Agenda item

Social Housing Affordability

This report explains the formal planning policy and housing sector definitions for affordable housing, the different rented tenures this incorporates and provides information on the costs of new affordable housing currently being secured.

Minutes:

The Team Manager, Enabling & Development introduced this report to the Panel. She explained that a briefing paper on this issue was presented initially to the Local Development Framework Steering Group and was now being presented to the Panel for their information.

 

She said that it should be noted the NPPF definition of Affordable housing has now been revised but that this makes little impact on the delivery of affordable rented tenures in B&NES.

 

She stated that consultation following the Housing White Paper was carried out earlier this year and a softening from a prescribed level of starter home delivery has resulted instead in a fixed % requirement for low cost home ownership delivery.

 

She informed the Panel that social rented homes are the Council’s preferred rented tenure and the majority of affordable housing delivery remains for social rent.

 

She said that sometimes our housing association partners deliver homes as Affordable Rent Tenure (ART) which was introduced in 2011/12 by the Government as its preferred rented tenure.  She said that ART homes have a rent of no more than 80% of market rent and include all service and estate charges.  She added that most rented homes delivered with government funding or that the housing association puts into their Homes England (HE) programme will be ART, but here in B&NES we require ART rents to be delivered below Local Housing Allowance levels or 80% of market rent whichever is the lower, and housing associations can sometimes achieve ART rents at similar affordability to social rent levels plus service charge.

 

She stated that the biggest issue faced by households on lower incomes and in receipt of welfare benefit, is the challenge faced by households seeking to meet their family’s housing and other needs within the £20,000 benefit cap (£13,400 for single person households).

 

She said that in Bath particularly, new larger family homes for rent do cause concerns around affordability and there is also a significant issue arising with housing for single people, whose housing options are limited due to supply and affordability.

 

She stated that the challenge for the affordable housing sector is how to address this affordability concern in a way that fits within regulation, expectations on value for money, development viability and growing need.

 

She said however that greater affordability comes at greater cost - the lower the rent, the lower the amount of borrowing that can be supported and the higher level of subsidy required.

 

She said that officers will continue to work with developers and our housing association partners to address affordability concerns, looking at innovation, funding, making best use of housing stock and will be using the opportunities provided by the New Local Plan and resulting SPD to re-establish affordability parameters in light of the welfare benefit caps.

 

She stated that members of the LDF Steering Group have asked what they can do at Party and Central Government level to help address the affordability issues in the District.  She said that two key suggestions to lobby on were:

 

·  Weighting of benefits caps in high value Districts outside of London

·  Recognition of the increased subsidy costs of delivering affordable housing in high value areas when it comes to Homes England ‘value for money’ tests.

 

Councillor Rob Appleyard commented that this area of work is hugely complex and asked what the Council could do regarding high land values in Bath.

 

The Team Manager, Enabling & Development replied that the Council only have control over the value of their own land.

 

Councillor Lisa O’Brien said that at a recent conference she had been made aware of a pension fund company who were specialising in short term lease properties (3 years) for the 25-30 year old market.

 

She also queried whether older residents remaining in three bedroomed properties and the ‘Right to Buy’ were affecting the Council’s plans.

 

The Team Manager, Enabling & Development replied that build to rent models are being delivered in Bath at BWR and Roseberry Place. She added that affordable rented homes secured through planning policy without any need for Government subsidy are being declared off limits for the ‘Right to Buy or Acquire’.

 

She said that the issue of ‘downsizing’ often proves difficult as residents are seeking the perfect alternative. She added that a piece of work could be carried out in the future to see what can be delivered.

 

Councillor Lisa O’Brien said that some residents have seized the opportunities of the development within the Chocolate Quarter, Keynsham.

 

The Chairman referred the Panel as to the actions they can take on this matter eg. Lobbying.

 

Councillor Liz Richardson asked if she knew of the cost gap between the loss of a Council House and the building of a new one. She added that she would like to see the ‘value for money test’ be pushed.

 

The Team Manager, Enabling & Development replied that promotion of Micro Units was being pursued, for example at the Banglo development on the Lower Bristol Road. She added that this development was due to comprise of 4 units of 26m squared and 1 unit of 36m squared.

 

She said that she did not know the gap figure in response to the other question.

 

Councillor Lisa O’Brien commented that purpose built accommodation for older people should have common space within it.

 

The Team Manager, Enabling & Development said that developments are encouraged to have spaces that have multiple uses to reduce service charges.

 

The Panel RESOLVED to note the report and the measures being explored to maximise affordability in new rented housing.

 

Supporting documents: