Agenda item

To seek the views and recommendations of the Committee on the draft Housing Strategy 2015-2020 for Cabinet to take into account when it considers the draft for approval for a six week consultation.   

The Committee considered a report seeking views and recommendations on the proposed draft Housing Strategy; these comments were to be fed into a report to Cabinet. Cabinet would then consider the recommendations as part of the draft report before it was sent out for public consultation. The Committee noted that there was an addendum tabled to this report, as the document was still being developed and amendments had been made since the agenda pack for this meeting was distributed. The addendum report outlined what those changes were. There were no significant changes to the recommendations made in the report and most changes were implemented to make the document easier to understand.

The Committee noted that the draft strategy would go to Cabinet on the 17^th March and that Cabinet would then give approval to go out to public consultation for six weeks. The Committee further noted that the consultation would begin following the conclusion of the Purdah period, and the result of the General Election on the 7^th May. A clear result in the election would enable the consultation to be sent out on the 11^th May for six weeks. However, in the event of a hung parliament and a delay in forming a government then Purdah would be extended and the consultation would be delayed. The intention was to take the final strategy to Cabinet with a recommendation to approve the strategy to Full Council in July, but a significant delay in the outcome of the election may result in this being delayed until September.

The following points were raised during the discussion of the report:

·         The committee noted a significant reduction, across neighbouring boroughs, in the numbers affordable homes being built given the large reduction in government subsidy. Michael Kelleher agreed to circulate the figures of the number of affordable homes being built in Haringey and neighbouring boroughs, to the Committee.

·         The Committee asked for further details on the approach being adopted in the strategy. The Chair clarified that in its current format the document had a number of over-arching strategy points and that some of the detail was still to be developed. Officers confirmed that they were seeking the Committee’s recommendations on the over-arching strategy.

·         The Committee expressed an interest in understanding the delivery model in more detail when this was better understood. Officers responded that the various delivery plans and sub-strategies would be developed over a period a time and that some of these in fact already exist, such as the Housing Investment and Estate Renewal Strategy. Michael Kelleher agreed to send round an outline of the various sub-strategies that existed to the Committee. It was agreed that the report should more clearly outline the fact that there are a number of sub strategies and delivery plans sitting beneath the over-arching Housing Strategy.

The Chair welcomed Cllr Strickland, Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration to the meeting.

The following further points were raised during the discussion of the report:

·         Cllr Bevan raised concerns with the commitment on pp.34 to increase the PRS stock, particularly in the east of the borough. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded that this was linked to raising quality standards.  It was noted that there was firm demand for private sector housing in the area and the Council was keen to insert purpose built good quality private rented sector accommodation into that market.

·         Cllr Bevan also raised concerns with the commitment on pp.35, that the Council needed to provide 40% on-site affordable housing but neglected to mention targets for sites of less than 10 units. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded that this was more a matter for Planning policy as appose to a Housing Strategy.

·         There was no definition of what was an affordable rent or what a social rent was and the terms seem to be used interchangeably. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded that there would be a mix of rents across the borough and that the provision to charge 80% of market rent for social housing was designed to cross subsidise the funding for new homes.

·         Cllr Bevan raised concerns with the policy of calculating the number of units replaced in terms of habitable rooms. Cllr Bevan requested that the report advocated replacing units like for like when estates were regenerated. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded that this commitment was given for the Love Lane estate, where there was sufficient space to redevelop the site on a like for like basis. However, it was noted that on some other estates affordable housing would be re-provided on the basis of habitable rooms, as a significant proportion of properties on say, the Northumberland Park estate, were overcrowded and it may be more effective to build fewer properties with more rooms. Areas where social housing was very dense would be more difficult.

·         Cllr Bevan supported the report’s assessment that design plays a central role in driving up house quality and requested that this was highlighted further in the report.

·         Cllr Bevan expressed concern with residents who benefitted from social housing but also owned property abroad and requested that the report explicitly noted that people who live aboard are not entitled to social housing. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration agreed that this was an important point and noted that this provision would be outlined in one of the sub-documents.

