Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 22 July 2014 in
the Council Chamber, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr P W Moore (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Miss B Palmer (sub)
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs B McGoun
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mrs V Uprichard (sub)
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (SB), the Housing Team
Leader – Strategy, the Head of Economic and Community Development,
the Housing Team Leader – Customer Services, The Democratic Services
Team Leader, The Democratic Services Officer.
Mrs A Moore, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mrs L Brettle, Mr B Smith
Democratic Services Officer (TGS)
17. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr E Seward, Mr R Shepherd, Mr N Smith and Mr P
Terrington
18. SUBSTITUTES
Mrs V Uprichard for Mr E Seward and Miss B Palmer for Mr P Terrington
19.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
20.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
21.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
22.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
22 July 2014
23.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
24.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
25.
HOUSING ASSOCIATION QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Before introducing this item, the Chairman explained that Flagship Housing Association
were now also not in attendance at the event, after pulling out late the previous evening.
He also reminded the committee that Victory had pulled out in the previous week, which
meant that Broadland Housing were now the only housing association in attendance.
He wished to formally note his disappointment in both Victory and Flagship for their lack
of attendance, and hoped they would be available to attend committee in the near
future. He also explained that all questions received would be forwarded on to the
absent housing associations and they would be asked to provide answers.
The Chairman introduced Mr A Savage from Broadland Housing Association and Mr R
Gawthorpe from NPS group. The Chairman commented he was interested in finding
more out about ‘Passiv’ housing throughout the session.
Mr A Savage commented that this was an interesting point, as the approach to housing
was developing and changing, and gave the example that housing associations now
produce housing all the way through, from the initial stages to the final development, as
well as producing a broad spectrum of housing. He explained that housing associations
were now also having to consider market needs as well as local needs, and this was
having an impact on housing associations’ approach. He also discussed land allocation
which, whilst could be used to produce market housing, could not be used for affordable
housing which instead had to rely on section 106 agreements. This meant that when
considering sites for development, housing associations had to ensure it was
deliverable, that there was viable infrastructure either already in place or able to be
produced, as well as taking into account the views and viability from the point of view of
local authorities and utility companies, and other relevant bodies.
In reference to an issue in Fakenham, Mr A Savage explained that whilst housing
associations would love to build in the area, there was a large site allocation in the way
of this. He explained that much of the land was owned by one land-owner, which
created issues; if the land owner did not want development, then it would not go ahead.
With reference to the car park on Highfield road, he explained that a site such as that
was complicated due to rights of way and public toilet facilities, and could be
controversial with local members, which is why in the end Broadland chose not to
develop. He further explained that exception sites, such as in Fulmodeston were well
received, and were some of the first sites to utilise passiv housing. He went on to
discuss issues with local authorities and highways authorities, who created their own
sets of obstacles. He explained that there needed to be a more ‘joined-up’ approach
with regards to housing provision, and speculated that some groups may not be
supportive of housing in small towns and villages, as it would be easier for this area to
‘die’.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
22 July 2014
With regards to affordable housing, housing associations now had to mitigate further
with regards to picking up extra costs. He explained that there were a number of ways to
raise this extra revenue, and gave the example of Victory housing who had raised rents
on existing properties in order to invest in further affordable housing provision. He spoke
that from Broadland housings’ point of view it was more beneficial to produce market
housing via a subsidiary to then ‘plug the gap’ in the funding gap for affordable housing.
He explained that in terms of percentages, housing associations had gone from being
60% funded by government and 40% funding from themselves and local authorities, to
10% government funding and 90% funding from themselves. He concluded that this
issue of funding was the fundamental issue, and would continue to dominate
discussions around housing provision into the future.
The Chairman then invited members to ask questions.
1. Mr R Reynolds referred back to Mr A Savage’s point regarding the Highfield road
site in Fakenham, explaining that he was among the members who had raised
objection. He suggested that Mr A Savage have a conversation with NNDC’s
Planning Policy and Property Information Manager, as Fakenham was an integral
site for housing, yet no single developer would consider taking on such a large site.
The Chief Executive commented that Fakenham was being looked at and there was
currently a partial application for part of the site.
2. Mrs A Green referred to a brownfield site in the Fakenham area which would be
suitable for development yet had received an application from a supermarket. She
noted her concern on this matter.
3. Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to Mr A Savage’s point regarding the issues with
Highways with regard to providing affordable housing in rural areas, and agreed that
money was a large factor in this. Mr A Savage agreed and commented that in towns
where there was just one road in and out, it was not feasible for them to extend to
such an extent to offset the rural deterioration, even if funding was more viable. With
regards to exception sites he commented that they had always been let to local
people and anecdotal evidence seemed to suggest they produced lower rent arrears
and fitted in well with the local community.
