Agenda item

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing.

Cabinet had before it a report* from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing which provided options for potential large sites within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) development programme. The sites considered are Post Hill, Tiverton, St Georges Court, Tiverton and Knowle Lane, Cullompton. These sites are presently within the control of the Council with Post Hill held within the HRA.

The report aimed to obtain agreement for the 5-year HRA development programme (2023/24 to 2027/28) in respect of these large potential sites for new social housing within Mid Devon Housing (MDH) stock taking into account the options analysis presented.

The following was discussed:

• Clarification was sought over the costs to adapt housing as it seemed like quite a round number. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that this was an estimated cost, but there was data to support this estimated cost. 

• Asked why this accommodation was appropriate for those over 60. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that the accommodation had ground floor and lift access and with more adaption work it would be suitable for over 60s. In addition, the location was central to town and had good transport links and good accessibility to medical sites. It was also noted that there was not a similar site within the vicinity of Tiverton.

• Some over 60s occupied family homes and that this could generate some healthy movement within the council’s stock.

• Asked if this accommodation would be available for the whole of Mid Devon. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing reassured that there was flexibility with this, but the initial focus was for Tiverton tenants.

• Asked if there would be any flexibility in terms of the age of the targeted tenants. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that there would be flexibility but the focus was to target over 60s. In addition, that there was no perfect age to choose and that other tenants would still be considered.

• Asked how tenants would be encouraged to downsize and whether this would be managed by Devon Home Choice. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that the aim was to invite tenants to free up family homes and that it would sit outside of Devon Homes Choice.

• Asked if there would be an option for right to buy, if covenants would be set and whether ground rent and service charges would apply. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that details would be introduced to the Homes PDG and that in terms of right to buy a certain percentage could be exempt from this and that all details would be made aware to incoming tenants. There was an aim to build a community and that policies would be made clear outlining any service charges.

• Concern was raised over the cost of £100k and felt that this report was good enough for tax-payers. In addition, it was felt that the data and evidence provided in this report was poor.  It was raised that those over 60 leaving their homes would be when medical support was needed and often already had established communities and families to support them and so felt it was unlikely to convince these individuals to move.

• That St George’s court was not appropriate accommodation and that clarification was sought as to how the upkeep costs would be maintained with social housing charges. 

• The rent plus model was raised as an idea that could be used by the Council.

• The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing reassured that tenants would not be recharged and that the HRA would maintain those properties and would only apply to those who had a right to buy. No tenants were charged to maintain their properties. A local letting approach should not be compared to the decanted example provided as these were two very different things. The HRA does not use the rent plus model because it does not work with the long sustainability of the HRA’s stock. Other providers could use the rent plus model and it had been known to work well. For Post Hill better suited providers would be sought and where the rent plus model could be applied. 

• There was a need to make difficult decisions quickly to avoid further costs and that other ways to recuperate costs should not be discredited.

• There were two main benefits of this report, firstly it made more social housing available within the district, and secondly, it provided the Council 38 new properties.

• Disappointment was raised that this report had not thought wider and that there was concern of what would happen to aging tenants when the accommodation was no longer appropriate. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that specific needs of individuals would be identified and that a move through to the adult social care sector would be needed. Many properties were already suitable but would consider individual needs. 

• It was noted that this report was in the interest of the HRA and not 3 Rivers Development Ltd.

• Raised whether better options for St George’s Court could be considered and that this decision was not eliminating potentially better options. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that was a binary decision and that the HRA had considered other options. In addition, options for St George’s could not be maintained indefinitely.

• This would be a community asset, and that housing was a big issue within this community and that community needs outweighed commercial needs.

• It was asked how this report fitted in in procedurally and whether it was valid, it was felt that this report verged on predetermination. The District Solicitor & Monitoring Officer explained that this decision was subject a valuation and would not impact any upcoming decision due to go to Full Council.

• In addition, it was raised that regardless of what the Council agrees at Full Council on 3 Rivers Development Ltd, these properties would still be for sale and were therefore not linked.

• It was raised that the delegated authority given should be closely monitored and that Cabinet should consider implementing a deadline. To which the Leader reassured that he was confident that the Cabinet members involved would work closely with officers. In addition the Deputy Chief Executive explained that regular financial updates were provided at meetings of the Cabinet. 

• The Knowle Lane viability was raised, to which it was explained that the option presented and the circumstances within the HRA were different to the 3 Rivers Development Ltd business plan previously presented to the previous administration.

• The Post Hill site was raised, with reassurance sought that this would not proceed. It was also asked how likely it was to pass this site onto another provider. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that the cost of Post Hill was too expensive and that grant funding was unavailable for this site. However, other providers might be able to obtain funding due to differing restrictions and that the rent plus method could be applied in this instance, but was not viable for the HRA.

RESOLVED that:

1.     That Cabinet approve the acquisition of St Georges Court, Tiverton by the HRA subject to an agreed valuation.

2.     Delegated authority be granted to the S151 Officer and the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing (in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Finance and Housing & Property Services) to complete the purchase of St Georges Court, Tiverton.

3.     Subject to Recommendations 1 and 2, that Cabinet approve a local lettings approach for the allocation of social housing at St Georges Court as primarily over-60 years accommodation with a mix of 28 social rent and 11 affordable rent units.

4.     That Cabinet approve the HRA undertaking a feasibility study into the acquisition and development of Knowle Lane, Cullompton as social housing for potential inclusion later in the HRA 5-year development programme.

5.     That Cabinet agree the HRA will not progress its proposed development and relevant tender for Post Hill, Tiverton.

6.     Subject to Recommendation 5, that Cabinet grant delegated authority to the S151 Officer and the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing to explore alternative options for the delivery of affordable housing at Post Hill, Tiverton including potential sale or transfer of the site. This is to be brought back to Cabinet for consideration in due course.

(Proposed by S Clist, seconded by J Lock)

Reason for decision:

Homes and the Environment are a priority for the Council and this includes increasing the supply of affordable homes in the District.

Note: * Report previously circulated.