Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)       Petitions: to receive any petitions presented to the full council or at the meeting itself;

 

(b)       Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 8 March 2018;

 

(c)   Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 8 March 2018.

 

Petitions

 

77.1     There were no petitions. 

 

Questions

 

77.2     Jim Deans asked the following question:

 

New Homes Bonus (NHB)

“This grant is awarded only if the Local Authority housing stock increases by at least 0.4% per year.

How many properties would have had to be built last year (2017/18) to reach the threshold and what plans are in hand to make up for the loss of £1.62m for 2018/19 and an expected loss of £1.66m in 2019/20 as a result of missing the threshold?”

 

77.3     The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“This is a question for Policy, Resources and Growth Committee; however, NHB is calculated on the basis of which council tax band a property sits in for all properties within the city and not just council housing stock. Growth is measured from the increase in properties within the city (including halls of residence), as well as any reduction in long term empty properties (those properties unoccupied for more than 6 months).  Until 2016/17 NHB was awarded for  6 years with no threshold but is now given for 4 years with a 0.4% threshold which reflects a significant reduction in national resources for the grant. Therefore it is now harder to achieve the same levels of award than received in previous years.

In 2017/18, the 0.4% growth threshold was 462.5 band D Equivalent properties.   The reduced grant in 2018/19 was in part due to government changes to the scheme accounting for £0.67m of the reduction. The remaining £0.95m is a result of not achieving an equivalent award for the year that falls away under the revised scheme. This loss of resources was factored into the budget planning process in 2018/19 and is therefore a contributing factor to the overall savings requirement for the council to achieve a balanced budget.

To gain income from NHB, authorities have to achieve growth above the threshold that exceeds the value of NHB being removed for the year which drops out of the grant due to having been reimbursed for 4 years.

In 2019/20 the grant dropping out is £1.166m and therefore in order to gain additional NHB the council will need to achieve the growth threshold plus the number of band D equivalent properties that equate to £1.166m. In total this is around 1,167 band D equivalents to retain the current level of NHB grant being received in 2018/19.

At present the council does not expect to lose the £1.166m grant in 2019/20. The new properties are measured from October to September and there are significant housing developments across the City that will contribute to the gain including properties completed directly by the council such as Brookmead and Kite Place.  New properties are monitored throughout the year and any change in assumptions on NHB grant will be included in the Budget update Report to the Councils Policy Resources and Growth Committee in July 2018.”

 

77.4   Mr Deans stated the community wanted to know how many houses needed to be built to make the numbers up.

 

77.5   The Chair replied that she had said that in total this was around 1,167 band D properties just to retain the current level of New Homes Bonus grant being received.     

 

77.6    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.7     Jacqueline Madders asked the following question on behalf of David Thomas:

 

Severe Weather Emergency Protocol

“I understand that the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol is to be recommissioned this year. What is the timetable for this?

I assume the Protocol document, which has been slightly amended already this winter, will be fully re-written before that to comply with the National Guidance. Can the new Protocol be published on the Council website as soon as possible?

Could you also say how many women have accessed shelters under the SWEP and that women only facilities have been provided?”

77.8     The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“We are proposing to recommission SWEP provision this year and a timetable is currently being drawn up by our procurement department based on available resources.  This timetable has yet to be finalised.

 

The current protocol complies with Homeless Links guidance on providing severe weather provision and will be revised prior to next winter once the recommissioning process has taken place.   The council will however be laying out the criteria of future SWEP provision as part of the recommissioning process and this will feed into the operational protocol for winter 2018/19. Any revised guidance will be published on our website.

 

18 different women occupied 45 different bed spaces at SWEP.  All stayed at First Base. This was for 37 nights being open between 8^th Dec 2017 and 4^th March 2018.

 

SWEP at First Base provides separate spaces for women to sleep.  The spaces are in offices that do provide privacy.  First Base provides separate toilet and shower facilities for women.  Sanitary products are also available for free at First Base.”

       

 

77.9   Ms Madders asked the following supplementary question. “With a cold spell being forecast in the next few days and also recognising that it is too cold and wet to be rough sleeping, what are the plans for SWEP over the coming days and weeks?

