take an example of a farmer that's quite a small farmer, and their land might be in a particularly good place for housing development but for whatever reason they haven't put it forward for private development and it's identified as affordable. If you say to that landowner, 'We're going to purchase your land at agricultural value, but 90 per cent of your farm is going to be purchased,' actually that business doesn't exist anymore. They can't sustain their business with 10 per cent. This is a hypothetical example, of course. But, actually, early engagement with that landowner—and as we've said, there is enthusiasm to see these sites built—early engagement saves the very lengthy, costly process of compulsory purchase, of which hope value is such a small part. You've got surveyors' costs, you've got the solicitors' costs, you've got the cost of actually applying to Welsh Ministers to remove the hope value—it's not an automatic removal—and that could take years and years and years, and, actually, at the end process, what damage has been done to that landowner and potentially to that community that are feeling like they're going through a process of compulsory purchase that's been forced upon them?

So, we think, firstly, it should be absolutely a last resort. We recognise that in some cases it might be necessary or deemed as necessary. In which case, we would strongly encourage that there be a duty of care to landowners introduced. So, again, in that example of the farmer that might be losing the majority of their holding, actually there should be a duty of care on Welsh Government to assess what the impact of removing that hope value or even going through the compulsory purchase would be on that landowner. And again, if compulsory purchase is the way forward, and those developments are brought forward, we think there should be rural delivery groups—again, with people from that community, potentially the landowner that's had their land compulsory purchased—so that they can be involved from stage 1 in the development and what's going to happen to the community. They should be independent from the development. They should be people from within the community that understand the impact that these sites are going to have on the community, particularly if they're large sites, which we think they possibly will be. If you're going through the process of compulsory purchase, then you would hope that it was a large site that warranted the cost of that. So, yes, a last resort, if it's necessary, rural delivery groups and a duty of care to landowners.

Okay. I did say that was my last question, but something else has popped into my head now, so, unfortunately, you're going to have to field another question. We hear anecdotally—and I know it even from my own constituency, which is in Powys—that some people do do a bit of land banking as well. Some of the big developers will buy a parcel of land and put a bit of entrance way in, and then they'll sit on it and they'll hold it and hold it until land values have gone through the roof, and then they'll sell it, which is their own right. But when we do have a massive housing crisis across the country, do you think there should be an element of—and I probably can prejudge your answer—a bit of 'use it or lose it', you know, 'You've got to get this site developed within a certain amount of time or you're going to lose your planning permission or removal from local development plans'? Because, I think sometimes it is wrong that people put in for planning, go through the process, get the planning permissions on it, when I've got communities—and I'm sure Siân will have them in her own patch—that are desperate for housing but the sites will just sit for years and years under LDPs, UDPs, and they keep coming back around and around again, and nothing is done with them. So, do you think there should be an element of: if you don't use these sites and get them developed then you're not going to have planning on them in the future?

So, the CLA is probably not the best person to comment on that.

No, I can imagine.

We obviously represent landowners rather than—

No, I know. I used to work for the CLA.

—rather than the big developers. I think we need to look at why those permissions aren't being built out. Is it because they are assuming that land values are going to go up or is it because the permission is not able to be built out at that time? There are systems in place that you can put in through a planning permission—a planning permission does expire, it's not—

But if you put an access way in, the planning permission has started.

But you can have—. But there can still be milestones that need to be met through a planning process. So, that is still possible. So, it is already possible. Yes, it's a difficult one for us to comment on, because, usually, our members won't be involved after the land has been sold, and, if they are, then they don't want to see their land not being developed, particularly if the value is tied into the houses being sold—they don't want to see them not being developed either, because they're not getting the income. But, yes, I would defer to somebody like a property federation that's representing big developers.

No, that's fine, I just wanted to see—. That's fine. Thank you; diolch.

Okay, diolch yn fawr. Ben.

Yes, if I can go back to both of those, then, I think, on CPOs, to start from afresh there, I concur. I was involved—. I worked on the Olympic park, on the largest CPO that was ever undertaken in terms of the relocation of 2,000 businesses and residents from what is now the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Within the primary Act—the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006—with all the political will in the world, it was £1.1 billion of the £8.5 billion budget that went on the land acquisition and the relocation of those businesses. And the only good excuse for having a modern-day Olympiad, by the way, is to regenerate a piece of city, so I'm not criticising the process at all, but reflecting on the 'proceed with caution' point. I'm sure that, strategically, there are times when CPOs are necessary, but, if you can resolve things by private treaty, inevitably it will be more efficient. So, I think you have to be cautious about utilising them, because property rights go back to the Magna Carta, people will appeal decisions along the way. We were lucky in that regard—we had the general vesting declaration with a cut-off date—but it's still a last resort.

I think—. Linked to that was this reference to hope value. I think it's an interesting one, and I would say that that is a case of 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'. And by that, I mean, when you consider what the Duchy does and what we espouse and promote and encourage other landowners to do, it is to forgo land receipts and reinvest them into creating that quality of place and social infrastructure. And frankly, if that wasn't there, we wouldn't do it. We aren't a charity and we are aiming to deliver a return out of Nansledan, and I mentioned the 15 years of patient capital before we break even in 2032. The Duchy would not do this at all if the suggestion was—. It's almost like a, you know, 'The market is broken, therefore, we'll try and take the money away from the landowner', and I just think it's the wrong approach. I think we're always better to go with incentivising social impact and quality, and that means taking landowners and the market with us and so forth. I think you just get better outcomes more efficiently. So, I would also be very concerned about hope value, because what we're trying to say is that it's not just about extracting value from private housing and delivering social over there; we're trying to deliver the whole balanced community in one and recycling land receipts to do that and our own money as well. And that land stewardship model would disappear, basically, if hope value was rolled out everywhere.

But I think land banking—. It never goes away, does it, and maybe there are some people with a low cost of capital that do, but I always find it intriguing because, when you think about the cost of purchasing land and getting planning, there's normally a cost of finance attached to that, unless people are cash-rich, so it should be burning a hole in their pocket. If it's public sector land, absolutely, I think you have to show your teeth probably, but the use-it-or-lose-it point, I wasn't aware of what the time frames are, but ordinarily you've got to have a meaningful start on site, haven't you, after three to five years, so you do lose the consent and you have to reapply. So, I'm kind of—. I've been in this industry a little while now and I honestly don't see many examples of it, but then I don't work in a volume house builder environment. I'm sorry, I'm not giving a clear answer to the points, but I'm not sure there is one.