·         Cllr Bevan clarified that he was concerned with Council accommodation being replaced like for like, as appose to Council housing being replaced by a range of other social housing provision for example, through housing associations. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded that the December Cabinet report on the Love Lane Estate expressed a strong preference for rebuilding Council accommodation with Council accommodation, but that this was ultimately subject to financial considerations. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration noted that the Council was trying to be quite creative in terms of bringing in the money and also having a stake in the housing stock long term.

·         The Chair asked for clarification on how Right to Buy schemes would have an impact on the proposed new homes. The Cabinet Member replied that the first batch of new homes were not protected from coming under the Right to Buy scheme but new build homes benefitted from a ‘floor price’ that protected the amount of money put in for a certain  number of years. In addition, stock built by the ALMO can be protected from Right to Buy.

·         Cllr Mallet questioned how a reduction in the number of estates managed by more than one housing association would be achieved. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded that negotiations had been undertaken with the 6 major housing associations, who agreed to work together to tackle this issue.

·         The Committee requested that the document elaborated on how the Council would encourage stock rationalisation between Registered Providers.

·         The Chair questioned the use of the terminology of ‘black and white’ in the equalities section of the report and noted that a reference to numbers of BME’s might be more helpful. Officers agreed to make changes to this section of the report.

·         Cllr Stennett raised the concerns around the fact that the Housing Strategy stated that, for schemes of 10 units or more, the requirement for affordable housing will be 40%, when the decision to reduce the threshold from 50% to 40% was still subject to consultation. The Assistant Director confirmed that the 40% threshold was laid out in the Planning Policy document which was subject to consultation and noted that there was an alignment issue as a consequence of the timing of the publication of the two reports. It was agreed that the draft Housing Strategy should note that this provision was “subject to consultation”.

·         Cllr Stennett also noted that consultation document may want to outline more clearly that estate renewal may not necessarily result in properties being Council-run accommodation. The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration agreed to review this section with Officers and see if changes needed to be made.

·          Michael Kelleher confirmed that the new affordable housing figures discussed earlier were a gross figure.

·         Members asked for further clarification on how estate renewal would tackle issues of overcrowding particularly when reallocating on a habitable rooms basis. Officers confirmed that a holistic approach would need to be taken and that overall this would require not just analysing the number of rooms on an individual estate but also looking at the  Housing Infill Programme and creating additional capacity on estates that can generate more units. Michael Kelleher noted that the number of habitable rooms offered should be looked at in terms of a minimum baseline guarantee.

·         Cllr Rice asked whether the building of new accommodation based on a shared public/private sector funding would necessitate higher rents to cover the cost of the development. Officers responded that there is a possibility that some properties could be offered at higher rents in order to cross subsidize the scheme but, by building at scale and by adopting innovative funding models, it should certainly be possible to keep rents at current levels.

·         Members raised concerns that the approach of allowing rents on smaller units to be set at up to 80% while limiting rents on larger properties at 45% will act as a disincentive to developers to deliver enough larger units and encourage them to focus on delivering smaller units. The Assistant Director of Planning commented that this was covered by a planning policy position and the London Plan, as well as the Housing Strategy statement around developing an affordable mix and bedroom sizes. It was also noted that one of the benefits of adopting habitable rooms as a basis for re-provision was that it reduced the incentive to the developer on how the overall quantum of development was divided.

The Committee agreed that the above comments would be used as the basis for the Committee’s recommendations to the Cabinet report.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration commented that some workshops would likely be set up at a later date to go through the Housing Strategy in more detail.

RESOLVED

1. That the draft Housing Strategy (Appendix A) be noted and the comments of the Committee to Officers, be reported to Cabinet at the meeting on 17^th March.

2. To recommend that Cabinet (subject to point 1 above) approve the attached draft housing strategy – with specific reference to the issues covered in paragraph 6.2 of the report – for a six week public consultation.