 

77.10  The Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, Communities Housing explained that the plans for SWEP would be the same as the plans in the last cold period. Once it had been identified that it meets the criteria which is an amber weather warning, or the temperatures to be zero for two nights then the council would open SWEP. SWEP operated from First Base, and the council had enough bed spaces for any rough sleeper that wished to benefit from that. It would be advertised through outreach workers, on the council website, and through Facebook. Officers in Adult Social Care were already drawing up plans to implement SWEP if it was required later in the week.

 

77.11  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

           

77.12    Kenny Lloyd asked the following question:

 

Land banking & increasing value through planning permission for residential properties

“Has the Committee made any approach to, or cooperated with, the Planning Committee to combat ‘land banking’ and particularly looked at ways in which planning permission can be withdrawn if building work is not completed within a specific period of time? If there has not been joint work on this issue in the past will the Committee consider proposals for the future?”

 

77.13    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question, the committee has not made any approach to planning committee to combat land banking, however if members of the committee would like, I am happy to arrange to meet the chair of planning to understand how we may work together on this issue.” 

77.14  Mr Lloyd asked if the Committee would consider fining developers if they refused to build. In his opinion developers should be given 12 months from planning permission being granted, to building. If they did not fulfil that they should be fined.  

 

77.15  The Chair replied that the Housing & New Homes Committee had no responsibility for fining private developers. The Committee Lawyer stated that it was unlikely that there were any powers in the planning legislation that would allow developers to be fined for not exercising their planning permission.  

77.16  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.17    Maria Garrett-Gotch asked the following question:

 

Malnutrition among residents in temporary and emergency accommodation

“Is the Committee aware of cases of malnutrition of residents in temporary and emergency accommodation provided by B&HCC or agencies contracted by the Council? What is being done about these residents to whom the Council has a Duty of Care?”

 

77.18    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. The Housing Needs Team has had no reports of malnutrition amongst residents in temporary and emergency accommodation from our in-house Welfare Officers, the providers of emergency / temporary accommodation or the various floating support providers we regularly refer to when people are placed in this type of accommodation. We regularly advise people how to access foodbanks local to where their accommodation is.

If we were made aware of malnutrition we would act accordingly to ensure that adequate support was provided by the most appropriate agencies, and would, where necessary, treat it as a safeguarding concern.”

 

77.19  Ms Garrett-Gotch stated that the council should read the Care Act 2014 where it had a duty of care to its patients and service users. She reminded the Committee of its responsibility to follow 6 key safeguarding principles enshrined within the Care Act 2014 – empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership and the council’s own accountability.

 

77.20  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.21    John Hadman asked the following question on behalf of Nichole Brennan:

 

Weekend Services

“Could the Committee please provide details of Council or Council contracted services, including the number of personnel, available from 1700 on a Friday Evening until 0800 on a Monday morning for those who are homeless including those in temporary and emergency accommodation?”

 

77.22    The Chair replied as follows: 

          “Thank you for your question. The Housing Needs Team provides an out of hours emergency service for people who may find themselves homeless out of office hours. This runs from 18.00 on Friday evening until 08.00 on Monday morning.

This is broken down into slots from 18.00 – 08.00 and 08.00 – 18.00, each slot is covered by one member of staff. That member of staff will discuss an individual’s circumstances with them to ascertain whether there is a duty to provide emergency accommodation until office hours resume, and if so will arrange for that accommodation to be provided. The contact number is the main Housing Advice Line, 01273 294400, from where anyone calling will be re-directed automatically.”

 

77.23  Mr Hadman asked if the Committee could explain the logic behind Street Link not working over weekends.

 

77.24  The Chair explained that was an Adult Social Care question so Mr Hadman would be sent a written response. 

 

77.25  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.26    Barry Hughes asked the following question:

 

Oxford Street

“Given that the former Oxford Street former housing office was “decommissioned” in November 2014, in January 2017 the Housing Committee requested officers to bring forward options to convert the building into Temporary Accommodation, and that a formal planning application is due this spring, could the Committee provide an up to date report on progress made?” 

