Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

            That Councillor Rutter be appointed Vice Chairman of the Committee for the 2019/20 Municipal Year.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note:  Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, and non disclosable interests in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.      

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

Councillor Humby declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of items under consideration which may have a Hampshire County Council involvement due to his role as a County Councillor.  However, as there was no material conflict of interest regarding these items, he had a dispensation granted by the Monitoring Officer to participate and vote in all matters which might have a County Council involvement.

Councillor Scott declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of agenda items due to him being a Council tenant.  However, as there was no material conflict of interest, he remained in the room and spoke under the dispensation granted on behalf of the Monitoring Officer to participate in all matters related to the Council house rents.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting TACT representatives: Mrs M Gill and Mr M Fawcitt.

A Member asked whether consideration should be given to appointing the TACT representatives as full members of the Committee rather than as invitees.

RESOLVED:

            That the timetable of meetings for 2019/20 be agreed as set out on the agenda.

To receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on matters which fall within the remit of the Committee.

Representations from the public are set out under the respective item where the Chairperson invited contributions from the public and TACT representatives.

A copy of the presentation is to follow.

RESOLVED:

That the Report be noted.

The meeting received a presentation from the Corporate Head of Housing and the Housing Finance and Resources Manager regarding Winchester District Housing Company – Governance Structure Considerations.

During Public Participation Ian Tait commented in summary that:

·         The proposals were similar to proposals put forward in November 2017.

·         He asked what was hoped to be delivered and who would be helped?

·         The proposal would benefit the void that presently existed for those that missed out on affordable housing, but the numbers helped would be small.

·         There was an aspiration to commit more resources in the future.

·         He questioned whether there was merit in proceeding with £10mn proposed to be allocated.

Members raised questions or commented regarding the following:

Housing Revenue Account considerations

·         The proposals for social housing provision were welcomed and it was key that tenants were involved.

·         It was asked whether the proposals would compete for HRA sites or detract from the HRA.

·         The proposals should not be at the expense of social housing and the HRA.

Purpose of the Company

·         There needed to be a good understanding for whom the homes were being built for.

Process and governance arrangements

·         Were there other Councils that could provide advice on finance and the legal aspects of establishing a Housing Company.

·         The proposal of the Strategic Directors and the responsible Cabinet Member to consider development opportunities was the correct approach.

·         The Board of Directors required officer support at the highest level and to be subject to independent scrutiny, with an external Company Secretary appointed, and financial and legal advice to allow it to operate as a commercial company.

·         It should aim to be self financing after the initial seed money was spent.

·         The Company appeared difficult to establish and would the administration and associated costs justify the outputs.

·         A small number of schemes could be carried out and the scheme then be reviewed.

·         It gave the opportunity for the Council to act further as an exemplar landlord.

·         Was the Housing Company required when the cap on borrowing had been lifted?

·         What would be the skills set of the Directors and the cost of staffing; how would the success of the Directors be measured and be held to account and what would be the metrics employed to assess return on performance.

·         The approach of an ‘ethical landlord’ was supported.

The TACT representatives commented that TACT had considered the proposals in March 2019 and were in favour of them.  Tenants would wish to see value for money if Housing Revenue Account money was used.

RESOLVED:

That the content of the presentation be noted.

The officers provided responses to questions raised by Members in respect of:

·         The operation of the Gold Standard for homelessness prevention to ensure that people were not excluded because they fell outside of the Housing Strategy.

·         The actions taken to mitigate against reductions in central government grants in service provision, including those affected by substance abuse.

·         The eligibility classification for ‘homeless’.

·         How the large number of priorities identified would be taken forward and given focus.

·         The importance of partnership working with Hampshire County Council and other partners.

The TACT representatives asked questions regarding people who preferred to be rough sleepers and preferred not to go into housing.  The officers responded that this was where the Housing First model applied.

RESOLVED:

That the key priorities and action plan set out in the draft Preventing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy be supported.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the proposed amendment to the Mutual Exchange policy which currently allows tenants to move to a property which has one bedroom more than their assessed bedroom need be noted.

2.         That the proposal that consent be refused for exchanges where the accommodation is more extensive than is reasonably required by the tenant be supported unless one or more of the following conditions apply:

i.          The tenant is downsizing;

ii.         The tenant is exchanging to older persons accommodation;

iii.        The tenant has a confirmed medical or welfare need for a property which is larger than their assessed bedroom need;

iv         There are other exceptional circumstances as determined by the Council.

The officers provided responses to questions raised by Members in respect of:

·         Could more be spent on estate improvements to meet the Council’s strategic priorities, including reducing carbon emissions?

·         The involvement of wider tenant participation to generate ideas for improvements, in addition to those forthcoming from TACT.

·         Were there alternatives to car parking schemes to reduce costs (which were the substantial part of estate improvement costs), for example schemes to promote cycling for residents.

·         Was there an over emphasis on car parking schemes at the expense of other environmental improvements.

·         The methodology undertaken by officers and Members on prioritising improvement schemes.

·         Working with Hampshire County Council and other partners who were making a significant investment in cycling and walking and making improvements to free up the movement of buses that might otherwise be delayed due to inconsiderate car parking.

The TACT representatives commented that this matter would be better considered by the full TACT group rather than its committee due to its impact on the Housing Revenue account (HRA).  Comment was also made as to whether better use could be made of Council garages.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the ongoing achievements of the Estate Improvement programme be noted.

2.         That the increasing of the provision in the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan to £400,000 from £250,000 for 2019/20 be supported.

3.         That increasing the benchmark cost per parking bay to £4,000 be supported.

4.         That the Programme consider improvements to promote cycling (including electric bikes and cycle stores) and electric charging points for vehicles to make a greater contribution to the Climate Emergency action plan.

It was suggested that items on the work programme be brought forward in groups of a similar theme in order to aid consideration at the Committee.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the inclusion of the Decent Homes Standard Policy and the Hampshire Home Choice Policy, the Work Programme for 2019/20 be approved.