No. Okay, Ben. We will move on to Altaf. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you very much. Good morning. I think we've passed 11:10, so it might take another five, 10 minutes, really. Now, my area of questioning is about communities. We know building trust and open communication are lacking when we talk about social and affordable housing. So, my question is: how can communities be effectively engaged in social housing developments in their areas? What good practice are you aware of in building local support for new developments?

Thank you. I'll happily talk about our process. What is now the King's Foundation—it was the Prince's Foundation, but, basically, it's a charitable arm of our former Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall. They were then the Prince's Foundation for Building Community, and they helped us engage the community early on in what was called an enquiry by design. It actually came from a new urbanism movement in America, and you definitely, in all my experiences—. I did also adopt something similar for—[Inaudible.]—at Homes England. It is about preparing and understanding the context, literally the lie of the land and maybe all of the surveys I think they've done around that. So, then you run a process that might be over a long weekend, for example. You invite everyone, and I mean all the stakeholders, and that can include statutory consultees, obviously the local authority, but very much the community at large themselves. That is to identify what the needs are, what they like about their local area, what they don't like and what social infrastructure is required. Also, you genuinely get better quality outcomes and better quality design, because they know better than everyone about whether—'That survey might say this, but we know that field floods', or whatever it is. It's a real collegiate and collaborative process, and you get that buy-in, and they tell you if they want a modern aesthetic or to retain some local style and architecture. I think it provides a bit of momentum, as much as it requires some upfront resource.

We've always done it. For Poundbury, there was a charrette—the Prince of Wales turned up; it was called a design charrette—over a weekend. We had, as I've mentioned, the 2005 enquiry of design here in Newquay. I think if there's maybe Government support through that process, and whether or not that leads to a design guide, a sort of pattern book, something that you can then take to market and say, 'This has got local buy-in,' and actually that carries weight through the planning process, then, hopefully, it just gives a better chance of that vision being delivered.

Okay, Ben. Avril.

I would just agree with what Ben has said. I think we've possibly all been to the sort of placard event that's called community engagement, where the scheme's already been designed and then you say, 'What do you think? Do you want it? Yes or no?' The answer inevitably is always 'no', and it sometimes happens anyway, because they haven't been involved, the community hasn't been involved, early on.

The CLA's been involved in a project to produce a rural good design guide, which is launching on 5 July, which is actually Rural Housing Week, I think only in England, but you should have it in Wales as well. Rural Housing Week is the first week of July. That rural good design guide is looking at, actually, not just what is beautiful, because that varies in every community and what's already in the community and what the community wants, but actually principles of things like indoor/outdoor living, which are quite often forgotten in new builds, meeting space standards and community engagement, because that's such a key principle of good design. So, we'd be happy to share that guide once it's been published. But, yes, it's definitely looking at—. It's applicable to anywhere in the country—it could be down in Cornwall, it could be up in Yorkshire, it could be in Powys, it could be in Cardiff. It's looking at what are the principles of design that are not locally specific. So, yes, I think there's definitely—. Communities play a huge role in what is designed.

Okay, Avril.

Thank you very much. My last question is: in reality, what role could community-led housing play in addressing the shortage of social homes? Do you think it will keep housing costs low, below 35 per cent of the household income, that it will meet the local needs and that it could be made elderly people-friendly, as we have an ageing population, and that it will create a sense of community? Thank you.

Community-led housing comes in all forms. I think some of our members would like us to say that if housing is being brought forward by a landowner in collaboration with the community, then it's community led. But, if we think about the sort of more usual structures, things like community land trusts, absolutely, they can play a role. I think there's a concern with their financing, particularly if they are, essentially, a start-up; they have no access to assets—it's quite often the case. They might have a landowner that's sitting within their group that has access to the land, but, actually, you have to keep those things very separate to make sure that there aren't conflicts of interest. And finding people with the time within a community who want to put in the time and effort and have the skills to do that, and then can find that finance to do so, is a big barrier. There used to be community land trust funding in Wales. I think that's gone, for, probably, obvious reasons. But, actually, having some form of low-cost borrowing so that those trusts or those community-led groups can get themselves set up—.

There's also a role for rural housing enablers to play in setting up community-led housing. Again, if you're a community-led group that doesn't, perhaps, have planning expertise and doesn't have expertise on accounting, which are, obviously, key principles if you want to deliver housing, then a rural housing enabler can either provide that expertise themselves—it's quite often the case with planning—or they can put those groups in touch with, for example, housing associations or local government, which do have that knowledge. But, again, rural housing enablers' funding has been cut or has gone, so they're not in every area. So, we would like to see, to enable more community-led housing, rural housing enablers better funded, and better access to finance.

Thank you very much, Avril.

I think Ben wanted to answer.

Yes. Ben.

Yes, thank you. I think it's a fascinating one, and thinking about this—[Inaudible.]—from the Olympic park to Homes England, but I think community land trusts in rural areas are really interesting. I mean, you're basically saying, for example, 'This is a rural exception site that we wouldn't approve for housing if it wasn't delivering local needs and guaranteeing affordability in perpetuity, therefore, why not lock it into a community land trust, where the underlying freehold is owned by the community?' and where there wouldn't necessarily be a registered provider for the housing already in place. I think, also, though, to echo the concern, if you're pushing an open door and this is something that the community wants, great, go for it, I would say. On the other hand, sometimes, when they're trying to sort of conjure up, as a concept, something that we all would like to see, but actually, there isn't the community, there isn't capacity and it's another layer of bureaucracy, because you have a willing landowner and you have a registered provider, then let's not get in the way, if there's a more efficient way of delivering.

On the point on the 35 per cent, I wish we could see more of this, because you're entirely right, and this is the nub of the issue: those on the lowest incomes we're trying to deliver truly affordable homes for and we need to find a more efficient way of doing it. I mean, that's really what you're asking. And the only example I've found recently was with Centrepoint in London, and we're looking to work with them where we're going to lease them a building for 60 years and they refurbish it—it used to be, formerly, nurses' accommodation and it's surplus to NHS requirements—and they will guarantee that they won't charge more than 30 per cent of that young person's income. These are young people coming out of care, and they could be in apprenticeships, they could be in employment. But I don't think, without that—they've got, basically, philanthropic funding from the Tetra Pak family for this—it would stack up financially, because you don't know what those people's incomes are. So, it really needs subsidy to guarantee a 30 to 35 per cent max of rent—as in, rent pegged to 30-35 per cent of your income. But, that's where we could help get people out of poverty and housing insecurity.

