Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February were approved as a correct record.

To receive a presentation from Clare Dorning, the b=Borough Council’s Head of Housing Strategy and Needs.

The Steering Group received a presentation from Clare Dorning, Head of Housing Strategy and Needs (copy attached), in which she described the severe difficulties facing the housing sector in Bracknell Forest due to the number and types of homes owned by the Council; the estimated level of supply through turnover of Council stock and existing housing association provision; and the growing numbers of people on the housing register waiting to be housed appropriately.

There was a significant mismatch in supply of social housing in the Borough compared to the demand, with 3,966 households on the housing register (at 31.01.06) and an estimated total supply of 484 homes becoming available in 2006/07. 

Clare Dorning responded to questions on her presentation and the following points were noted:

·               The efficient turnaround of vacated properties was crucial to helping meet the housing needs of people on the register.  The Borough Council had improved significantly in the last 18 months and was generally seen as performing well on efficient re-letting of empty houses.

·               The Council differentiated between households on the housing register by allocating points according to criteria of housing needs.  When a household was in higher need it was placed on the ‘active list’, which indicated that the applicant was getting closer to the top of the waiting list.

·               If there was a tenant ballot for transfer of the Council’s housing stock to a new local housing association – and if tenants voted in favour - it would generate a significant capital receipt for the Council.  Councillors would be able to invest those funds in developing new affordable housing in the Borough, through existing housing associations.  In these terms, a transfer appeared to be the only way to make a significant improvement in the mismatch of supply and demand.  The new housing association’s priority would be to improve and invest in the 5,800 properties transferred to its care, using the greater resources at its disposal. 

·               Local authorities sought to use the planning process as far as possible to increase the supply of affordable housing.  The new Bracknell Town Centre, for example, would provide some new affordable housing units.  However, there were currently restrictions on new housing development as large parts of the Borough were affected by the designation of Thames Basin Heathland as a Special Protection Area because of its national significance for certain species of wildlife. 

·               Management of the housing register would remain a function of the Council if the homes transferred to a housing association.  The Council would have ‘nomination rights’ enabling it to place people from the register into suitable housing association accommodation when it became available.

The Steering Group thanked Clare Dorning for her very helpful presentation.

To confirm details of the Steering Group’s visit to Peerless Housing Group in Camberley on Monday 27 March 2006.

The Steering Group noted that the visit to Peerless Housing in Camberley had been arranged for Monday 27 March.  So far 21 people had accepted the invitation to join the visit.

The Steering Group received an oral update from Ilona Cowe, the Consultation Manager for the ‘Your Homes’ project, on progress with consultation activities since the last meeting.

There were now 850 people signed-up as members of the Housing Sounding Board, 542 of whom had taken part in the survey in January 2006.

Officers had contacted a further 125 residents of sheltered accommodation during information visits.

The first two Roadshows had been well-attended. The next one was planned for Friday 7 April in Princess Square, Bracknell.

Door-knocking was progressing steadily.  Working with available staff resources, the housing team had managed to make direct face to face contact with 527 households, which was recognised as a major achievement.

The write-up of questions and answers from the Grange event was nearing completion and would be sent out to everybody who had attended the event.  Consideration would be given to whether this might also be distributed more widely.

Officers were planning another consultation event for 11 April, specifically targeting younger tenants & leaseholders.  This would take place at the Sports Centre.  It was hoped to attract around 40 people to the event.  The information would be similar to that provided at the Grange event but thought was being given to the most effective means of communicating these messages. 

The Steering Group heard concerns from other attendees about the approach the Council was taking, which some felt indicated a degree of bias and pressure towards transfer.  It was established that the Council only aimed to present the facts concerning the options for future investment in tenants’ and leaseholders’ homes and the impact of the financial position on the future of the housing management and repairs services.  The Steering Group was seeking to establish as much information and understanding of the situation as possible and to ensure this was shared with everybody involved so they could decide what was best for their own homes on an informed basis.

It was noted that a number of authorities still owned their housing stock and some tenants felt there was a case in favour of retention which had not been aired sufficiently.  The Steering Group noted that an opportunity would be given at the next meeting, on 18 April, when some members of the Tenants and Leaseholders’ Panel had been invited to present the case for retention.  It was accepted that all viewpoints would be listened to, particularly if views were supported by evidence relevant to Bracknell Forest’s situation.  The Council’s position at the beginning of this process had been in favour of retaining the housing stock, as it had appeared it could afford to meet the decent homes standard.  However, as the financial situation had been clarified and had progressively worsened, the Council was in a position of having to examine, with the tenants, the option of transfer to see what was in the best interests of tenants and of Council Tax-payers generally.  If there was a ballot it would be the tenants who decided whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To receive brief reports from

-          a councillor

-          a staff represesentative

-          trade union representative

on conclusions so far and views from their interest group.

Members of the Steering Group were invited to comment on any conclusions they had reached sop far through the Steering Group process.

Trade Unions

Although trade unions in general were opposed to privatisation and would prefer to see local authority housing remaining in council ownership, it was accepted that there may need to be a role for a locally created Housing Association to ‘rescue’ residents’ homes from the financial decline and deterioration which they could suffer if they remained with the Council.  If a transfer was supported by tenants, then the unions would wish to ensure job security and full protection of terms and conditions of service for all transferred staff.  It was expected that housing officers employed through the Housing Revenue Account would transfer to a new Housing Association under TUPE regulations.  This process should provide protection for those staff, assuming the Housing Association continued to treat its staff fairly.  There were some cases where transferred staff had subsequently experienced a worsening of their conditions. 

Staff Representatives

Building repairs staff had recently had their terms and conditions reviewed and would be anxious to ensure there was no detriment to these through any transfer process. 

Staff employed in housing management had a number of concerns, particularly about the possibility of a NO vote, or a decision by the Council to retain the housing stock.  They felt that this would be likely to have an adverse impact on their job security and job satisfaction as budget cuts year-on-year would mean the Department would be delivering a poorer service to tenants.  Housing management staff were under particular pressure at the moment as the additional burden of the consultation activities, door-knocking etc was falling predominantly on these people, in addition to their existing workloads.  It was hoped, if the Council decided to proceed to a ballot of tenants, that the staffing implications of the next phase of consultation would be properly resourced.

Non-housing employees carrying out support roles, such as in Legal or Finance, were in a less certain position as regards TUPE.  The Council would need to decide what criteria it would apply to those teams and staff who spent a proportion of their time on housing-related support.  At the moment these staff were uncertain about how a potential transfer would affect their jobs, whether they would transfer or whether their jobs were at risk.  Officers undertook to provide written advice on these matters for all staff in support roles.

Tenants & Leaseholders

The main concern was to ensure that accurate information and explanation was available to all tenants and leaseholders.  The consultation programme was welcomed and the numbers of people attending events and participating in the Sounding Board were all signs that information was reaching its target and people were beginning to take notice.  There had been suggestions that some tenant representatives were showing bias in favour of the housing association option but their aim throughout the process had been simply to establish the facts and ensure that all tenants were properly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Tuesday 18 April 2006, 7.00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Easthampstead House