Issue - meetings

This item was Chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair / Tenant Representative)

 

Matter for Decision

 

The Housing Revenue Account Budget-Setting Report provided an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It set out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals, and is the basis for the finalisation of the 2018/19 budgets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing took a view on a key decision which materially differed to that of the Housing Scrutiny Committee.  Under 2.5 of Part 4D Executive Procedure Rules of the Council's Constitution, the matter was referred to the Leader of the Council for decision.

 

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 Business Manager & Principal Accountant, Shared Housing Finance Team. The Committee noted the updated Equality Impact Assessment.

 

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

     i.        Sought clarification regarding additional funding required for work at Ditchburn Place and questioned why the original bid had not covered all phases of the required upgrade work.

    ii.        Welcomed the provision of an Estate Champion van.

   iii.        Asked when the Transformation of the Housing Service would be reviewed and what level of tenant involvement could be expected.

  iv.        Suggested that additional funding would be needed to address the impact of the role out of Universal Credit.

   v.        Sought clarification on leaseholder charging.

  vi.        Requested further details on the housing register regarding what the number of household on the list translated to in numbers of people waiting to for housing. (The Principal Accountant undertook to provide this information outside the meeting).

 

Councillor Price stated that the phase one of the Ditchburn Place refurbishment had been agreed under a Liberal Democrat administration.

 

Councillor Cantrill objected to the response and requested that the minutes record that he had been seeking a value for money answer. It had not been his intension to make a political statement.

 

Councillor Cantrill introduced the Liberal Democrat Alternative Budget.

 

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

 

     i.        John Marias expressed support for the proposals.

    ii.        Kay Harris stated that the ROAM group supported the proposal to recharge repairs requested for works that were tenant responsibility as the costs involved were significant.

   iii.        Suggested that the funding for communal areas should be shared across all tenures as council only estates were a thing of the past.

 

The Principal Accountant said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Confirmed that the proposed amendment to rents for larger new built properties would bring them into line with existing social rent tenants at target rent.

    ii.        New tenants would not be in a more advantageous position than existing tenants in a comparable sized property.

   iii.        In response to question on the impact on the 30 year business plan, she stated that the rent reduction would equate to approximately the cost of one new property a year.

  iv.        The additional funding for communal areas would be a single sum, spread across, two-years of capital expenditure. Savings would need to be made elsewhere in order to fund the work.

Councillor Price stated that the number of council housing units was now half what is was in 1989. Any reduction in the new build programme would impact on those on the waiting list.

 

Reducing rent for larger properties would be unfair as families come in all sizes and occupy a variety of properties. Children often shared bedrooms making property size a poor indicator of family size.

 

The Strategic Director (Suzanne Hemingway) stated that provisions had been planned to address potential problems caused by Universal Credit. A budget proposal for a general fund provision to support all Cambridge residents impacted by the introduction of UC would be considered by Strategy and Resources Committee. Advice and support was currently provided in partnership with other agencies. The full impact of Universal Credit could be some years away.

 

Councillor Cantrill summed up the alternative budget and suggested that the housing market in Cambridge was broken. In response to comments from the tenant representative he proposed expanding the protection from repair recharges could be expanded to all older or vulnerable tenants.

 

The following votes was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair /Tenant Representative)

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 5) to vote on the Liberal Democrat alternative budget point by point where they differed from the substantive recommendations.

 

The Liberal Democrat alternative budget:

 

(bii) (7 votes in favour to 5 against). The amendment was carried.

 

(K) (7 votes in favour to 5 against). The amendment was carried.

 

 

(L) (7 votes in favour to 5 against). The amendment was carried.

 

The Committee adjourned for 10 minutes.

 

The Strategic Director, (Suzanne Hemingway) confirmed that revenue bid agreed above could stand with or without the linked capital budget. If the Executive Councillor decided not to endorse the recommendations, the decision would be passed to the Leader for decision.

 

The following votes were chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones

 

The Liberal Democrat alternative budget:

 

(N) (2 votes in favour to 5 against). The amendment was lost.

 

(S) (2 votes in favour to 5 against). The amendment was lost.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair /Tenant Representative)

 

Resolved (8 votes to 1 and 4 abstentions) to endorse the recommendations A to L, as amended, of the budget proposals.

 

The following votes were chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones

 

Resolved (5 votes to 0 and 2 abstentions) to endorse the original report recommendations M to V of the budget proposals.

 

The Executive Councillor could not agree the recommendations. Therefore, under 2.5 of Part 4D Executive Procedure Rules of the Council's Constitution, all recommendations agreed by the Scrutiny Committee would be submitted to the Leader of the Council for determination.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.