So, from the Duchy's point of view, we have covenant controls on our land, which is equivalent control, like a CLT. I think the point is that we don't want to give our land away for free unless we know it's going to social housing and will stay as social housing in perpetuity, otherwise what's the point? And it may be one for another time, but anything that's co-housing or community led has got a better chance of openly delivering on the local needs of that community. So, I would support it. It's just always trying to find what the most efficient delivery mechanism is.

Okay, Ben. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much to both of you, Ben and Avril. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr. Thanks for giving evidence today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Committee will break briefly.

Item 4 on our agenda today is evidence session 8 on social housing supply. I'm very pleased to welcome Alicja Zalesinska, chief executive of Tai Pawb, Elizabeth Taylor, engagement and policy officer with TPAS Cymru, Debbie Thomas, head of policy and communications Wales with Crisis, and Casey Edwards, project manager for Cwmpas. Welcome to you all. Thanks for coming in to give evidence to committee today. Perhaps I might begin, then, with a question on measuring housing need, and that is: how effective are the current methods of measuring housing need, both nationally and locally? By the way, don't feel that you all have to speak on any particular question. If you want to add something to what's already been said, fine, but not otherwise. Who'd like to start?

Shall I start?

Alicja, yes.

I suppose, in terms of the local measurement of housing need, I think we have seen a lot of improvement, certainly in terms of guidance and, perhaps, the current LHMAs coming out. I think, specifically, because our organisation deals with equality and diversity, there's much more focus on diverse needs, specifically overcrowding, accessible housing, the needs of disabled people. But I suppose the proof will be in the pudding, on the impact of those assessments. A key barrier, I think, locally, and nationally actually, is data and evidence, and, in terms of the diverse needs of people, accessible housing and disabled people and the housing needs of disabled people, I think, are key examples there. The best practice, I think, local authority or common housing register that we know, in terms of their knowledge of the accessibility of social housing stock locally, is at about 50 per cent of the stock where they're able to say to what extent it is accessible or not, which homes are wheelchair accessible, which ones are, I don't know, perhaps, level 3 accessibility. So, I think that, really, needs to improve both locally and nationally.

And, I'll finish now, but, nationally, I think we need a much better reflection on the more granular and diverse housing needs of the population, better evidence, for example, in terms of disabled people. We've got an ageing population. We know these accessibility requirements, going forward, will increase; they are increasing. But we don't know, first of all, what housing we have in terms of accessibility and what housing we need, what the needs of the population are. There are some good examples. In England, for example, they're able to do that, and I'm sure other colleagues before mentioned the housing survey. I think that would allow us to do that.

If you don't mind me coming in there as well, I'd agree with what's been said, but I'd also add to it that, from our perspective, the 20,000 homes is a great target, but it's not just about building 20,000 homes or creating 20,000 social homes. It's about creating the right homes in the right place, because that's the way you're going to end homelessness and make sure that you don't get people looping back through the system, because they've been placed somewhere completely unsuitable for them. So, I'm really glad that you asked this question, because it's completely key. For me, though, the question does come a little bit early, because, actually, there are a lot of references in various guidance. So, it's really great that we've got the national development framework, policy 7 within that highlighting affordable housing, and you've got references in rapid rehousing transition planning guidance and LHMA guidance all talking about linking those data sets together and joining it all together. But some of those things are quite early on. So, we've just had those templates come through on LHMAs; we've only just in March had local authorities submit those. So, the proof will be in the pudding. And, I think, there are some key things to look out for to see how effectively those do connect.

So, there's a piece of work that's going to start very soon. It's a sub-group of the ending homelessness national advisory board, which is very specifically going to do a deep-dive into three local authority areas and have a look at, basically, how all of these things are mapping out, what homelessness needs are in a local area, and how effectively those things are bringing that all together and putting it through into supply. So, I think that's one thing to look out for. We've obviously got the Audit Wales report coming out as well. And it will be really, really, important to have a look at how those new LHMA templates have come across as well. I mean, anecdotally, I've heard that engagement has been very variable across different local authorities. So, yes, it's really important that we take all of those findings on board and make sure that those documents are appropriately talking to each other, and with any learnings that can make them talk to each other better, to get the right housing at the end of it.

Okay. Thank you very much, Debbie. Anybody else?

Jut echoing, really, what colleagues are saying, I think the guidance itself says that the local housing market assessments are designed to give broad, long-run estimates. So, that current assessment is, obviously, not really reflecting the actual need within the community. And, just building on what Alicja was saying in terms of the diverse communities, I think you could add Welsh-speaking communities to that list of the need that's not being reflected as well. So, I think we do welcome the guidance and things like that, but I don't think it's currently reflecting—. Because it's done at that postcode level, sometimes, obviously, the wealthier residents can perhaps skew the data, for example.

I would obviously agree with the other members, and just to mention that a key part of our work is to gather that insight from tenants from across the entirety of Wales. So, we've done that in gathering this evidence today, and one of the main factors mentioned was how children living with their parents are missed out within the current guidance, and they're going unnoticed, potentially needing their own home. Particular examples are people with children with disabilities who are essentially being forced to make their child homeless, evicting their own child, so that they can find a home, so that they can be put on the waiting list, otherwise they're not even given that opportunity. So, there are many challenges still.

Okay. Thank you very much. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you. Do you think, therefore, that there are some sets of data that aren't currently included, and what are the other types of data or insights that local authorities should be using when assessing housing need? We've heard in a previous session today about the English housing survey. Is that needed in Wales, or are the more local surveys going to be meeting and finding the information that's needed?

Could I come in, because I mentioned it before? Thank you for your question. I think it's absolutely needed. We need that data, both locally and nationally. Obviously, nationally, there is a need for a strategy on how we will meet people's housing needs, and I think, Debbie, you're absolutely right in saying that the 20,000 homes targets—it's great to have targets, but in itself it's a little bit crude, isn't it? We need to know, for example, how many wheelchair accessible homes we have across Wales. We need to know what the population need is for those homes going forward into the next however many years, and build according to that, and structure grants, planning processes, and so on, and engagement, according to that. They are able to do that in England, so there are strategies that have that level of detail. And I know that, for example, Welsh Government started monitoring, for example, as part of the 20,000 target, how many of those homes are wheelchair accessible, so it's a great start, but we really need to build on that.

