Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision.

 

The report referred to the high demand for housing in Cambridge and the surrounding area, and house prices and private rent levels are high. As a result, there is a significant proportion of local people who do not receive priority for social housing for rent, but are also unable to afford to access good quality market housing. As house prices and rents continue to rise faster than incomes the issue is becoming more and more acute.

 

The report provided data and information on demand for, and costs and affordability of, market and intermediate market housing in Cambridge; Outlined the main models of intermediate housing available, including shared ownership, equity loans, intermediate rent and rent to buy, and some variations on those models; Summarised the Council’s current strategic approach to intermediate housing, and made recommendations around priorities moving forward.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

     i.        Endorsed the need to address a range of intermediate housing needs amongst people who cannot afford to buy or rent good quality housing on the open market but who also do not have priority for social housing for rent.

    ii.        Considered options for a social lettings agency to help meet the needs of the intermediate housing market in Cambridge, including consideration of future development of the sub-regional lettings agency Town Hall Lettings.

   iii.        Prioritised exploring how different models of intermediate market housing for rent might be delivered through the Council’s Affordable Housing Development programme.

  iv.        Provision of intermediate market housing is prioritised in the future is considered as part of the review of the Council’s Housing Strategy due to take place during 2015.

   v.        Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Housing Strategy Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

     i.        Indicated disappointment that the Committee were looking at various intermediate shared ownership schemes and not Council Housing.

    ii.        Recognised shared ownerships schemes were financially viable but would like it to be made clear that the Committee should be looking to see an increase in Council Housing.

   iii.        Stated that there was a lack of Council Housing in Cambridge.

  iv.        Recognised that the Council was doing its best under the restrictions that were placed upon it.

   v.        Specified that the many developments for example in Trumpington did deliver affordable housing for some people.

  vi.        Acknowledged that shared ownership properties brought a balance to the City.

 vii.        Welcomed the report as it offered a variety to meet a range of needs.

viii.        Stated that shared ownership offered an opportunity for those who couldn’t afford to buy at market prices.

  ix.        Asked which social economic groups the report was referring to.

   x.        Asked what was the percentage of older people who wanted to downsize had been referenced in the report.

  xi.        Noted that Cambridge University on the North/ West development were using a simple formula to target their market audience. Could the profiles of the market audience be identified as to who the Council were aiming for?

 xii.        Asked what the income to qualify for intermediate housing was.

xiii.        Questioned if there would be / was a difference between social housing and intermediate housing.

xiv.        Asked what the percentage was for those people who build up their share.

xv.        Where there any housing associations who could assist the Council in the intermediate market as there were examples of Housing Associations being innovative in field.

xvi.        Enquired if there was a time scale.

 

In response to Committees comments Officers, the Executive Councillor for Housing, the Director of Community and Customer Services stated the following:

 

     i.        Applicants for intermediate housing must be earning less than £60,000 per year, an amount that had been set by the Government.

    ii.        The target market for Intermediate housing were usually people up to 35 years of age, who were earning an income but could not afford housing on the open market.

   iii.        There was limited information nationally on the figures for the market for older people who wanted to downsize.

  iv.        The profile for the renting sector was changing as people are renting for longer which had impacted on the market figures.

   v.        In the last ten years the standard of social housing had been built to the same level, if not better than other forms of marketing housing, which it was envisaged would not change.

  vi.        Investigation would be ongoing to determine the areas of need as there were different social and economic groups who were not accessing the housing and a better understanding was required.

 vii.        The policy will be developed further with the intermediate market as the marker.

viii.        Officers working toward developing a better understanding of the market.

  ix.        Ideally the Council would be building a high percentage of Council Houses but unfortunately were not in a position to do so.

   x.        People who are on an average income who are being forced out of buying / renting in the City and are not eligible for Council Housing. The report offers an alternative for this situation. 

  xi.        A review carried out in 2013 on shared ownership provided the figures for people who had built up their share.

 xii.        She believes that the Council are as enterprising as some Housing Associations, if not more so.

xiii.        A new housing strategy would be brought back to a future Committee meeting.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.