| 35 |
PORTFOLIO HOLDER BRIEFING
|
The Committee received a briefing from Cllr Mrs R. Renton, Executive Member for Housing & Welfare. The briefing covered local housing issues, with a focus on increasing levels of homelessness within the Borough, the escalating cost of this, and the ways in which the Council was attempting to prevent and combat this problem. In particular the briefing explained and discussed the emergency route into housing (as opposed to the preferred route through the Housing Register).
The Committee noted that in September 2014 the Executive had approved the use of a portion of the Council’s Section 106 monies for the provision of more temporary accommodation in the Borough, which had been identified as a priority need.
The Committee heard that the situation regarding homelessness was not expected to improve in the near future due to factors including anticipated interest rate rises and the impact of welfare reform, all of which were outside of the Council’s control.
The Executive Member reported that the refurbishment of existing property in Woodhatch and the construction of two new bungalows in Horley using Section 106 monies were already underway, and that the Council was looking into a number of other opportunities to acquire and bring forward property that would provide a new stream of accommodation and income.
The Executive Member also reported that the Council was proposing a series of changes to its Housing Register and Allocations Policy, and that these were currently the subject of a 6-week public consultation.
The briefing additionally made reference to:
-
The opening of the refurbished Mount View facility in Redhill by Raven Housing Trust. This had unfortunately been further delayed until mid-March, but would reduce the number of families needing to be housed by the Council in bed and breakfast by up to 19;
-
A range of prevention work being carried out by the Council, including:
-
The recruitment of a dedicated Accommodation Sustainment Officer, whose role included working with families and liaising with private and social landlords to avoid evictions;
-
The use of the Council’s Discretionary Housing Payments fund to assist families to rent privately by paying rent in advance and paying deposits and fees;
-
Partnership working with the local YMCA to help fund their NextStep scheme;
-
The piloting of the tenancy guarantor scheme, in which the Council acted as a formal guarantor to secure accommodation for families in the private sector;
-
The signposting of new claimants for Housing Benefit to relevant support services, particularly for debt and budgeting assistance.
Questions and comments were made by the Committee regarding:
-
The use of emergency accommodation outside of the Borough. The Committee noted that this was used for households with children because there is no stock of nightly procured self contained accommodation in the Borough (the Council has a statutory duty to provide self contained emergency accommodation for households with children). It was noted that the length of stay was dependent on the availability of temporary accommodation and the complexity of the case;
-
The potential impact of interest rate increases not only on owner-occupiers but on those renting privately from landlords with multiple mortgages. It was noted that the Council would intervene where possible to negotiate with landlords and prevent them from evicting tenants;
-
The impact of legal immigration from the European Economic Area on the Council’s housing service. It was agreed that further information would be provided in writing after the meeting;
-
The 321% rise in demand for emergency and temporary accommodation in the Borough between 2010/11 and 2013/14, compared to an average 167% rise across Surrey. The Committee noted that the Borough was one of the most expensive and desirable within the County;
-
The variation within the Borough. The Committee noted that in general, homelessness was a worse issue in Redhill and Horley than in other parts of the Borough;
-
The duty on the Council to place a person presenting themselves as homeless in emergency accommodation whilst investigating their case. The Committee noted that the duty is on the Local Authority to acquire the necessary information and that if people were uncooperative the process could be significantly delayed;
-
The eligibility of persons from outside of the Borough to be housed within it. The Committee noted that a person was required to have a local connection to be placed on the Housing Register, and that this criteria was clearly defined by the Council’s Housing Policy. However, there remained a duty to temporarily house any person suspected to be at risk of homelessness whilst their eligibility was investigated;
-
The length of time commonly spent in temporary accommodation. It was noted that this ranged from one to six years, depending on the availability of permanent accommodation and the history of the applicant. The Committee heard that the proposed changes to the Housing Register and Allocations Policy would reduce the ability of those in temporary accommodation to wait for permanent accommodation in a particular area, with a view to reducing this time range.
The Chairman thanked the Executive Member for providing a clear and detailed briefing on a complex portfolio.
RESOLVED that the Executive Member for Housing & Welfare be thanked for briefing the Committee and responding to questions.
|
| 36 |
HOUSING ASSOCIATION ACTIVITY & PERFORMANCE 2013/14
|
The Committee received a report on the performance of the Registered Providers (previously known as Housing Associations) that provide affordable housing in the Borough. The report focused on the work of Raven Housing Trust, as by far the largest provider in the Borough.
The Chairman invited Councillor Mrs R. Renton, Executive Member for Housing & Welfare, to speak to the report and to introduce Jonathan Higgs, Chief Executive of Raven Housing Trust. The Committee welcomed Mr Higgs, who gave a presentation on the Trust’s activities during 2013/14.
The presentation referred to:
-
Service performance, including the following;
-
That arrears had risen slightly during the last 12 months. This was due to a range of factors, including the impact of welfare reform and economic pressures on tenants, a now resolved IT system issue and a new method of calculation that discounted credits received;
-
That re-let times were within target and placed Raven within the highest achieving Registered Providers. The repairs service was also within target for repair time and customer satisfaction, and overall satisfaction currently stood at 89%;
-
That evictions were at a high level. There had been five in the current year for anti-social behaviour (it was noted that this was an usual number and that three of these related to a large drugs raid across the local area) and 27 for arrears. It was emphasised that eviction was always a last resort, and only used where customers declined to engage with Raven;
-
That management of anti-social behaviour was being improved through a range of measures, including: separation of low-level and serious cases; new powers acquired; greater staff resources; a new reporting system; movement from life-time tenancies to fixed term 5-year tenancies with the opportunity for review; and undertaking not to make repairs on properties with anti-social behaviour or arrears issues. As a result, the number of anti-social behaviour cases was down from two years previously.
