Agenda item

Neil Aves, Assistant Director, Housing Services, outlined a report to provide Committee the opportunity to comment on the Housing Capital Programme  - Future Strategy and Direction prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 24^th January.  The report considered the priorities within the Housing Capital Investment Programme in light of the closure of the Council’s ALMO and the loss of the final tranche of Decent Homes funding.  The report also set out the possible strategic changes in the procurement or delivery of future work programmes. 

The Committee noted that the Housing Investment Strategy had over the past 4 years primarily focused on meeting the requirements of the Government’s Decent Homes standard.  It was noted that the Council was able to draw down the Government’s additional £45.4m funding allocation to meet the Decent Homes standard after the ALMO was awarded the Audit Commission’s 2 star quality standard in October 2007.  The Government had subsequently extended their original 2010 deadline for achieving the Decent Homes standard to 2012 and as such alter the Council’s funding profile over this period.  This meant that the Council was obliged to deliver a larger programme of work than originally envisaged and meant that the Council had to reprioritise some of its financial resources within the Capital Programme over and above assumptions made.

The Committee was advised that the optimum sequencing of the work required meant that a typical internal package of work could include elements that had already failed the Decent Homes standard, for example, kitchen and a bathroom and that other elements that were going to fail during the 5 year programmes, for example, boiler or electrics, or in some cases in subsequent years.  The use of resources was therefore optimised to carry out the full volume of work per property at the same time.  Packaging the work in this way had resulted in greater savings per property and had helped to minimise the disruption to tenants. 

The impact of the investment strategy and the options appraisal of possible future investment strategy were noted.  The Assistant Director discussed the six options for future investments against the council’s key priorities going forward.  It was considered that whilst there was an immediate financial pressure to deliver Decent Homes compliance by the 2012 deadline, once this had been achieved the level of financial resources required to maintain this standard across the Borough over the next five years was affordable within the Government’s current housing subsidy allowance.  Further it was considered that a number of substantial external and estate improvement work programmes improving roof covering and estate improvement schemes would remain affordable. 

The Assistant Director advised the Committee that Members and the Council’s Corporate Management Team would strongly recommend Cabinet  to support option 6 as the preferred way forward.  Members noted the revised five year Housing Capital Programme (Appendix 1 of the report) which estimated a projected finer outturn of £7.95m for the 2010/11 year against the £10.9m budget. 

The Committee noted that if Cabinet approved the recommendation the transfer from HRA balances would be reflected in the HRA budget reports for 2011/12 due to be considered at the February meeting. 

Members raised a number of comments/questions in the ensuing debate including the following (responses shown in italics):-

·  The report stated that the warden call alarm system had become a priority scheme for the council due to the national BT network upgrading programme.  What was the current position on this?

The Assistant Director advised that BT had announced in summer of 2010 that the project had been abandoned until future years and the concerns that any major investment to the systems had been deferred until the Council had completed the wider review of the supported housing service that would determine the requirements of the future systems.  The system would continue to be supported by BT for the next few years. 

·  A survey had concluded that in respect of external wall finishes and roof coverings the majority of properties were not failing the DH standard and it would be appropriate to defer any works over the next 3-5 plus years.  A member was concerned at the length of this period. 

The Committee advised that this was a subjective matter and was  much dependent on weather conditions over the next few years.  It was clear however the none were in desperate need of replacement at this time. 

·  A member asked what had happened to the money that should have been allocated to the refurbishment of flats in Wentworth Avenue under the scheme?

The Committee was advised that Decent Homes funding did not include the flats because it was felt that this was  “putting good money after bad”.  If the Britwell and Haymill Regeneration Scheme had been cancelled then it would have been necessary to set aside money for the flats.  It was highlighted that the Decent Homes programme did not cease in 2012 andfrom 2012 every council would be obliged to fund the programme. 

·  Whenever a home was purchased under the Right to Buy Scheme, was the purchase price given to the Council? 

The Committee was advised that only 25% of the net sale price realised was allocated to the Council, therefore in practice every four houses sold would equate to the cost of building one new home. 

·  Did the three contractors who had been approved to carry out the Decent Homes work still exist and continue with works?

This was the case but only until next year when two of the three contractors would decide if they wished to continue.  It was noted that the contract ended in March, 2011.  The Committee was advised that future government proposals which would take effect in March 2012 would mean that the Council would retain the rent and take on an element of the original national debt which covered in part the cost of building the council properties.

·  A Member considered it was important to protect the roofing and guttering of properties for the long term and asked what assurance there was that this would be done within the next five years?

It was possible that new funding would be received in the following year and  from the evidence available it was thought that these were sustainable. 

·  A Member questioned whether the Council would see more housing  subsidy coming back and was advised that an announcement regarding this would be made in the following month. 

Resolved –   The Committee notes the results of the Housing Capital Programme option appraisal and the recommendations that will be considered by Cabinet on 24^th January as follows:-

(a)  That the Committee note that the Future Housing Capital Programme will be planned, procured and funded based upon option 6 as set out in the report.

(b)  That an additional funding requirement of £2.85m to fund the 2011–12 HRA Capital Programme is met from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Revenue balances as set out in the report.