 

77.27    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. Oxford Street, former housing office has undergone some temporary repairs in recent months in preparation for its conversion to residential units as previously agreed by Committee to provide much needed new homes for the city. 

 

In preparation for the conversion, our contractors will start work to the building later this month to strip out waste materials.

 

Following on from pre-planning advice and feedback from the previous public consultation event we are proposing to bring forward a scheme for up to 12 homes. A further public consultation event will be held this spring.  Completion of the new homes expected in early 2019.

 

Progress will be reported through cross party Estate Regeneration Board.”

           

77.28  Mr Hughes expressed concern at the long time that the process was taking. He asked if the building would be used for temporary accommodation.

 

77.29  The Chair confirmed that the building would be used as temporary accommodation.

 

77.30  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.31    Clare Hudson asked the following question:

 

            The administration of the Discretionary Housing Payments and the Council Tax Reduction Discretionary Scheme

            “The budget papers for 2018/19 state that “It is proposed to reduce the commitment to this fund over the next 3 years as it is not fully utilised.” Could the Committee explain their support for this proposal given that payments of DHPs have been refused on the basis of lack of funds?”

 

77.32    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“The saving referred to is a £0.045m reduction in the Council Tax Reduction discretionary fund recurrent budget for 2018/19. However there is one-off provision in the budget for 2018/19 that has set aside £0.140m for the discretionary Council Tax Reduction fund and therefore the total fund for this is £0.150m in 2018/19. Resource requirements are kept under review and any additional resources that may be required for 2019/20 will be factored into the budget setting process.

Discretionary Housing Payments are funded through government grant which was £1.133m in 2017/18. Government grant funding for Discretionary Housing Payment has been reduced to £0.837m in 2018/19.”     

77.33  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.34    Kiah Garrett-Gotch asked the following question:

 

Equalities Impact Assessment

“Could the Committee explain why an Assessment was not carried out on the HRA budget for 2018/19?”

 

77.35    The Chair replied as follows: 

           

“Thank you for your question. Equalities Impact Assessments were carried out for every element of the budget, however as the assessment had not changed from the previous year (due to the fact of no significant changes in the budget) the phrase no impact assessment was used. This was rather than no change to the impact assessment which was a more accurate reflection.”

 

77.36    Ms Garrett-Gotch stated that she was sure that the Committee had heard reports of the plight of a number of women sleeping rough and the increasing demand placed on the bus shelter during the past few days. Did the Committee recognise the urgency of shelter especially for such women? 

 

77.37  The Chair replied that the supplementary question had no relevance to Ms Garrett-Gotch’s original question, so she was not able to respond yet.  However, she could ensure she got a written response.

 

77.38  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.39    Tom Jobbins asked the following question:

 

Temporary Accommodation

“Could the Committee provide evidence to show that “External benchmarking shows that the costs are low” and explain their support for a “Procurement approach being sought to access accommodation outside the city and the South East in areas where costs are lower?”

Could the number of evictions from emergency and temporary accommodation be provided for the past 6 months on a month by month basis?”

 

77.40    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. The council undertakes benchmarking for services to compare the cost and quality against similar local authorities. The last external benchmarking exercise for temporary accommodation was in 2012. This piece of work takes significant resources to undertake.

 Benchmarking generally focuses on the staff and administration costs rather than the accommodation costs as they are subject to local market forces. At that time our costs were very competitive. In terms of accommodation procurement - over 2014/15 we developed procurement frameworks for temporary accommodation that is managed on our behalf, which tested the market and ensured we achieved best value. This took into account learning from previous contracts which weren’t sufficiently flexible to respond to the changes in the housing market and hence new providers that had been awarded contracts were unable to deliver properties for the agreed costs. Feedback from providers and from our analysis of the housing market is very clear that property is very high cost in the city and in excess of the amounts that can be achieved from Housing Benefit and hence from rental income. Therefore if we were to achieve the accommodation units we required we had to look outside of the city.