I agree, we definitely need to build on it. I think our data in Wales is not as strong as it is elsewhere in Great Britain on homelessness and housing, and—it links entirely to that first question—it's so important in informing what supply we need and what direction we go in.

I think we mentioned about some of the existing guidance highlighting homelessness, highlighting data that needs to be collected. There's a lot of good information that it asks for in the rapid rehousing transition guidance, but it doesn't necessarily cover everything. So, we know, for example, that there are gaps in our supply in one-bed properties, there are gaps in terms of larger properties. A lot of ethnic minority populations require larger houses, and they're often really hard to come by. And, as has been said as well, accessible properties are really difficult to come by too. So, I think it would be really helpful if we were looking at some data around age, household size and disabilities, among other protected characteristics as well, and feeding that data through more.

Some of these findings, again, will hopefully come through some of that work that I talked about in the first question, and inform what other areas of data we need, but the other thing I would say is that I'm really grateful to have been invited—Crisis have been invited—to sit on a new group. I think it was last week, actually, it met for the first time, advising on how data around housing and homelessness in Wales can be more granular and look at an individual level, and I think that would be really important. And marrying all those things up and feeding it through to supply planning is crucial.

That's a Welsh Government group, is it, Debbie?

Yes, it is.

I would agree with both Debbie and Alicja. I think that it's about getting that right balance between that scientific approach and hearing those lived experiences as well. There needs to be that balance between the qualitative and quantitative data, so that we can really, truly understand that tenant experience. I would point you towards our 'Homelessness Allocations' White Paper tenant pulse survey, which goes into detail about the lived experiences of people facing homelessness.

The housing needs assessment tells us that we need those bigger homes, as Debbie mentioned, and then we're hearing that we need more single homes, but we're finding that people are struggling to allocate certain properties to people, like one-bedroomed properties, two-bedroomed properties, when they're second-floor apartments, for instance. Certain policies in different local authorities would permit a young child to live in a second-floor apartment, for instance, and the age of that child—eight and above is currently what that says—and that's really limiting the accessibility of those two-bedroomed properties that are on the second floor. So, I think it's just about understanding the need and understanding what tenants actually want as well as balancing that expectation.

Yes, I think, just building on what everyone has said already, a really effective method that we've found is working with rural housing enablers in, obviously, those rural housing areas to really understand that need at a micro level. So, obviously, I work with community groups who are wanting to develop homes for themselves, so they will often work with those rural housing enablers and not just survey the population, but host events and drop in. So, again, like Elizabeth was saying, you can have those lived experiences, and also you can really target not just geographic communities, but also communities of interest as well.

So, we're working with a group in Cardiff, an LGBTQ+ group, who are currently setting up a housing co-op, and they've actually surveyed people within their own community to help to understand their housing need from their perspective, not just on—like Elizabeth was saying—that scientific level. And there's also another group in Cardiff as well of Muslim women from the black and minority ethnic community, who are trying to understand the housing need within their community as well, and then working to address that need.

So, I think that that sort of method of really getting to know your local area and working with those people—. Because we've heard anecdotally as well that people like the children living at home with their parents, they might not actually see themselves in housing need, and so wouldn't necessarily come forward for the official housing registers and that kind of thing. So, I think when you do it on a community level, you really get to understand that local housing need, and then hopefully you can work to meet that need then.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Carolyn Thomas.

I can remember when we were desperate for bungalows in our village, and then the planning officers said, ‘Well, unless I've got it down as need, and criteria, you can't have them’, and I was like, ‘I know there is a need’, and we didn't have a rural housing enabler. It just reminded me of it.

So, just regarding delivery, how should we manage the need to build one-bedroomed homes with the need to ensure mixed communities? So, not just loads of one-bedroomed homes, but mixed tenure. And to what extent should the acquisition of existing properties be part of the solution to increasing social housing supply? So, we've had the transitional accommodation capital funding programme, haven’t we, which has been really good.

I'm really glad that you put those questions together, because I think they absolutely go together. I think one-bed properties are an issue, but as we highlighted in the first question, there are other issues as well and other types of properties that we need too. I think in terms of making sure that we haven't just got clumps of one-bed properties, the answer to that is actually that it's not just about building new social homes. It is about building new social homes—that’s a massive part of it—but it's not just about that, because that takes time. It takes a lot of time, and actually we've got a massive crisis on our hands at the moment. We've got escalating numbers of people living in unsuitable temporary accommodation. It's damaging their mental health just being there for so long. So, as much as we need to plough that investment into building new homes, we also need to look at acquisitions, absolutely, and other levers as well—so, conversion, third-party lets, all sorts of different ways to bring more social homes through. I think, by doing that, you automatically address that issue of spread as well, because if you're looking at pulling social homes onto the books, not just from new builds, but from acquisition, then that helps to address that problem.

I think what is needed in that diversity is making sure that we have the planning levers that we need to make that work effectively. There are lots of innovative and exciting things that can be done. There's a playbook that the Housing Festival created on modern construction methods, and they've put together lots of good practice. So, things like packaging up small bits of land that no-one wants, those tiny little bits of land across the communities, and packaging those up for developers. There are lots of good examples in that playbook that can be taken on board.

But I think, also, there are some levers that potentially we're not using to their full ability. So, section 106 has massive potential to add to our affordable housing, but we know from Stats Wales statistics that that money is often not being spent, and we also know that the guidance on section 106 and affordable housing hasn't been updated since 2009. So, something that we'd really like to see is, there's so much to our planning system, we'd really like to see a review and a body specifically looking at how those levers are working through a homelessness lens, how effectively are we using all of the legislation that's there and what needs to change, what guidance would help to make that work better.

