Agenda item

The Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services submitted a discussion paper to assist understanding and encourage debate on a number of new proposals from Government around Social Housing Policy.  The report sought to put the proposals in a Rotherham context and highlighted what the potential impact of such Policy changes could be.

The report included:-

-        ALMO Options Appraisal

2010 Rotherham Ltd. had been established in 2005 following extensive consultation with tenants and residents.  As at 1^st April, 2010, the ALMO had delivered £276M of investment and all homes (except refusals) would meet the Decent Homes Standard by the end of December, 2010.  The management agreement expired in June, 2011 and the Council would need to make a decision on the most appropriate model for the future management of housing.  PriceWaterhouse Cooper had been commissioned to conduct an appraisal of the options for the future management of Rotherham’s Council housing.  They would provide an illustration of the financial and service quality implications of the most appropriate model with a clear recommendation on which to base tenant and stakeholder consultation.  They would report by the end of September.

-        Change in Tenure type

It was possible that a change in tenure type could lead to a greater turn over of tenancies and an increase in costs through rent lost during the amount of time a property remained vacant between the outgoing/incoming tenants and the repairs and maintenance works required whilst the property was void.

-        Decent Homes Programme

Rotherham was on target to complete Decent Homes works across all its properties by the deadline of 31^st December, 2010.

-        Mobility of Social Housing Tenants

Rotherham had registered with “Home Swapper”, a national mobility scheme.  Tenants could register free of charge and view possible matches and contact exchange partners to explore potential moves.  If a move was mutually agreed, both parties involved would need the permission of their  respective landlords.

-        Housing Revenue Account Reform

An All Member Seminar was held on 1^st July to explore the implications for Rotherham further prior to submission of the completed consultation form.  The level of debt ‘offered’ to Rotherham to move to self-financing was lower than the amount of debt currently being serviced.  Current modelling suggested that through HRA self-financing there would be sufficient resources to invest in existing housing and build new Council houses.  However, the level of resources available would be directly affected by rent levels (see next bullet point).

-        Rent Convergence

Rotherham’s rents was amongst the lowest in the country.  Should the proposals around HRA reform be realised, achieving convergence would make more money available for Rotherham to invest in affordable housing.  26.2% of Rotherham residents were in receipt of Housing Benefit and was likely to increase when looking solely at Council tenants.  Rent convergence could not be looked at without considering the proposals around the review of Housing Benefit.

-        Housing Benefit Review

The reforms may result in landlords avoiding letting their properties to those in receipt of Housing Benefit and place the Authority in a difficult position.  Rotherham did have a number of under occupied properties and linking Housing Benefit to the size of homes could provide a spur to free up larger under occupied properties.

-        Tenant Services Authority

The future of the TSA was still unknown but the Government valued its service standards and local offer.  2010 Rotherham Ltd. had been running a task and finish group with tenants and leaseholders to agree Rotherham’s service standards and the local offer.  Consultation on the draft standards was imminent with plans to ‘go live’ in January, 2011.

Discussion ensued on the report with the following issues raised:-

o       Non-traditional properties - in line to complete 108 Airey type as well as all of the non-traditional properties (approximately 700)

o       Estimated 8% refusals on the Programme – the national average was approximately 10%.  An issue that would emerge very shortly was whether or not to set a cut off point for the Decency Programme e.g. a property becoming vacant that had previously been refused but it would be difficult to schedule the works due to the close of the Programme being so near 

o       End of the Right to Buy to retain housing stock or the ability given local authorities to end all succession rights 

o       Leverage on under occupation

o       Social housing was an active choice

o       Possibility that the Housing Benefit Review might lead to some committing Benefit fraud for fear of losing their homes

Resolved:-  (1)  That the range of proposals coming from Government be noted.

(2)  That the Scrutiny Advisor contact Members with a view to holding a Scrutiny Review on the private rented sector.