 

In terms of evictions we are bringing a report back to this committee in June. This is being collated with input from the Temporary Accommodation Action group – an independent group working with tenants, providers and the council.

 

There have been 15 evictions from emergency accommodation over the last 6 months (September 2017 – March 9^th 2018).

September – 1

October – 3

November – 3

December - 2

January - 5

February 1”

77.41  Mr Jobbins asked if the Committee would be willing to establish a small group of councillors and housing activists to examine the eviction of vulnerable residents and for this group to be requested to submit a report on their findings as a matter of urgency. 

 

77.42  The Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing explained that the Temporary Accommodation Action Group which is independent and was asked for and approved by the council currently had a membership of councillors, providers & residents.That group was looking at the issue of evictions and this matter would be reported back to the Committee. Any other piece of work would be duplication. 

         

77.43  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.44    Daniel Harris asked the following question:

 

Housing Options and Homemove

“Under a budget heading of homelessness there was a sum for 2017/18 for supporting vulnerable households £1,298,000.

Could the Committee provide some indication of how this was spent?

Does the Committee know how many households have been culled from the housing waiting list and how many appeals have been dealt with or are awaiting hearings?”         

        

77.45    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“The budget of £1,298,000 refers to the staffing and supplies and services budgets for the Housing Options and Homemove teams.

This covers the work of preventing homelessness, undertaking homeless applications and assessing what housing duty the council has; placing people into emergency accommodation and undertaking inspections of emergency accommodation; managing the rent accounts of everyone in temporary accommodation; undertaking reviews;  undertaking assessments for applications to the Housing register, shortlisting bids for social housing advertised.

 

Thank you for your question. The new Allocations Policy was approved in December 2016. In January 2017 the Homemove section started to re-assess all applications under this new policy and since 1 January 2017 -  11,354 households have been removed from the housing waiting list.

 

The reasons for removal were as follows:

No Housing Need = 1434

No Local Connection = 5898

Removed Home owner = 13

Income savings = 60

No Bids                 =2348

There were a further 1191 who have been removed from the list who are a mix of people with no housing need and no local connection. These decisions were made prior to the codes being available

 

In the same time period the service has dealt with 479 reviews & the vast majority are related to removal from the housing waiting list.” 

77.46    Mr Harris stated that in relation to what had been said about room inspections, a report was still waiting to come back to the Committee. He stated that his biggest concern with the policy was that it was not well thought out and this had become clear in the number of people who had come off the list. Mr Harris asked what the Committee wanted to say to the residents who had been taken off the list and that had no options for housing.

 

77.47  The Chair thanked Mr Harris for his original question and stated that the supplementary question was not a proper question she could answer.         

 

77.48  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.49    Kelly Hayes asked the following question:

 

          6 week limit on B&B for children

“Bed and Breakfast (B&B) is defined in the Homelessness Suitability Order 2003 as a form of privately owned accommodation in which residents share facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms and/or toilets, and is usually paid for on a nightly basis.

Housing authorities must not use B&B to accommodate families with children or pregnant women except where there is no alternative available, and then for a maximum period not exceeding 6 weeks. Can you now please provide a more detailed response to the question asked at the previous committee please?”               

 

77.50    The Chair replied as follows: 

“As per the question asked at last committee we can confirm that no statutory homeless households where there is a dependent child or a pregnant woman have been in accommodation where they have to share facilities for longer than 6 weeks. 

To clarify – in some accommodation there are some communal cooking facilities IN ADDITION to the households’ own facilities, and so there is no need to share any facilities. At the previous committee an example was put forward of a case in Eastbourne and upon checking this it was found that that household did in fact have their own self-contained accommodation which had their own facilities. Facilities may be basic but are adequate and residents did not have to share.”

           

77.51    Ms Hayes referred to her own personal experience. She had a dependent child who was independent now. At the time they were left for three months in a room with no cooking facilities, microwave or fridge.

