To consider a recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee following the call in of the decision with regard to land at Post Hill made by Cabinet on 3 December 2020.
‘That Cabinet reconsiders its decision on the delivery of Post Hill homes by a possible Teckal Company and that it instead substitutes it for a recommendation to Full Council’.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Following the call-in of the decision with regard to land at Post Hill made by Cabinet on 3 December 2020.
The Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 14 December had made the following recommendation:
‘That Cabinet reconsiders its decision on the delivery of Post Hill homes by a possible Teckal Company and that it instead substitutes it for a recommendation to Full Council’.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services stated that he was confused by the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee as any decision with regard to the formation of a Teckal Company had not yet been considered. With regard to development at Post Hill, there was no project plan and that any design work had yet to be completed. He emphasised that he would be happy that any decision to be made on the formation of a Teckal Company would be a Council decision.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the Scrutiny Committee with regard to the previous decision and whether that was predetermination of a decision with regard to the formation of a Teckal Company
· The delivery of affordable housing on the Post Hill site.
RESOLVED that following Cabinet consideration of the formation or not of a Teckal Company that the decision and relevant papers are taken to Full Council for consideration and deliberation.
(Proposed by Cllr R B Evans and seconded by Cllr R J Chesterton)
Note: Papers previously circulated copy attached to minutes
124 DECISIONS OF THE CABINET (0.09.54) PDF 104 KB
To consider any decisions made by the Cabinet at its last meeting that have been called-in.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Chairman informed the Committee that two decisions made by the Cabinet at its meeting on 3rd December 2020 (with regard Land at Post Hill) had been *called in for consideration by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. The decision had been called in by Cllrs Barnell, Holdman, Clist and White.
To consider:
Lack of consideration of alternative options;
1. The building of more Social Rented Homes is a key priority of the Corporate Plan recently agreed by Full Council. The development of the Post Hill site presents an important opportunity to build a significant number both of Affordable Rented and of Social Rented Homes in Tiverton and thereby address the local gap in affordability that impacts most on families with a low income .
2. The options presented to and considered by Cabinet included three options:-
a. Option 2-For 50 Social and 20 Affordable Homes
b. Option 3- For 50 Social, 15 Affordable Homes and 5 Self Build Homes
c. Option 4- 70 Affordable Homes
3. The report to cabinet recommended Option 4 on the basis of budgetary
considerations. External and expert financial assessments were appended to the report to explain these issues.
4. Cabinet were asked only to consider options that were posed at opposite ends of a continuum of possible mixes of tenure. It should also have considered other options that may well have presented very different assessment and comparisons of affordability.
5. There were other options that were not presented that would have allowed Cabinet to consider and compare the financial implications of different mixes or proportions of Affordable rented and Social rented housing.
6. Such options might have included, say, a 35/35 split between affordable rented and social rented homes and also a 20/50 split. Either option would still yield a significant addition on the Council’s stock of Social Rented Housing.
7. Finally the report to Cabinet presented only a single set of proposals on the numbers of housing units of a particular size. This proposal did not relate to the analysis of need for particular size of dwelling as presented in the report. No other options were considered even though different options would have a significant impact on costs and forecast returns.
8. We are, therefore asking that Cabinet consider other options for the mix of Social Rented and Affordable Rented Homes and also for the mix of the size of units. This will allow Cabinet to carry out more reasonable analysis and comparisons of both cost and returns.
Pre-determination of a future decision of Full Council
1) A decision to set up a TECKAL compliant company to deliver some or all of the Council’s Housing services is a major step that has yet to be made and that will require a decision of Full Council. This decision will need to be supported by a full business case setting out elements of the Councils services that are to be managed and delivered by the SPV and include an assessment of ... view the full minutes text for item 124
271 Land at Post Hill, to consider development options (1-15-36) PDF 384 KB
To consider a report of Deputy Chief Executive (S151) providing options to progress the development of land at Post Hill, Tiverton.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Cabinet had before it a *a report of Deputy Chief Executive (S151) providing options to progress the development of land at Post Hill, Tiverton.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services provided a response to the questions posed in public question time: he thanked Mr Quinn for his question and stated that he was quite right that a previous Cabinet decision provided for expenditure on advice regarding the possibilities of a Teckal-compliant company. That was why the wording of this evening’s report did not assume that such an entity would exist in future and provided for a Cabinet decision to be made based on both possible outcomes.
So to answer Mr Quinn’s specific questions; firstly the report was likely to be scheduled to come to Cabinet in January and he believed that the Council’s forward plan was being published tomorrow (Friday) confirming this. And secondly, yes this would be listed as an open item.
He then outlined the contents of the report which provided background information with regard to the site and the need for financial diligence to protect the HRA, he felt that Option 4 would be the way forward.
Consideration was given to:
· The need for social housing as outlined in the Corporate Plan
· Funding streams for social housing
· The impact on the HRA
· The percentage of affordable housing on the whole site which was set at 21% and the viability issues which had lead to the figure
· The meaning of affordable housing
· The need for low carbon dwellings
· The housing need in the locality
· A proposal to use infill sites for social housing to be funded by the HRA across the district and not on one site (which would form another report to be presented to the Homes Policy Development Group and the Cabinet)
· Whether to consider a full tender exercise rather than consider the establishment of a Teckal compliant company
· Any Teckal company would be bound by procurement rules and the impact of Brexit on European procurement rules
· Further information required with regard to setting up a Teckal compliant company
RESOLVED that:
1) Authority be given to submit a planning application, subject to final design and based on:
(iii) Option 4- 70 Affordable Homes
(Proposed by Cllr R B Evans and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
2) In the event that Cabinet proceeds in future to establish a new company structure, which
(i) is “Teckal” compliant; and
(ii) appropriate for the delivery of social/affordable housing
the Cabinet agrees that delivery of the housing will be through that new company, subject to advice received when establishing the new company and any other material factors.
(Proposed by Cllr R B Evans and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
3) Recommendation 3 within the report be withdrawn following the debate and approval of recommendation 2 and that a further report with regard to the tender exercise for Post Hill, Tiverton be brought before the Cabinet at a future meeting.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Reason for decision ... view the full minutes text for item 271