And then the last point I was going to say—I'm sorry, I'm hogging lots on this question, but it is an important one to us—is the review of rapid rehousing transition plans as well. So, it's absolutely amazing that we've got rapid rehousing transition plans in place across Wales, but that's still fairly early days. We know our local authorities have been under masses of pressure, and the deadlines for meeting those plans were quite considerably pushed back. And there's still not really been a review of how effectively they are working, and lots of anecdotal evidence of rapid rehousing transition plans not necessarily being bought into by planning departments, alongside housing departments. So, I think there's a lot of work to do there as well on rapid rehousing transition plans. We've got the foundations in place, but there's a lot of work we need to do to make those work, and work properly to get those acquisition plans through that meet the need that we have.

I'd just like to add to that as well. Obviously, I support Debbie in everything that you've just said. But I think another issue is that we need that investment in support services to ensure those sustainable communities. So, it's all well and good building one-beds, putting tenants in those one-beds, people who anecdotally have complex needs and need that support, and then those support cuts are having such an impact on resource. And that resource then falls on, perhaps, one neighbourhood officer who cannot possibly support the needs of those individuals. So, that then leads to that lack of mixed communities because people aren't wanting to live there, and there's lots of anecdotal evidence there.

In terms of acquisitions, I think it's about that innovative thinking and finding those innovative funding solutions to deliver more homes for those growing needs. You mentioned the TACP, which has been an incredible programme and should, without a doubt, continue. But using those innovative funding solutions and thinking about development quality requirements standards and meeting them with acquisitions is not realistic or sustainable. So, thinking how we can still meet the health and safety needs of tenants, but how we can ensure that we're still taking tenants out of hotel rooms and putting them into accommodation.

Yes, I completely echo Elizabeth's point around the support need—again, Debbie has touched on it. So, it's not just about providing an affordable house, but it's providing the right home in the right place with the right support around it.

I do think that co-operative and community-led housing could be a potential solution to the one-bed problem that we're facing. Research that we've conducted has shown that it's a more supportive environment for people. People feel more confident, less lonely, less isolated when living in these co-operative housing situations. What we're seeing now is a trend of third sector organisations who may be helping—like mental health charities, for example, or employment charities—who are now coming to us because they are seeing that need and seeing that their service users, essentially, have a massive housing need. So, they're now actually looking at providing the homes themselves in that sort of co-operative framework, but obviously with that wraparound support as well. So, you're creating a property where people can share together, live together co-operatively and collectively, but you've also got the support of the charity to support the tenants then to live happy and sustainable lives.

And, yes, touching on the point from Debbie around those micro sites, we've done a lot of work with the WeCanMake project, which is in Bristol. And they do what they call urban acupuncture. So, they've got a council estate in Bristol, and they've identified a number of small garden plots throughout the community. It's an old, 1970s council housing development—huge gardens. And they've actually worked with the community to identify a certain amount of plots, and they've built modular homes within people's gardens—for single people who are homeless and that kind of thing.

They were built with big gardens for allotments, originally—

Yes, probably.

—to be self-sufficient.

Innovation.

Yes, exactly—innovation. And on the point of existing properties, yes, I think this is definitely part of the solution—not just empty homes, but empty commercial buildings, and community assets as well. We've got so many schools, potentially, closing down in some of our rural areas, that that could be a potential use for affordable housing. So, we've got a couple of projects, one in Cribyn, in Ceredigion, and one in Llanefydd, in Conwy, who are looking to take on the community asset transfer of those schools, and then turn them into affordable housing. The co-op I mentioned in Cardiff, they're taking on a commercial building and converting it into housing. And I think all of this needs additional funding, but what communities can do is actually lever in some additional funding—so, from the community, from social enterprises, that kind of thing. So, I think there's a real opportunity there. But what's really important is that those homes need to be in the right place and have access to services, and there need to be, in terms of the acquiring body, covenants in place to ensure that those homes remain affordable in perpetuity, and aren't perhaps sold off, for example, on the open market.

If I can just add to that, I think that the example around the changing use of land is a perfect example of the changing needs of the population as a whole. The need to balance one-bed homes with other homes and mixed communities is just one balancing act that we need to do. Because in 20, 30 years' time, we don't want to end up with a lot of apartments that are actually not being used, although we totally acknowledge that there is a need to build a lot of them. Overcrowding is a big issue; 25 per cent, 27 per cent of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, African communities live in overcrowded housing, compared to only about 3.5 per cent, 3.8 per cent of white populations. It's improved slightly in the last 10 years, the census shows us, but we need quicker action on that.

But I think all of that balancing exemplifies the need, really, for much longer term thinking and a longer term view, and not knee-jerk reactions to current situations, or the situations created in the last five years. We need a much longer term strategy, not only around social housing, but all other forms of housing, and communities, and a strategy that is properly backed by budgets. I think my colleagues before highlighted that only around 2 per cent of the Welsh budget has been spent on housing in the last 20 or so years. So, we need a radical shift there, and I'm sure my colleagues who were a part of the Back the Bill campaign as well have highlighted that—that we believe this can be achieved through a right to adequate housing. We need a proper, long-term commitment that goes beyond political cycles and perhaps reactions to pieces of legislation, which create need, quite rightly, but we need a much longer term view, I'd say.

Okay. Thank you for that. James Evans.

I'm going to move on to co-operative and community-led housing, if that's okay. Co-operative and community-led housing does play a big part in addressing our social housing needs across Wales. So, I'm interested in what role could community-led housing play in addressing the shortage of social homes across Wales. The Welsh Government recently set up a community assets commission to encourage thinking in this area on community ownership, land and assets. So, I'm just interested in your views on this and how much of a key part does co-operative and community-led housing play in addressing those shortages across Wales. Anybody want to fire off.

I'll probably take that one. It probably makes sense for me to start.

It does, yes.

And I suppose, just a declaration of interest: I am a member of that community assets commission, moving forward. So, just flagging that up.

Oh. [Laughter.]

But, yes, I do think you're right in terms of the role that co-operative and community-led housing can play in the delivery of affordable and social homes. We're lucky enough to have had Welsh Government support on this agenda for the last 10 or so years, and it was obviously included in the last programme for government, so great to see the Welsh Government committing to exploring this sector. And also great to have a commitment from the Cabinet Secretary that community-led housing will play a part in delivering those 20,000 affordable and social homes.

And I suppose, just from our perspective, as the community-led housing hub for Wales, we're supporting around 35, 36 groups across Wales, who have a pipeline to deliver 276 affordable homes. I know that might sound like a drop in the ocean, really, compared to, obviously, the amount of homes we need, but, obviously, these people are all volunteers, they're doing it in their free time, and, hopefully, if we have some more support in place for these projects, then, obviously, it can grow and move forward.

