Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report provided a regular quarterly update on the City Council’s new housing delivery and development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved housing programme as outlined in Appendix 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

    ii.         Noted the Council’s support to the cross-party coalition of over 100 council landlords, including Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District councils, in the five solutions for the government to ‘secure the future of England’s Council housing as outlined in section 4.2 of Officer’s report.

   iii.         Approved the formal adoption of a Portfolio approach to the Council’s ten-year development programme which take into account the Councils Ambitions in line with Corporate objectives, HRA Business Plan, the Local Plan and the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy as outlined in Appendix 3, and acknowledging links to existing policies as set out in Appendix 3 part 7 of the officer’s report.

  iv.         Noted the findings of the initial Passivhaus pilot report including a commitment to come back to Housing Scrutiny Committee in 2025 with recommendations on attaining Net Zero as outlined in Appendix 4 of the officer’s report.

    v.         Approved an amendment to the Sustainable Housing design Guide via an Addendum to include a CamStandard for sustainable housing delivery as outlined in Appendix 4 of the officer’s report.

  vi.         Approved commencement of work on a Framework for Change for North Cambridge through the Cambridge Investment Partnership as outlined in Appendix 5 of the officer’s report.

 

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 Assistant Director (Development).

 

The Assistant Director (Development) advised:

i.    that paragraph 5.11 of the officer’s report should read: Increase in the size of the total size of the Ten Year New Homes Programme from the original estimate of just under 2700 to 2,500.

ii.  in paragraph 7.3 and 7.3.1 of the officer’s report this should read:

a.    7.3 Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy: The Portfolio approach is currently forecast to have 272% of council homes to be let at Social Rent

b.    7.3.1 Annex 2: Para. 2.6: “75% of the 40% affordable housing requirement to be Affordable/Social Rent. On S.106 sites above 15 homes at least 10% (of the 75%) to be allocated for Social Rent. Currently the Council programme proposed c272% of total affordable housing delivery as Social rent. This is significantly above the level set out in the strategy and will remain a target. It is important to note that this delivery is significantly subsidised through the delivery of a complementary component of homes at 80% of market rent which subsidize the reduced revenue.

iii.            That Appendix 4 – Sustainable Housing Design Guide was published and circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.

 

The Assistant Director (Development) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The North East Cambridge Framework was based on the East Barnwell Framework. This involved conversations with community groups (doctors, schools, community centres) and residents to talk about what they liked about the area and what could be improved.

    ii.         There were 14 void units at Stanton House, 4 on notice with 2 offers and 14 remaining tenants. 

   iii.         Noted that the University was looking at a research project into the benefits of people moving into new build houses.

  iv.         A report on the Passivhaus units and energy consumption would be brought back to a future Housing Scrutiny Committee.

    v.         There was a balance to be struck with redevelopment proposals; if the Council built homes to Passivhaus standards then the Council would have to reduce the number of homes built as there was not the resource to be able to do both. New homes were constructed as close to Passivhaus standard as possible.   

  vi.         The portfolio approach to redevelopment meant some sites could come forward with less than 40% affordable housing provision provided that the Council’s redevelopment programme across the city delivered at least 40% affordable housing provision. It was noted that other councils had also adopted this approach.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 against with 3 abstentions 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.