4. Mr A Savage referred to a submitted question regarding service charges, and
agreed that they seemed to be an issue. He explained that when Broadland was
considering housing production they considered the whole cost of a property and
were focussed on reducing the whole overall cost as well as maintaining
transparency. He explained design had a large impact on this, and with higher initial
costs, they could reduce on-going property costs. He concluded that the common
sense approach, which considered the big picture, was the most effective. He
explained that as affordable housing rent went up- it could now be charged at up to
80% of market rates- it was important that service charges went down and were
taken out of the rental amount, in order to increase rental flow. In passiv housing
schemes, he explained that rent arrears were very low as there was such a
reduction in utility bills, leaving money left over for rent. The more energy efficient a
property was, the less likely there was to be a mortgage default.
5. Mrs B McGoun queried how it was decided what proportion of affordable housing
rent could be charged in proportion to private rental values and queried if high
private rents in Norfolk put pressure on these figures. Mr A Savage commented that
in Norwich in particular private renting figures were high which did generally
increase affordable housing figures. In Nnorth Norfolk however he commented that it
was hard to provide comparable evidence but every rental went out to valuation to
provide a valid figure. Mr A Savage further explained that if they lifted rents on
existing stock, this increased risk so banking rates went up, which made the system
somewhat cyclical.
The Chairman thanked Mr A Savage for his presentation.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
22 July 2014
26. PASSIV AND SUSTAINABLE HOUSING
The Chairman invited Mr R Gawthorpe, Director from NPS group to give a presentation
on passiv housing. Mr R Gawthorpe thanked the committee and the Chairman and gave
his presentation. He discussed the origins of passiv housing as well as evidence that
suggested this housing type reduced rental arrears. He explained that passiv was a
‘system’ which encouraged energy efficiency, addressing mechanical ventilation, high
insulation, levels of glazing and air tightness of a property. In terms of energy, passiv
housing could be up to 300% more efficient which maintaining affordability.
In terms of private developers, Mr R Gawthorpe explained that as they were primarily
concerned with profit margins there was an assumption that passiv was unaffordable for
the majority of developers. However Mr R Gawthorpe explained that passiv could be the
same price as code 3 traditional housing. He also went on to introduce Naturally
Passive, which blended passiv housing systems with natural living and traditional values
in contemporary design. He also discussed passiv care facilities for the elderly and
provision of affordable housing under passiv schemes, concluding that approximately
90% of their work came from the public sector.
The Chairman then invited members to ask questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms V Gay discussed issues within the planning system, explaining that there had
been a failure to adequately explain the need for more sustainability within housing
schemes in the district. She also queried if it would be possible to visit Passiv
housing schemes in Fulmodeston. Mr R Gawthorpe discussed the issue and
explained that members could be pressured by developers who had certain biases.
He explained that via passiv housing schemes, code 4 sustainability was easily
deliverable. Mr A Savage added to this, suggesting it was about achieving a
balance between sustainability codes and effective passiv housing. He explained
that alteration of policy may be a useful way to achieve further sustainability, and
suggested that a code which required either a sustainability code or passiv housing
may be effective. He also explained the differences between ‘zero carbon’ policies
and passiv directives, explaining that zero carbon was a by-product of passiv
building but was not the aim; instead, energy efficiency was the end goal. Both
concluded that it would depend on how far members at NNDC wished to go.
Mrs B McGoun commented that the lack of air circulation in passiv property seemed
counter-intuitive to health concerns. Mr R Gawthorpe explained that mechanical
ventilation increased air flow and windows that you were unable to open were a
common fallacy. He explained passiv housing was adaptable depending upon
individual needs.
Mrs P Grove-Jones queried why it was only now that passiv housing was becoming
more prevalent. Mr R Gawthorpe commented that it was impossible for the
government to dictate a certain type of housing for developers to build, but now as
conventional builds were not keeping up to sustainable standards and building
materials were cheaper, passiv building was become a more realistic possibility.
Mr R Reynolds commented that the concept seemed very interesting, and
concluded that there seemed to be a need to balance on-going costs with initial
build costs. He agreed with comments regarding sustainability and queried what
code the Development committee were currently working to. He also queried what
the overall costs were for a traditional build versus a passiv build. Mr A Savage
commented that £1500/m2 all in could be achieved, however this was dependent
on process. He concluded that passiv building could be around 3%- 10% more than
traditional builds depending upon these factors.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
22 July 2014
5.
6.
Mrs A Moore queried what kind of noise the mechanical fans produced and whether
condensation was an issue. Mr R Gawthorpe replied that it depended on the
product quality but generally they were quite quiet, and were adjustable to needs.
He also explained that as the air was constantly moving and wood was pre-dried on
the timber frame, condensation was not an issue.