And I think the beauty of community-led housing, as I've already said, is around meeting that actual need within communities rather than just taking a blanket approach to delivering housing. So, it's about local people coming together to actually deliver homes for themselves or homes for their local community, and obviously those homes will be affordable in perpetuity. So, I think that's the beauty, actually meeting the diverse needs of the community. I've already mentioned the housing co-op in Cardiff that are delivering housing for the LGBTQ community; you've got a group in Cardiff delivering homes for the black minority ethnic community there; we've got groups who are looking to deliver homes for older people in rural settings; and also, obviously, a big part of our work is actually delivering homes in the Welsh language heartlands. So, we do a lot of work with the Dwyfor pilot and the Perthyn project as well, to obviously meet the needs of the people living in those communities. And like I've already said, I mentioned the benefits of community-led housing: it's not just about putting an affordable roof over somebody's head, but it's actually the wider sort of softer benefits we like to say that community-led housing brings. It's being part of that supportive community, it's building your confidence, building your skills when you're developing these projects. Obviously, some people go into it never have worked on or built a home in their life, but they're now actually learning those skills, whether they're building the homes themselves or actually working with a partner to build out those homes.

I think in terms of the commission, moving forward, something that I would like to see—and obviously I'll be pushing when I'm on that commission—is that access to land and assets for community-led housing. So, we did some research a couple of years ago on the community right to buy in Scotland and how Wales should have similar or better legislation here, and give people the right to basically own land and assets for the use of affordable housing, but also, obviously, for other community use as well. So, we'd love to see the right to buy. We'd love to see more land disposal policies as well across Wales, so a presumption in favour of disposing land for community-led and affordable housing, both at the national level in terms of public sector land, but also at local authority level too. And we do feel that section 106 has a role to play in this; community-led housing could be that allocation of section 106 homes. And we do feel that there should be perhaps a percentage considered on large strategic public sites for community-led housing. So, I think there are lots of things I'm sure that the commission will draw out, and I think we'd love to see, obviously, funding for all of this. In Scotland they have the rural housing fund, they have the land fund as well, which is really helping the sector to grow there. So, that's what I'd like to see out of the commission.

Diolch. Thank you for a very comprehensive answer. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Would anybody like to add anything? Yes.

Can I add—? Just to say, from our point of view—and I absolutely support everything that Casey said—it comes back to that point I raised earlier about looking at diverse options. We can't put all our eggs in one basket and we need to look at lots of different options. Community-led housing isn't for everyone, but it absolutely is for some people and it works really well for them.

So, we highlight research that recently came out from Sheffield Hallam University that shows that this really can be a very affordable option for people, and in Wales I think the stat was 25 per cent of their income, compared to that 33 per cent to 35 per cent threshold that you see elsewhere and normally measure against. So, it really can be a really good option, and it is quite notable that Wales doesn't have some of those legislative levers that are in place elsewhere. So, it'll be really interesting that we've got that commission there to look at what levers we can create to make this easier for people.

And then in terms of other things that we would want the community asset commission to look at, and I'm sure Casey is well over all of this as well—. We saw the Institute of Welsh Affairs research on this and the barriers that people are facing absolutely chimed with what we hear: difficulties around the complexity of the process, feeling like you have to have loads of time on your hands to do this or to be well educated and have all of this expert knowledge that people just don't generally have on how planning systems work, as well as funding being an issue as well. I know we've got the community asset loan fund, but there are restrictions within that as well. So, I think it's really exciting that this asset commission is there to look at some of those barriers and see how we can support this as well, because, again, it's one of many levers that we need to be looking at.

If I may add, I suppose one way of building community assets is thinking about the benefits that a community can garner from developments. We are seeing multimillion pound investments into, for example, decarbonisation at the moment and development, and there's growth in community asset and community-led housing; it's a great opportunity to explore that and how diverse communities, I think, can benefit from that as well, not only in terms of jobs, skills, employment, but also in terms of capacity of building and providing housing for those communities. Casey mentioned examples of various community-led housing, specifically as initiatives, before, and I think it's a great way to tackle and to meet some of that need.

Okay. Thank you very much, Alicja. Siân.

The community assets commission is going to be very important, I think, and looking at this idea of putting the first offer to community initiatives to buy assets to turn into homes, but also do other things as well. Could you give us some idea of what the timetable is for this work with the commission? When will there be recommendations coming forward from that? And then, just more generally, is there anything further that Welsh Government could do to support the development of community-led housing? That, and also, if I could just ask as well, Chair: I see great potential in terms of buying high-street properties in our urban centres where there are businesses suffering, but perhaps there's potential to regenerate town centres by buying those assets and turning them into homes. So, how much scope do you think there is in that regard and is that something that should be pushed more, perhaps, by the Government? Sorry, that's about three questions in one.

I forgot my pen. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Siân. I'll answer in English, if that's okay. I make a lot more sense in English.

In terms of the time frame for the commission, we've had our first meeting, which was in April, and I think there's a 12-month period now where we will meet, I think, six times, and then the recommendations will come out. It's not just a case of us meeting as a commission; there are a number of workshops planned that are being led by Cardiff University, so it won't just be us as a group of members of the commission, but there will be an opportunity for stakeholders to feed into those workshops as well, so I'm happy to share information about that when it comes out. I think our first workshop is in July.

In terms of what's needed to grow the community-led housing sector, for me funding is really key. It's really difficult for community groups to get hold of funding to develop these homes, especially that pre-development finance. So, if you think, for example, a group of volunteers are coming together, they've perhaps identified a piece of land and they want to see if it's appropriate, they'll have to do so many surveys, they'll have to, maybe, put an option on the land, for example, and then that's not even talking about actually applying for planning then, so even before you've put a brick in the ground, it's a very expensive process of developing homes. So, we'd love to see some more funding for community-led housing in Wales.

A couple of years ago, we put a paper to the Welsh Government to establish a revolving loan fund, so we would love to bring that back to the table and have discussions about how we can increase the funding for community-led housing in Wales. Access to land, as I've already said, is really key, so we're really grateful for this commission to be set up and look at how we can get more land into the community-led housing sector. We're currently very reliant on philanthropic landowners who see the value of developing affordable homes and working with the community to bring those forward. So, it would be great to have some legislation around that.

