Housing SIG Meetings : Executive on 16/05/2006

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Executive held on 16/05/2006
Housing SIG Meetings

APPENDIX F

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

HOUSING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MEETINGS
1ST MARCH*. 21ST MARCH # AND 19TH APRIL 2006 ~

REPORT TO THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE ON 16th MAY 2006

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference were noted.

REPORT ON PROGRAMMED TRICKLE TRANSFER OF COUNCIL HOUSING *

B.1 The SIG discussed a tabled report which the SIG had specifically requested, which explored a proposal that the Council should not only Trickle Transfer expensive void properties, but also consider a larger programme of transferring void properties as a matter of course.

B.2 Officers addressed issues and questions raised by members including that;

the Council has a duty to secure accommodation for the homeless rather than provide it

Waverley is roughly comparable to other mixed areas in the South East. In Surrey about 50% of local authorities continue to own stock and 50% have transferred

To transfer more than 100 properties annually we need to join the ODPM transfer programme

The rationale for Trickle Transfer is that new tenants would have homes that reached the Decent Homes Standard

B.3 A new recommendation to the report was drafted requesting officers to undertake a detailed analysis to increase the number of Trickle Transfers of properties from 20 to 50 per annum. In particular consideration be given to criteria for such a transfer and the financial, management and homelessness implications.

PARTIAL STOCK TRANSFER *

C.1 The SIG received a report outlining a report on Partial Stock Transfer (PST) that explores a number of options in respect of the Council’s housing stock.

C.2 Officers explained that

PST differs from Trickle Transfer in that it would need the permission of the Secretary of State

It could apply to urban areas

It would need a ballot of secure Tenants affected

The Secretary of State might be reluctant to give permission in view of the recent ‘No’ vote, unless the Council could show there was a demonstrable desire for transfer on a particular estate/area.

’Area Transfers’ could exacerbate the revenue cost problems that Waverley already has

An appropriate option for Waverley might be the ‘Transfer by Type’ option as outlined in the report with reference to Sheltered Housing.

C.3 There was some discussion amongst members that raised the following points. Officers believe there is scope for reducing costs in the sheltered homes portfolio. An exploration of the idea of transferring sheltered housing to a specialist landlord, with reference to improving service provision, rather than reducing costs, would demonstrate that the Council is looking at all possibilities in order to satisfy GOSE that it is undertaking a thorough re-appraisal.

C.4 Although a further, different ballot could be considered it probably is not the right time to pursue this, however Waverley does need to prove to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) that it is considering all the options. It would take six months to get meaningful information together on any options under PST.

C.5 The SIG asked officers to explore the principle of transferring sheltered housing to a specialist landlord.

ARMS LENGTH MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION *

D.1 The report outlined the opportunity for the Council to bid to set up and Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) to manage its homes and secure additional funding in order to meet the Government’s decent homes standard. It invited the SIG to consider whether the Council should make a bid to set up an ALMO in the event that the Government announces a ‘round 6’ ALMO bidding programme during 2006.

D.2 Officers explained that ALMO guidelines were substantially delayed and may be published in May with application dates of June/July 06, although there is some doubt about whether there is sufficient money for round 6 to go ahead at all.

D.3 Discussion amongst members established that

An ALMO is not different in essence to stock transfer

It could be done without a ballot but this would be a political judgement i.e. would councillors want to go ahead without a clear mandate?

There are many uncertainties and high costs involved in setting an ALMO up

The quasi-ALMO idea is attractive but there is no funding to set it up

D.4 Officers felt that Waverley should now be thinking of the separation of the landlord and strategic housing functions. It was explained that the real problems arise in the revenue budget rather than the capital budget.

D.5 The SIG asked that officers explore the Quasi-ALMO model

HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT PROJECTIONS #

E.1 The SIG received and discussed a report that attempted to illustrate for members the possible financial position on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and the HRA Capital Programme up to 2011/12. The projections were based on a series of assumptions outlined in the report.

E.2 A number of points were discussed including;

Officers confirmed that there was no inflation provision in the Supporting People Grant and that Surrey County Council (SCC) plans to reduce it in future. This will be subject to ongoing review and a modest ongoing allowance has been made in the projection

Ł600k has been built into the budget to cover the cost of external decoration of housing stock.

Officers were considering overall budget reductions, in particular on direct management/indirect management costs, corporate support costs etc.

That a quasi-ALMO may lead to savings but it would be more appropriate to talk about cost ‘shifting’ rather than ‘savings’ unless other Council departments actually reduced their real expenditure

A notional balance of Ł1m is based on the number of houses Waverley has and seems to be a prudent reserve for covering stock in case of unknowns, such as the removal of asbestos

E.3 The Housing SIG agreed to note the indicative projections and assumptions contained within them and note the target reduction that would be required from 2006-07

HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT – APPROACH TO DISPOSAL OF ASSETS #

F.1 The SIG considered a report which opens a discussion about the approach the Council might take in relation to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) land (and some property) disposals in the future. The dilemma facing the Council is balancing its interest to maximise resources for the HRA in order to invest the Decent Homes Standard, or to use these assets to work with partner housing associations to develop more affordable homes for rent to meet local housing need. The report highlighted some examples for members to consider.

F.2 During discussion ten sites, that the Council owns and could be disposed of, were outlined. Members agreed that;

A combinations of actions were needed to adopt a mixed approach assessing each surplus asset on its merits

Concern over the availability of one-bedroom properties particularly for elderly couples. The policy, it was agreed, should be towards supply of two-bed properties

Funding from affordable housing will come from various places including grants from the Housing Corporation, General Fund, Housing Associations etc

Members agreed that as a matter of general principle, where HRA properties were remote and in need of significant capital investment they should be sold when they become void.

F.3 Members agreed that open market disposal of isolated properties was preferable and that those nearer towns should be considered for affordable housing provision on a case by case basis. Capital receipts could then be used for achieving the Decent Homes Standard.

CRITERIA FOR TRICKLE TRANSFER OF COUNCIL HOUSING ~

G.1 The SIG considered a report which updated Members on the criteria against which properties could be chosen for Trickle Transfer to a housing association.

G.2 At its meeting on 18th January 2006, the Housing SIG resolved to recommend the proposal to Trickle Transfer void properties of up to 20 per annum which required significant capital investment. This was agreed by Council at its meeting on 21st February 2006.

G.3 Members were asked at the meeting in April 2006, to consider whether they wished to recommend proposals for a larger programme of trickle transfer. It was agreed by the SIG that the current position be monitored and Officers be instructed to produce further more detailed analysis on the effect of Trickle Transfer and budgetary issues.

HOUSING OPTIONS REAPPRAISAL ACTION PLAN ~

H.1 Members considered a report which set out an action plan for the Council to re-appraise the options for its housing now tenants have voted to remain with the Council as landlord. The plan identified the options to be explored and resources to be reassessed as agreed with the Government for the South East. The report highlighted the work completed to date and set out the timetable for future work. The Housing SIG agreed the proposed timetable and actions.

Comms/05-06/Sigs/111