The Head of Economic and Community Development commented that incentivising
a better standard of housing in the district seemed to be key. Mr R Gawthorpe
agreed and commented that a joint venture initiative with Broadland District Council
was currently underway to increase development output via a mixture of market and
affordable housing which may be something NNDC would be interested in
considering. Mr R Gawthorpe suggested there needed to be a change in the
industry and in thinking in order to encourage higher quality builds.
Mr R Reynolds and the Chief Executive clarified regarding the code 3 standard for
sustainability; the Chief Executive explained that as part of the incentivisation scheme
the code had been relaxed but that the code had not been dropped from policy.
27. UPDATE ON THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY AND H OMELESSNESS IN THE
DISTRICT
The Housing Team Leader – Customer Services introduced the briefing paper. She
explained that the key elements were that homelessness applications were relatively
low at 90 for 2013/14. She also explained that there had been a higher volume of footfall
into the office, and officers were being proactive in preventing homelessness. The main
reason for homelessness in the district had been for private rent eviction and the 25-44
age range was the demographic affected the most. In the 65+ bracket homelessness
was very low, which was consistent with north Norfolk’s housing stock profile.
She then went on to outline a number of successes and key aims for the future. The
Chairman then invited members to ask questions.
1. Mrs V Uprichard discussed studio apartments which had previously been owned by
Victory Housing Association and commented that these would be ideal for temporary
housing for the homeless. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services
commented that she was not aware if Victory still owned these properties but she
would look into this and come back to the committee.
2. Mrs P Grove-Jones queried if there were many issues with contrived homelessness
in the district. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services replied that if there
were, it was difficult to prove and that officers had to take every case on its merit. If
there were intentional elements within the claim, officers would be unable to take
this on.
3. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds commended the team for their excellent work. She
queried if there was a large percentage of individuals moving newly into the district
who officers had to deal with. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services
replied that this was a very low percentage, and on the rare occasions it happened it
was often where it was unsafe to return home.
4. Mr B Smith enquired about an area in his district and the Housing Team Leader Customer Services replied that she would look into this.
5. Ms V Gay commented that the saddest cases of homelessness were incidences of
young single individuals. She asked if this was still difficult to deal with. The Housing
Team Leader - Customer Services agreed that this was particularly difficult, but
explained that they had hostels for the under 25s and could assist financially with
those who were sleeping rough. She explained that the aim was to empower these
individuals. Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that many individuals may have mental
health issues. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services agreed and
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
22 July 2014
explained that in order to achieve the gold standard in her team they needed to
progress on their ‘no second night out’ policy which was somewhat difficult to
achieve.
6. Mr J Perry-Warnes thanked the Housing Team Leader - Customer Services and her
team for their hard work and her understanding of the complex issues around
homelessness.
The Chairman thanked members and officers for their comments.
28. HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SCHEME – UDPATE
The Housing Team Leader - Strategy introduced this item. She explained that once the
scheme had been implemented, it had been agreed to review after a year in place. She
explained that they were seven months into the current policy that had been adopted in
October 2013, with analysis covering October 2013- May 2014. She explained that the
scheme had a two stage process of allocation, in that at stage one, general properties
were prioritised for applicants on the Housing Register, and the second stage prioritised
through the local allocations agreement households with local connections. In the time
of analysis, there had been 248 properties let, of which 48% had been let to those with a
local connection. She explained this could be higher, but the statistics did not quantify
those from neighbouring parishes when that parish is a town. She also explained that
many of the properties fell under stage one, general need, as opposed to under the
second stage. She explained that 13 lettings fell under stage two: the local allocations.
This excluded properties let using the local allocations agreement on Exception Housing
Schemes which are only let using stage two. She concluded that the scheme was
starting to deliver in terms of aims and was beneficial in maximising allocations to those
with local connections.
1. Mrs B McGoun queried what the turnover was like with these properties. The
Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that under the exception scheme,
turnover was much lower as residents were now living where they wished to be,
making them less likely to move. With regards to the general housing scheme, of
around 6000 affordable dwellings there were around 450 lets per annum. s.
2. Mrs P Grove-Jones queried who owned the properties that were let under the
scheme. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that they were owned and
let by local housing associations. Mrs P Grove-Jones also queried the level of rents
charged. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that whilst it was affordable
housing, meaning rent was charged at a maximum of 80% of market rates, this was a
slight misnomer as there were always those who needed assistance with payment.
She explained that even those in social housing, of which rent could be 55%-60% the
value of market housing, often faced issues in terms of meeting rent payments. She
referred back to earlier discussions around passiv housing, explaining that it was
important to take into account ‘whole life costs’ including energy and utility bills.
The meeting concluded at 12.05 pm
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
22 July 2014