And supportive planning policy as well. We'd love to see more supportive planning policy. The Welsh Government recently updated 'Planning Policy Wales' to reflect community-led housing as being able to deliver affordable housing in perpetuity, but we'd love to see that go a step further, maybe updating technical advice note 2, for example, and recognising that community-led housing is part of the delivery of affordable housing. And also, just maybe a bit more of a consistent approach across local government, in terms of awareness raising. Not that many people know about community-led housing in general, so we'd love to see a bit more of a consistent approach, especially in terms of planning and maybe having some supportive planning policies as well across local authorities for community-led housing.

High-street regeneration is something I'm really passionate about. I did my Master's dissertation on it. I do see a role for community-led housing in that space to revitalise those high streets. I was in Holyhead just a couple of weeks ago, with Môn CF, who are doing some absolutely phenomenal work up there, buying assets on the local high street, converting them into retail space, into offices, but also into housing as well. I think we need to shout about those really good examples, but also maybe promote this as an option. And maybe thinking about better compulsory purchase powers for local authorities to be able to take back control of their high streets, because, obviously, it's so difficult, isn't it, getting hold of some of the absentee landlords on our high streets. So, if our local authorities had better powers or exercised those powers maybe more often, then we could revitalise the high streets.

On the funding issue, presumably, once the initial funding has been there, and you've bought your first house, and then you rent it out, and then you've got rent money coming in, and then you can start buying more and more, it will become self-sustaining.

Absolutely, yes. It's just getting over that first hurdle, essentially.

So, it's money for the initial steps that the funding would be there for.

Exactly. And in terms of new build as well, there are finance providers out there who will provide that mortgage finance, for example. But there really is a gap in terms of the pre-development and the development finance. Our revolving loan fund had this all costed out. It was a 40-year business plan, based on the money coming back, so it would refinance itself, which would, obviously, hopefully, help to grow the sector, essentially. I'm happy to share that business plan with the committee, if that's helpful.

Yes, please, Casey. Has anybody got anything to add?

If I can just add to that on acquisitions in general. I know that that was covered and we're talking about community-led acquisition and now in high streets. It has been, I think, a great solution to some of the more specific housing needs, especially around overcrowding. And not only acquisitions, but also using a capital fund, like TACP, to convert properties, to provide extensions, and so on. We had some great examples from Taff Housing, for example, on how they've used it to convert lofts for growing families, and they've got a very diverse tenant base. But that can also mean high-street regeneration as well. What we're hearing is that using social housing grant to do that is very difficult. So, that needs to be looked at as well. And, obviously, land in urban centres, which tend to be more ethnically diverse, is very expensive to actually develop. So, acquisitions and capital reconfiguration, I think, is something that we need to invest in more, and perhaps longer term, and have longer term grant settlements there as well.

Can I just ask a question about high streets? A lot of the flats above shops and things—do they actually meet the housing quality standards regarding certification? When I used to be a postie—it was a very long time ago—going up and down to all these flats and things, the steps would be round the outside, and I just think, sometimes, the quality might not be there. It might be an issue.

We're going back to some of the questions around being flexible about the quality standards, as an interim measure.

I think what the Welsh Government could do, potentially, is have that flexibly in standards—still maintaining those health and safety standards, of course, but—

Is the new legislation coming through regarding certification for electricity—?

It's come through already, from what I'm aware.

I think that was a bit of an issue as well. It's needed, but it's an issue to meet that standard and certification.

It's getting the balance, isn't it?

And the funding as well, then, to convert those properties to the right standards, essentially. It's all sort of a complicated puzzle, isn't it, where all of it is needed.

But in the interim, it's better than a hotel room.

Yes, it's just working our way around all these things.

I think balance is really the key, because we're talking about creating affordable housing, so we do, as part of that, need to look at, 'Is this housing going to be affordable to live in in the longer term?' Part of that is obviously energy efficiency, so it's that balancing act of, you know, we need housing and we need it fast—we can't leave people languishing in temporary accommodation for any longer—but we need to do the best that we can with what we've got, and we can't let standards fall down too far. Yes, a little bit of flex, but we can't let the standards fall too far.

Altaf Hussain.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good afternoon. I have two questions, and they are regarding engaging communities. We know that building trust and open communication is lacking when we talk about social and affordable housing. How can communities be effectively engaged in social housing developments in their areas, and what good practices are you aware of in building local support for new developments?

Shall I start? I'm at risk of sounding like a broken record here, but I'll go for it anyway. That early community engagement is absolutely essential, about the benefits of the development. We have a group of tenants from across all 22 local authorities who engage with us specifically on this question, around what 'good' could look like. People were saying that the local supply chains and how allocations are going to be decided needs to be discussed with the local people where that development is going to happen. Local communities want to have that point of contact and that point of contact must have that capacity to manage such a case load. So, it seems to be about the people, about supporting those people where that development is happening. And people want to know the basics about the schools, what impact that is going to have on the schools, what impact that's going to have on the doctors' surgeries et cetera, because things are already so oversubscribed, which seems to be pushing people in the opposite direction.

So, there needs to be a package of support, but so much has obviously been cut. One person, as I said earlier, about the neighbourhood officers, is expected to manage that whole case load of people, and that's obviously having an effect on people not wanting those developments to happen. So, I think it's about changing the narrative and focusing on the benefits of having social housing in that area: lots of green space, local shops, and any new kind of accessible transport developments that might come out of that. And again, it's about that capturing of that data—who are the people in that area and how can we influence and support.

Can I add to that? Thank you for your question, because it is a really important one. At Crisis, we're here for people who are at risk of homelessness, who are facing homelessness, and it's a real issue for that group. That group are incredibly stigmatised, and obviously very wrongly so, so I would say that general lack of awareness, not just among the public, but across our councillors as well, who have [correction: who can sometimes have] very stereotyped views of what homelessness is and why people become homeless—that stereotype of the alcoholic, the drug user, and not seeing homelessness for what it is, which is really broad. There are all kinds of reasons why people might be homeless, from being bereaved, to fleeing domestic abuse, to losing their job, and, yes, sometimes from not having support needs met and that being the cause.