 

77.52  The Chair thanked Ms Hayes for her questions and asked officers to look into her case.

         

77.53  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

77.54    Sophie asked the following question:

Residents in Emergency Accommodation – Council Duty to provide Accommodation   

 "I've been living in emergency accommodation for over a year, I am now in my 3rd different room. To my surprise the council decided after over a year to conclude the homelessness assessment and decided I didn't meet the criteria to be considered 'considerably more vulnerable than the average person becoming homeless'. 
I've received little to no support since I moved into emergency accommodation. I feel this process is one sided and biased against us, the people in need. 
Can you please tell me how many other vulnerable people in emergency accommodation in the last 6 months have also had the Council's duty assessed and rejected? How many of these appealed the decision and were successful in securing a duty please?"

77.55    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

          “Homeless legislation, Code of guidance and relevant case law are all taken into account when we assess whether the council has a legal duty to provide accommodation for someone who is homeless.

 

Between 1 August 2017 – 28 February 2018, for the households placed into Emergency Accommodation pending assessment of the housing duty owed, 11 were assessed as Not in Priority Need of which 4 requested a Review and 13 were found to be Intentionally Homeless of which 6 requested a Review.”

       

77.56  Sophie stated that she had recently been getting legal advice. The council were given a chance to go to court which they were going to do until her legal team had told them she had merits on her mental health etc. The council had now decided to pull out of court and review the case. Sophie had not received a reply from councillors or officers and the case had been ongoing for over a year. She had been in emergency accommodation with a number of health conditions. Cooking facilities were not good enough and she had lost three stone last year. 

 

77.57  The Chair thanked Sophie. She stressed that councillors did not get involved if there was any legal process that was ongoing. However, she would ask the Executive Director for Neighbourhoods, Communities & Housing to talk to Sophie to find out more about her situation.

 

77.58  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

Deputations

 

77.59    The Committee considered the following deputation which was presented by Councillor Wares on behalf of Paul Dwyer and supported by Ray Harvey, Kirsty Thomas, Jodie Clue, Lee Mack, Dennis Reddick and Julie Hussey:  

 

77.60    Councillor Wares thanked staff for the sterling job that they carried out quickly when this incident happened. They were out early on site, helping residents, clearing properties and organising contractors. It was a job well done even though it was a long way from getting this resolved.

 

Deputation concerning Stanmer Heights

       

“On Saturday 3^rd March 2018, water pipes in three different blocks in Bramble Way burst in the roof space flooding through at least nine flats making most, if not all, uninhabitable.  Tenants were made homeless with some going into emergency housing and now temporary accommodation and some “self-helped” by going to their friends and families.

 

It is regretful that this happened but the blocks of flats in Bramble Rise, Orchid View and Chelwood Close have fallen into a state of disrepair. The lack of adequate insulation to water services causing the floods being just a small example.

 

Other parts of the fabric and common parts of the buildings in disrepair include:-

 

1.     Damaged and missing roof tiles let water and cold air into the roof spaces.

2.     Defective windows that do not shut and operate properly and poorly insulate our flats.

3.     Recent installations of front security doors have left internal common part wall and ceiling plaster and render ripped off without any making good and redecoration making where we live look neglected.

4.     Gutters are blocked, broken and overflow.

5.     The outside of the buildings, including windows, are black and dirty making where we live depressing.

6.     Cables and other external installations are loose and trailing causing further damage and creating health and safety hazards.

7.     Outbuildings are dilapidated and in disrepair preventing them from being used and encouraging anti-social behaviour.

We respectfully request the Housing & New Homes Committee to please help us and ask officers to organise a comprehensive plan of works:

·       that ensures the uninhabitable flats are repaired and refurbished quickly,

·       that the causes of the flooding are rectified,

·       that the external fabric of the building including all the roof defects and defective windows are repaired, making them weather and water tight and

·       that the common parts damaged by the security door installations are made good.

 

We also respectfully request that due to the significant works required that will necessitate the use of scaffolding and other contract preliminaries, the Council uses the opportunity to replace all the windows and decorate the exterior and common parts to improve economies of scale and achieve best value for money from the various Housing budgets that we all pay into.”

 

77.61    The Chair responded as follows:

 

          “Thank you for your deputation. We are sorry for displacement caused to residents at Bramble Way following burst pipes arising from recent adverse weather conditions.

