Issue - items at meetings - New Homes for Neighbourhoods

8.1     The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment Development and Housing which focused on development proposals for four sites the Estates Regeneration Team now wished to progress through planning and construction stages.  Members were asked to agree rent level and associated level of HRA subsidy for each scheme.    The sites were at Flint Close, Portslade, Foredown Road Portslade, Hardwick Road, Hangleton and Manor Place, Whitehawk.  The report was presented by the Housing Programme Manager. 

8.2     The Housing Programme Manager stated that officers were recommending that the rent model was set at 80% market rent capped at LHA rate.   There had been public consultation in relation to all four schemes and officers were trying to address concerns raised. 

8.3     There had been a great deal of public concern raised about the development at Manor Place at the consultation event.  Officers had listened to the concerns and tried to address them.   These changes to the design included redesign of the northern block, reducing the height of the southern block by one storey, setting balconies inwards, changing the brick colour and moving the entrance to the southern block.  The Robert Lodge garden would be smaller as a result of the proposals but improvements to the gardens would be made.  Full details were set out in the table in paragraph 5.5 of the report. 

8.4     The reason balconies were being provided was that it was necessary to provide private amenity space to the flats to comply with planning policy.  Balconies had been provided on the southern side of the building as it was always preferable to have balconies facing south and it would make them useful for growing plants and herbs.    

8.5     Councillor Mears stated that her main concern were the balconies.  She asked why balconies were being provided to new residents when existing residents did not have them.   Councillor Mears was concerned that community space was being taken away from the Robert Lodge garden.  She felt that existing tenants were not being treated in the same way as new tenants.  Councillor Mears also had questions relating to the Whitehawk Library site. 

8.6     The Chair replied that a planning requirement had been introduced to provide amenity space (in this case balconies) since Robert Lodge was built.

8.7     The Head of City Regeneration explained that a report on the Whitehawk Library site would be brought to the committee in due course.   The site would be used to provide 87 new homes.

8.8     Councillor Wilson raised questions relating to the residents’ request to turn around the southern block, planning permission and parking.  The Housing Programme Manager replied that turning the flats around would have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the end flats.  The planning application was likely to be submitted in early July.  Planning would expect a plan to be submitted with regard to controlling the construction, and showing the traffic impact on local parking.

8.9     Councillor Peltzer Dunn referred to the claim in the petition from Robert Lodge residents that the new buildings would be much closer to the existing residents lounge windows than is shown on these amended drawings.   He asked if this was a valid statement.  The Housing Programme Manager replied that planning officers had advised that the plans should be amended to set back and reduce the footprint of that block.  He stressed that Housing Committee was not a decision making meeting for the final design.  The Head of City Regeneration explained that the petition had been received late and officers had not had an opportunity prepare a full response. 

8.10    The Executive Director Environment, Development and Housing stressed that a planning decision was not being made at today’s meeting.  Any issues with the design would need to be resolved through the planning process. 

8.11    Councillor Phillips informed members that she knew this area well and was pleased that the plans had been amended based on feedback.  She noted that there was already a modern block in Rugby Place which set a precedent.  She hoped that when the designs were submitted to planning there would be a city car club place available.  The Housing Programme Manager said he would investigate if this was possible.

8.12    The Chair expressed concern about the rent level being set at 80% which he felt was too high.  He had talked to officers about this and had been told that 70% of tenants would be on housing benefit.  Officers also felt that if the intermediate rate was agreed it would result in a loss of income to the housing revenue account and fewer homes being built.  However, there were no other affordable homes being built and the Chair preferred a 60% rent level.

8.13    Councillor Mears referred to paragraph 3.6 in the report which explained that higher rents would be mitigated by lower fuel bills. 

8.14    Councillor Farrow believed that rents should be genuinely affordable and 80% was not genuinely affordable.   However, he questioned whether more homes could be built if the 80% rent level was not agreed.  

8.15    Councillor Daniels stated that agreeing a 60% rate would cause resentment among other tenants as tenants moving into the flats would have lower rent and lower energy costs.  It was important to be equitable.   

8.16    The Principal Accountant informed members that an 80% rent level would require a subsidy of £820,814.  A 60% rent level would require a subsidy of £1,673,000.  This would be affordable for the housing revenue account but it would reduce resources for the future. 

8.17    Councillor Mears asked if the Chair was asking for 60% across the city or for this scheme only.  The Chair confirmed that he was asking for 60% for this scheme. 

8.18    Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that although he had sympathy with the Chair’s proposal he was concerned that it would adversely affect the HRA by £850,000.  It would also be setting a precedent. 

8.19    Councillor Phillips stated that although she would like to agree the 60%, she noted that 70% of the tenants would be on housing benefit and all the tenants would have reduced energy costs.  The extra subsidy required was significant.  As a result she would support the rent level at 80% but would like some clarification on what sort of education and support there might be for energy saving measures.    

8.20    The Chair agreed that this was a critical point and he had spoken to officers about this issue.  There was some evidence in the past that people with energy efficient homes thought they did not have to be economic with their heating.

8.21    Councillor Wilson stated that the only fair way of dealing with the issue of rent levels would be to consider a paper which would investigate the possibility of having the same rate across the city.  Considering the rate on individual schemes would create disparity.  In the meanwhile, she supported the 80% rate and stressed that there needed to be fairness across the city in these matters.  

8.22    The Chair stated that although he felt uncomfortable with the 80% rate he accepted the argument that more homes were needed in the city.

8.23    RESOLVED – (1)  That the design of the new homes be noted.

(2)      That the rent model set at 80% market rent capped at LHA rate be approved.    

(3)      That the estimated levels of subsidy required from the HRA for the chosen rent model(s) be approved and that authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Environment, Development and Housing and the Executive Director of Finance and Resources to agree reasonable amendments to that subsidy if changes arise.