I think raising awareness of what homelessness is is really important among the public and also among our councillors as elected members, because we do sometimes hear—. Well, not 'sometimes'; we do hear from local authorities that there are huge blockers with these programmes, trying to get them through planning committees in local government because of those stereotypes, because of that lack of awareness. So, we're really keen to do some awareness raising and smashing of those stereotypes, which are completely unfair and false.

But in terms of good practice, I think what's really key here is, as Elizabeth has said, community engagement. There's a really good example of good practice at our Crisis Skylight centre in Brent, where they were heavily involved with the local neighbourhood plan and making sure that there was a specific emphasis within that plan on people within the community who were on very low incomes and people within the community who were facing homelessness so that that was embedded as part of the blueprint, as part of the oversight, and accepted. By having that community engagement in that plan, it was much easier then—it set things up quite nicely.

So, what we would say at Crisis is that we would really love to encourage more experts by experience—people with lived experience of homelessness—and more co-production in our place plans in Wales. We think that would be really helpful and beneficial. And then I think it also does come back to that idea of buy-in across local government departments as well on the issue of homelessness, and making sure that rapid rehousing and transition plans look at the wider community and are bought into by the planning departments as well.

You are right, there are benefits to social housing—communities can create developments that are seen as assets and not burdens. My second question is this: we have heard that negative perceptions of social housing can be a barrier to new developments. Do you have any suggestions for how to tackle this type of stigma?

Alicja, I think you wanted to come in on the first question.

It sort of relates to your second question, really, Altaf, as well. I think the key to understanding what homelessness is all about, and the impact of it, is actually acknowledging and understanding that home is a basic human right. We can do that by creating a national conversation on this and by incorporating a right to housing into Welsh law, where communities are no longer split and stigmatised as those who are deserving of a home and are non-deserving of a home. It's something that I think we really need to heavily invest in. We often talk about Finland and how they managed to tackle homelessness through housing first approaches. Housing first was preceded by the incorporation of a right to housing into their constitution. That was the first principle and that's how housing is understood.

I think that opposition from perhaps local communities—. There's a different balance perhaps in terms of people opposing, let's say, developments. I think that we need to invest more resources into creating that awareness and understanding amongst local communities of what the need is and into perhaps balancing better in people's minds the immediate reaction of looking after your own needs, the value of your house and the fear of what's going on and who's moving into the local neighbourhood—balancing that against the needs of future generations and talking about what housing situations our kids are going to be in in 20, 30, 50 years' time, if we don't tackle it.

In terms of good practice, the thing that's even more important is that investment into tackling that stigma and engagement. It's more important when we talk about diverse needs, whether it's homeless people or people with learning disabilities, care leavers, refugees—with any developments like that, there tends to be more opposition—and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. So, I think engagement with local communities, as well as with those communities that are more marginalised and seldom heard, is hugely important, because greater community engagement is good, but there are risks to it if we only engage with the people who perhaps only see the needs of the majority there.

In terms of good examples, that sort of links with the need for innovative housing solutions as well and tackling climate change. We've seen examples from Barcud housing association in mid Wales, where they've developed a passive house development, with quite a few wheelchair-accessible apartments within that. It's more affordable, it's more climate friendly. They've done quite intensive engagement with people who are wheelchair users locally who are going to live in those houses to inform the development. A number of changes have been made to how those houses were developed.

Another example, perhaps not from social housing, but I think it's important to reflect on, is from my local, actually, community, the Ministry of Defence in St Athan, who are housing Afghan refugees at the moment—all sorts of issues in the Vale of Glamorgan around that, but the moment that some far-right actors hear about developments like that, we can sometimes see those groups moving in to the local areas and winding people up, basically, stressing the negative, stereotyping people and creating prejudice and hate. So, what the MOD did in my local community was engage with the community, talk about the people that were moving in, talk about—. I despair of the need to do that, actually, and, obviously, there are privacy considerations and all sorts of considerations there. But I think it's better in that situation to talk to people about who's moving into your community—you know, 'They're just normal, regular people'—rather than leave it be and let people use and abuse the more base motives that people might have against those developments.

Diolch yn fawr.

Just again echoing what my colleagues have said, but I think we need to stop thinking about homes as assets, but as the foundation of a healthy life, both in terms of mental and physical health. I think actually—. We've talked about the misunderstanding of community-led housing, and the need to engage at every level and throughout the process. I think, actually, co-operative and community-led housing—obviously, I would say this—can be a way of overcoming some of that stigma, and, obviously, the highest form of engagement is actually co-production of housing with the local community. When the community is involved or leading on the delivery of housing, people actually can see the link in terms of the need. So, perhaps they can see that the people involved are actually—. Their granddaughter, for example, needs housing, and perhaps there is greater understanding, then, of that local need and more willingness. So, there are examples in England where planning has been a lot easier, because there is less objection to these kinds of developments, rather than, perhaps, an RSL coming in or a private development coming in. I do appreciate that community-led housing isn't for everybody, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but we believe in co-operation in its broader sense, and that community engagement right throughout the process is really key.

Thinking about those diverse and often marginalised communities, maybe a partnership approach is best to really get that community engagement. So, we've got a group in Swansea of young adults with learning disabilities who are in really severe housing need, but they want to take it into their own hands and are working with a local housing association to develop the homes that they need. So, it's not always about people developing their own homes or building their own homes, but, actually, it can be about that partnership approach. Obviously, that's great community engagement and co-production, but also can help get over that stigma, then, of social housing as well.

Sorry, shall I move on slightly to the other question?

Yes, go on, Elizabeth.

Just around people—. Again, echoing what everybody has said, but that community-based support, so working in partnership with other agencies to minimise that stigma associated with social housing, I'd argue that there are many housing associations and local authority housing already doing some great work operationally in terms of community support, and drawing on some of that and implementing that would be helpful, and I think finding, again, that operational support that is already happening and using that, potentially applying more funding from that acute healthcare into prevention, and recognising that tenants having that support will enable them to thrive and will enable them to minimise those negative impacts associated with social housing tenants.

Okay. Thank you very much, thank you all very much for coming in to give evidence to committee today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

Okay. The next item on our agenda today, item 5, is papers to note. Paper 6 is a letter from the First Minister to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in relation to the international agreement between the UK and Denmark. Are Members content to note that paper? Thank you. I see that you are.

We will then move to item 6, a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Is committee content to move to private session? Yes. We will then do so. Thank you very much.