Thank you also for your comments about the quick response of our Housing staff and contractors to assist those affected.

I can advise that Mears delivered dehumidifiers and reviewed any material damage to various addresses during their assessment of Bramble Way after the flood.  

We are monitoring this on a weekly basis.  As soon as the properties affected have dried out we will be returning to undertake reinstatement works.  We envisage this should happen within the next fortnight.  The Housing Officer has visited those affected and will continue to assist residents.

With regard to planned works. 

Our agreed Asset Management Strategy and Capital Investment Programme makes substantial investment available for planned programmes on elements such as external repair, windows, roofing and doors.

Programmes are designed to ensure reasonable quality is enjoyed across the whole stock over the medium term.

As such, ongoing surveys and reviews of our programmes for these elements aim to tackle the worst areas first and deliver as consistent a level of quality throughout all homes as far as possible over the longer term.

With regard to the windows and other wider issues raised about the properties at Stanmer Heights.  It is acknowledged that residents of these properties view this as a priority for investment and that the windows would benefit from improvement. However, within the context of the entire stock, the windows are not considered to be as high a priority as other estates where the windows are currently in a worse condition.

Our independent consultant’s condition survey has shown that works to the externals are not considered as being the highest priority, and as such are in a five year programme with a provisional start date in 2020.

Consideration of the most effective way to deliver works, including the potential to group works together, will be considered further at the project planning and consultation stage to help ensure works are delivered safely and represent good value for money for tenants and leaseholders, whilst causing a minimum of disruption for residents.

It is likely that external works would need to be phased over more than one year, with budgets for next year and 2019 / 2020 already fully allocated.

To bring these blocks forward on the programme would require a large number of other homes to not receive the works they require in the meantime.

Following on from the making good and internal decorations, which were noted on a walk round the estate with Cllr. Wares, I can update this work is in hand with Mears maintenance team and will be complete within 4-6 weeks.

We are arranging for quotes to be sourced for the main entrance doors and door entry to Orchid View and put into next year’s programme, subject to consultation with residents and leaseholders.”

77.62    RESOLVED

 

(1)                That the deputation be noted.  

 

77.63    The Committee considered the following deputation which had been submitted by Andrea Jones and supported by Nicola Thomas, Peter Clarke, Jonny Anstead and Rita Garner. 

 

Deputation concerning Community Led Housing

“Brighton and Hove Community Land Trust (BHCLT) welcomes the Council’s update on community-led housing (CLH), and the reaffirmation of supportive policy commitments. We particularly welcome the promise of a pathway and transparency about council-owned sites with potential for affordable housing and the collaborative approach suggested around future MHCLG funding. We share the view that community-led housing can help solve the profound crisis of housing in the city.

Community-led housing has a specific role to play that is distinct from any other housing providers: it works directly with local communities and groups to deliver affordable, innovative homes and neighbourhoods. Members and officers attending the launch of the Community Housing Programme on 21^st Feb 2018 witnessed the energy and enthusiasm for community-led housing, and we are mobilising this energy to deliver creative housing solutions. The MHCLG (DCLG) funding awarded to us by BHCC to support the CLH programme is significantly increasing our capacity to realise this potential.

Our programme is committed to overcoming some of the misconceptions about community-led housing and ensuring that community groups understand the challenges and commercial realities:

1.     We understand that the council will not be gifting land, we support the council’s own social housing priorities and we understand ‘best consideration’ imperatives;

2.     New community-led housing must be built at sufficient densities, making the best possible use of the scarce land in the city

3.     Our priority is to increase housing affordability for local people, key workers and vulnerable groups on low incomes. The schemes we support will meet or surpass local statutory affordability requirements (whether for rent or through shared or mutual ownership).

