Decision details

To approve that a number of schemes be taken forward into development.

Matter for Decision: To consider scheme approvals in the Council New Build Programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

i.        Note the indicative mix, design and layout of the schemes and that they are subject to planning approval.

 

ii.          Approve the scheme capital budget highlighted in the report to cover the Construction Cost of the scheme; Home Loss Payments to tenants and leaseholders and professional quantity surveyor fees.

 

iii.          Approve that delegated authority be given to the Director of Customer and Community Services following consultation with the Director of Resources and the Head of Legal Services to seal a Development Agreement with our preferred house-builder/developer partner.

 

For the following schemes

 

a. Aylesborough Close Ph 1 (1-8a and 39-50 Aylesborough Close and adjacent garages)

 

b. Water Lane (6-14a Water Lane and 238-246 Green End Road)

 

c. Stanesfield Road Scouts Hut

 

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Housing regarding the Affordable Housing Scheme.

 

The committee made following comments

 

i.          Councillors were encouraged to vote against the schemes for Water Lane and Green End Road.

 

ii.       The proposals were presented as a done deal.

 

iii.      The use of affordable rent levels as the method for calculating rents would result in significant increases in rent levels vis a vis the existing stock.

 

iv.      A “life changing” decision should not be made until sufficient information was available to make a properly informed decision.

 

v.       In comparison to the information supplied to Councillors in other forums such as through the planning policy process, the information supplied was insufficient to make an informed decision.

 

vi.          Concern that some residents had already resigned themselves to moving.

 

vii.     The process was flawed and adversely affected the most vulnerable members of society.

 

The Executive Councillor addressed the comments received, and explained that it was a tricky job for Ward Councillor to balance the needs of their residents against the wider needs of the city. The committee were reminded that it had the responsibility for scrutinising the strategic overview of housing in the city.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that she didn’t normally attend residents meetings, because her attendance didn’t assist residents but was willing to attend when requested by residents.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that an equalities assessment was not produced for each scheme, but had been for the programme of 146 new homes. The Head of Strategic Housing and the Director of Customer and Community Services outlined the steps undertaken to support residents.

 

viii.    It was noted that the existing units at Aylesborough Close were difficult to let and sometimes refused by prospective tenants.

 

ix.          Clarification was requested on how the scheme compared with similar schemes.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that strenuous efforts were made to ensure that all tenants were appropriately supported to find the best possible outcome for them. The Director of Customer and Community Services outlined the housing developments needs in the city, and current rent policy.

 

x.       The assertion that the committee had to consider the strategic housing implications of the proposals was challenged.

 

xi.           Further information was requested regarding the position of leaseholders.

 

xii.     The EQIA was inadequate.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that it would not be appropriate for tenants to have a veto on scheme proposal, but that it was important for tenants to have a say in the development of proposals. The Executive Councillor also re-iterated that she didn’t normally attend residents meetings, because her attendance didn’t assist residents but was willing to attend when requested by residents.

 

xiii.          General support was expressed for the Stanesfield Road scheme.

 

xiv.          Clarification was sought on the implications; specifically the financial implication if a decision was deferred.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing explained that that grant funding had to be spent by March 2015, and that £17,500 would be the penalty for each incomplete unit and that any delay could prejudice the ability of the City Council to deliver the schemes without penalty.

 

The committee were asked to consider the implication of deferral in terms of what positive outcomes could be realistically delivered. The committee discussed the implications of deferral.

 

Councillor Blencowe proposed an amendment to defer schemes “a” and “b” (Aylesborough Close and Water Lane) for further consultation and a re-assessment of the suitability of the scheme. The Scrutiny Committee voted four votes in favour of the amendment and four votes against the amendment. The amendment was defeated on the Chairs casting vote.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations and voted as below

 

Aylesborough Close	Four votes in favour and four votes against   The proposal was endorsed on the Chairs casting vote.
Water Lane	Four votes in favour and four votes against   The proposal was endorsed on the Chairs casting vote.
Stansfield Road	Unanimously in favour

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A