-
Joint working with the Community Safety Partnership, Joint Enforcement Team, Supporting Families team, and Community Incident and Action Group;
-
The negative impact of welfare reform measures, including the single room supplement and benefit cap, on Raven’s tenants. The introduction of direct payment under Universal Credit had been delayed but was expected to increase arrears, as it had done in national pilots;
-
Support services offered or assisted by Raven, which included: the Moneywise Team; the Rental Exchange; Surrey Save Credit Union; a digital inclusion programme; the Brighter Communities Fund run by residents; employment, education and training support; and a range of initiatives to combat fuel poverty;
-
The provision of new temporary and permanent accommodation. Raven were looking to make the best use of their assets, which included selling some sites in order to buy larger sites in less valuable locations, and redeveloping a number of sites (such as Mount View, formerly Colne House). Improvements to existing homes were also providing significant energy cost savings;
-
Raven were also conducting more sophisticated analysis of their stock value to enable a longer term view for investment decisions, in closer imitation of the private sector;
-
The appropriateness of rent increases, which funded the provision of more homes but made it harder for those already housed by Registered Providers to move into the private sector;
-
The imminent introduction of a market rent scheme to cater to the growing need for high quality, secure accommodation with good services.
The Committee welcomed the presentation, with questions and comments made regarding:
-
The comparison of Raven Housing Trust rents with those in the private sector. The Committee noted that 90% of Raven homes paid a social rent, which was 50% of market rent. The remainder of homes paid affordable rent, at 80% of market rent for new builds, and 65% for previously owned properties;
-
Rent increases – it was noted that the current formula used by Raven was to apply the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 1%. For 2015/16 this would equal 2.2%, which was expected to be below the average market rate increase. The Committee noted that Registered Providers were tightly restricted in their rent setting. It was anticipated that this might change in coming years and actually lead to the lowering of rents, although, as referred to by Mr Higgs and above, this would reduce Registered Providers’ ability to provide new homes;
-
Tenants evicted because of arrears. It was noted that such tenants sometimes became the responsibility of the Council. The Executive Member for Housing & Welfare informed the Committee that tight protocols were in place with Raven, which ensured that the Council was kept informed at the different stages in a potential eviction and could work with Raven in attempting to prevent this. The Committee noted that if tenants were evicted and found to be intentionally homeless then the Council’s duty to accommodate them would cease (if there were children involved then Social Services would be informed at this stage);
-
Tenants evicted due to anti-social behaviour. The Committee noted that the process for this involved several stages, including mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and, finally, a notice or injunction that, if breached, gave Raven a mandate to evict under new powers. It was noted that there were often peaks and troughs in an individual’s behaviour over time that could make this a protracted process;
-
The programme being pursued with Raven in association with Crawley Borough Council (who were contributing Right To Buy receipts) to deliver 20 new homes. The Committee noted that Raven had successfully operated a similar scheme in this Borough in the past and would be open to working with any Local Authorities on similar schemes;
-
Raven Housing Trust’s support for food banks in Preston and Banstead through the making available of suitable premises. It was agreed that further information on the outcomes of these schemes would be provided in writing after the meeting;
-
The decent homes standard set by the Government. The Committee noted that every RP was required to report on dwellings failing to meet this standard at the end of each year, which meant that those properties that dropped below the standard but were dealt with during the year would not be reported. It was further noted that the standard itself was not particularly high and that Raven applied their own, higher, standard;
-
The payment of Housing Benefit to tenants under Universal Credit, without the option to have it paid direct to Registered Providers as was currently the case. The Committee noted that Raven would encourage tenants to set up direct debits or standing orders and would support them in doing so, but would have no ability to make such an arrangement a condition of tenancy.
The Chairman thanked Jonathan Higgs for attending and responding to Member questions on the activities of the Trust during 2013/14.
|
| 37 |
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL REPORT
|
The Committee received the report of the LDF Scrutiny Panel from its meeting on 6 January 2015. The Panel had considered the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS), which had been agreed for consultation by the Executive on 13 November 2014.
The Committee noted the comments of the LDF Scrutiny Panel. It was noted that these comments would be submitted to the Executive along with the responses to the public consultation on 26 March 2015, and that in the meantime Planning Policy Officers would be taking account of all responses in creating the Draft Charging Schedule.
The Committee discussed the report, with questions and comments made regarding:
-
The relationship between CIL and Section 106 agreements, and the recent Government guidance against using Section 106 agreements on developments of less than 10 units. The Committee noted that the Council would look to test this guidance, as it was contrary to the Council’s adopted Core Strategy and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document;
-
The Committee noted that once approved the Charging Schedule would not be negotiable, which meant that developers would only have the opportunity to challenge the Council at the policy setting and inspection stages. However, it was noted that the Council could introduce elements of discretionary relief;
-
The zero charge for office development, which would apply even on large corporate developments. It was noted that the market for office development was currently poor, and that the Council would seek to encourage any large developments of this kind, which would benefit the business environment in the Borough as well as provide an income to the Council in the form of Business Rates. The Committee noted that the zero charge was based on robust viability evidence, and that the Council’s CIL Charging Schedule could be reviewed if economic circumstances were to change significantly.
RESOLVED:
(i) that the report of the LDF Scrutiny Panel from its meeting on 6 January be noted; (ii) that the LDF Scrutiny Panel be thanked for undertaking a thorough review of the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule proposals; and
(iii) that the comments of the LDF Scrutiny Panel in relation to the consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy be approved for submission to the Executive (set out on page 22 of the agenda).
|