The proven benefits of community-led housing are:

ü  locking in affordability in perpetuity (protected by an asset lock and not subject to right-to-buy)

ü  supporting people on low incomes or in vulnerable communities who are not currently well-served by existing housing provision. For example, people who want to remain independent, but also live in mutually supportive groups (such as older LGBT cohousing)

ü  Housing costs can be lowered by people playing an active role in the process, such as self-build or housing cooperatives

ü  We can harness the enormous creative potential in the city for environmental sustainability in housing and expand the diversity of housing design

ü  Community builders can engage with sites that would provide challenges to the traditional housebuilder market – challenges of scale or local opposition

We can support the council to meet their obligations in relation to self-build and custom housebuilding, by supporting groups in housing need to benefit. Not all self-build and custom build is community-led, but almost all community-led housing meets the government’s definition of self-build and custom building.

We recognise the importance of the New Homes for Neighbourhoods Programme and the Joint Venture with Hyde Housing Association. There is good potential for collaboration with the Council, but there is also urgency. A collaborative framework with clarity on timescales would allow us to realise the advantages of these different approaches for the benefit of local people in urgent housing need in the city.”

 

77.64    The Chair responded as follows:

 

          “Thank you for your deputation.

We recognise the benefits of community led housing as evidenced by strategic support and financial and practical steps to enable capacity building for this sector outlined in the report to be considered at this committee and in previous committee reports.

We welcome the:

·         Commitment in the deputation to overcoming some of the misconceptions about community-led housing and ensuring that community groups understand the housing and other challenges faced in the City and commercial realities.

 

·         Recognition in the deputation of the importance of the New Homes for Neighbourhoods Programme and the Joint Venture with Hyde Housing Association.

 

We recognise the potential for collaboration and propose to work with Community led housing groups to set out how best to work together to realise our shared objectives.

 

As stated in the report later on the agenda, the Committee would be looking for a future report on how the £464,000 has been helpful to you.” 

 

77.65  RESOLVED

 

(1)            That the deputation be noted.

 

77.66    The Committee considered the following deputation which was presented by Ian Bailey and supported by Steve Horne, Kristie Scarle, Alison Wells, Lucy Chilvers, Helen Atherall, Paul Sutton, Robin Berry, Julia Ritson, and Sam Fearn.  

 

Deputation relating to Item 82 - Community Led Housing Update

 

“In September of last year I brought a deputation to the Housing and New Homes committee meeting about Site 21 in Coldean and the LWJV. One of the outcomes of that committee was an amendment which sought to clarify some of the commitments that BHCC was making in the support of Community Led Housing, part of which speci?cally related to Coldean and access through Site 21 to Site 21a. Alongside this was the request that a report into Community Led Housing be presented in six months to the committee which would clarify the goals set out in the decision list accompanying item 82 on this month’s agenda. I am pleased to see that the presented report clari?es much of what was requested of it.

However, upon reading the report I am concerned that under section 3.10 the allocation of land for Community Led Development across the city is likely to be considered as a secondary ‘requirement’, with the New Homes for Neighbourhoods programme being prioritised rather than both options being considered on their merits. As already noted the Urban Fringe section of the City plan commits to “consider how best to ensure that opportunities are brought forward and safeguarded in order to maximise housing opportunities that meet local housing needs.” Only providing access to smaller sites will reduce the impact of Community Led Development and not enable BHCC to truly meet local needs.

Community Led Housing developed in conjunction with Community Land Trusts is one of the most viable vehicles for providing long term, a?ordable and secure (in perpetuity) housing which can genuinely deliver “housing to meet localneeds, as set out in the city plan”. It should again be noted that the Brighton and Hove Fairness Commission recommended that BHCC should; “O?er council-owned (and other publicly owned) land, including sites on the cityfringes, brown ?eld sites, to cooperative, self build groups and community land trusts to develop a?ordable social housing with a guarantee it will go to local people.” The pathway described within the report suggests that the process will be obfuscatory through its approach to site disposal (lease or sale) and the attachment of conditions, rather than facilitatory through enabling communities to establish their own local needs.

It was noted at the recent Community Led Housing launch event on 21st February 2018 that BHCC suggested that for land to be considered for asset transfer or disposal to community organisations they would have to bring forward a fully costed and prepared proposal. Given the nature of preparing such proposals, many community groups struggle in this stage of work, without any guarantee that when they have completed the process for a viable project they will actually be given access to the site they require. To demonstrate BHCC’s commitment to enabling Community Led Development, transferring identi?ed sites into the Brighton & Hove Community Land Trust would give communities across the city con?dence in engaging professional support to ensure their proposals are both viable and successful. This would in no way negate the need or option for thorough analysis of any proposals against predetermined criteria. Providing a clear process for groups to follow, perhaps in addition to o?ering guidance on how to develop proposals would also be helpful.

In addition to the details set out above it was requested that the report speci?cally requested that the LWJV development of site 21 in Coldean would ensure “that the joint venture development of site 21 facilitates access and not limit the prospects for development of sites 21a and 21c as community led housing”. The report makes no mention of how BHCC plan to ensure this and to date I am not aware that Hyde Housing or BHCC have attempted to engage with the Coldean Community to begin consultations regarding the principles of the site’s development.

Please can the committee re-a?rm its commitment to providing communities around the city access to appropriate development sites for community Led Housing, not just the ‘smaller S106’ sites which are left over from all other programmes as indicated in section 3.10.

Will the committee give assurance that, following the completion of a mutual site allocation process, sites allocated for community led development would be pro-actively transferred into the Brighton & Hove Community Land Trust to demonstrate BHCC’s commitment to facilitate Community Led Development.

In relation to Coldean, please can the committee describe when and how the LWJV intends to engage with the Coldean community relating to the development of site 21 and how access to site 21a will be developed. If BHCC are able to provide details of the liaison personnel for Hyde Housing this would be appreciated.”

 

77.67    The Chair responded as follows:

 

 “Thank you for your deputation, in relation to your point

Please can the committee re-affirm its commitment to providing communities around the city access to appropriate development sites for community Led Housing, not just the ‘smaller S106’ sites which are left over from all other programmes as indicated in section 3.10.

The report being considered later on this agenda as well as the strategic framework of City Plan, Housing Strategy and Fairness Commission all clearly indicate support for community led housing in the City as does investment of over £460k to enable capacity building and pursuit of further funding opportunities in discussion with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Our support of and funding for Community Housing is not contingent upon use of Council land and is in the context of consideration of making best use of resources to meet wider housing need, provision of nomination rights and support for other agreed priorities including our New Homes for Neighbourhoods programme.

Will the committee give assurance that, following the completion of a mutual site allocation process, sites allocated for community led development would be pro-actively transferred into the Brighton & Hove Community Land Trust to demonstrate BHCC’s commitment to facilitate Community Led Development.

As outlined in previous reports and in the report to be considered in this agenda, community housing groups have received significant funding to enable growth of capacity of community led housing providers, which is welcomed.   

This support and funding is not contingent upon council land, which will not be ‘allocated’, and is subject to other stated council priorities including meeting our requirements to:

·                  Support New Homes for Neighbourhoods programme;

·                  Statutory requirements to achieve best consideration should land be disposed of;

·                 Requirement for nomination rights should land be disposed of for housing to assist with meeting housing need in the city;

·                 City Plan & Housing Strategy requirements around maximising housing supply on available sites.

Details of how sites can be identified is being developed, as outlined, so we can review potential sites for community-led housing providers to assess and make proposals for their use.  

Any land to be considered for use by Brighton & Hove Community Land Trust or other community led housing providers will be dependent upon an approved scheme for the specific site and will be subject to committee approval, including meeting the requirements outlined above.  

In relation to Coldean, please can the committee describe when and how the LWJV intends to engage with the Coldean community relating to the development of site 21 and how access to site 21a will be developed. If BHCC are able to provide details of the liaison personnel for Hyde Housing this would be appreciated.

This is a matter for the LWJV Board to consider and I propose this is referred to the Board for this purpose. The proposals are at a very early stage and there will be substantial consultation with local residents, not least as part of the planning application itself. Even at this early stage, comments and queries from Coldean residents have been passed on to project officers, and this will continue to happen.”

 

77.68  RESOLVED

 

(1)            That the deputation be noted.