Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Paul Bettison, Henry Bone, Robert Clarke, Richard Ireland, Eva Jones, Simon Sellick and Alan Ward

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2006 were received and approved as a correct record.

To hear from a local Authority with retained housing stock

The Steering Group received a presentation from John Swanton, Assistant Director of Housing, Waverley Borough Council, Surrey.  Waverley had recently received a ‘NO’ vote in a tenant transfer ballot.  Mr Swanton had been invited to describe the situation to the Steering Group and the steps the Council would now take, given the tenants’ decision that ownership of their homes should remain with the Council.

Waverley had decided to propose transfer of its housing stock to a new local housing association, as it was unable to meet the Decent Homes Standard within its existing resources.  It also wished to meet the aspirations of its tenants to exceed the decent homes standard with a programme of double-glazing; estate improvements; sound-proofing; and to increase the supply of affordable housing in the Borough.

A DVD was shown which had been used in the pre-ballot period by Waverley Borough Council to help tenants understand why it was recommending transfer to a housing association and the benefits this would bring.  The ballot result, on a 68.6% turnout, had been 47.25% For Transfer and 52.75% Against.

A very effective anti-transfer campaign had been run by organised opposition.  They had told tenants that the benefits on offer were ‘too good to be true’ (despite the offer document being legally binding and verified by Housing Corporation, the Government Office and the Independent Tenant Adviser).  They had also claimed  that a 4^th option would soon be available because the Government was going to change its mind and provide more funding for local authorities to meet the decent homes standard (which it didn’t).  Other misinformation included threatened loss of tenants’ rights (which were protected by law), rent increases (which would have been the same either way), and privatisation scares (which were unfounded).

Other factors contributing to the ‘NO vote’ had included:

·         Lack of real champions for the transfer – most councillors valued the council’s landlord role and involvement with tenants – they didn’t want transfer to happen.  They could see that the Government had changed the housing finance rules in a way which many observers considered unfair against councils. 

·         The poor reputation of some existing housing associations.

·         Inaccurate reporting in the local press.

·         Fear of change

Although tenants had voted against transfer, the Council was still charged by the Government Office to meet the decent homes standard.  The Government official had been unable to advise when asked what would happen if the standard was not met.  The Council was required to conduct an ‘options re-appraisal’.  The option of an ALMO had been considered but the advice of the Government Office was that Waverley would be unlikely to be seen as a priority case for ALMO funding.

In order to strive toward the decent homes standard, the council was having to raise cash by selling off HRA property: small parcels of amenity land, garage sites, individual houses – but a proportion of those capital receipts had to be paid to the Government and the sites were lost as potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Members of the Steering Group, along with other tenants and officers attended a visit to Peerless Housing on 27 March 2006.  Members of the Steering Group are invited to report back on what they found out.

The Steering Group considered the comments of those who had been able to attend the recent visit to Peerless Housing in Surrey Heath.  A number of people had provided written comments, which would be included in the Tenants Newsletter after next. 

All had received a warm welcome and a great deal of useful information.

The amount of money available to housing associations and the quality of the sheltered scheme they visited had impressed staff representatives.  The Board of 16 included 3 councillors, 4 tenants and 9 independent people with relevant skills.  This had enabled the association to respond well to tenants’ needs and make rapid progress since being established.

Tenant representatives observed that any host was likely to show its best aspects to visitors but nevertheless there had been a lot to be impressed by.  The housing association was able to make long-term financial plans over a 30 year cycle because it did not have to cope with the frequent changes in funding rules that applied to local authorities.  They had spent money on replacement windows in all properties and environmental improvements.  A grass-cutting service for the elderly and disabled was provided at £163,00 per year .  The two sheltered schemes visited were of a high standard and the residents were happy and contented with the service they received.

On behalf of a number of members of the Tenants and Leaseholders Panel, Peter Maguire will present the case for considering retention of the housing stock in Council ownership.

The Steering Group received a presentation given by Peter Maguire on behalf of a group of tenants who wished to ensure that due consideration was given to the case for council homes remaining in council ownership.  Mr Maguire read two submissions which made assertions requiring a response and raised a series of general concerns about housing associations.  Members of the Steering Group stressed the need to provide answers to all the assertions made and to ensure that these were debated and discussed with reference to the facts.

In summary the assertions for the Steering Group to consider were:

·                    That in the April 2005 test of opinion, 67% of tenants and leaseholders wished to remain with the Council and the test of opinion should have only included the two options, not four

·                    That the Council had always intended to go for a transfer

·                    That there had been ‘scaremongering’ in the local press about the Council’s inability to provide new housing

·                    That a new association would not be able to provide new housing for at least 10 years

·                    That secure tenancies would be replaced by assured tenancies on transfer and that eviction would be easier for the landlord to achieve under assured tenancies

·                    That a third of housing associations would not meet the decent homes standard by 2010

·                    That transfer associations had 39% higher management costs than councils

·                    That housing associations were private companies

·                    That a local housing association could be merged with or taken over by larger associations

·                    That council staff could lose rights on transfer to a housing association

·                    That most tenants and leaseholders were happy with the services they received from the council

·                    That the Council would be able to find the money if it was committed to keeping the stock

·                    That direct council management ensured local accountable decision making, giving a sense of security and community service, which could be lost under a housing association

·                    That Bracknell’s New Town status put in a stronger position than most authorities to reach the decent homes standard

·                    That Council-employed maintenance staff would be local and more responsive to emergencies

·                    That proportions of the negative housing subsidy had been used in previous years to subsidise the Council’s non-housing services

·                    That the stock would be sold at lower than market value and would be able to be resold at profit by a housing association

·                    That tenant and leaseholder representatives on the board would be only 3 out of 12 on a board of twelve

·                    That housing associations would be able to alter pledges given on takeover

The Steering Group briefly discussed the questions raised by these assertions and it was agreed that a further meeting of the Steering Group would be held on 2 May  2006 at 7.00pm, for which officers should prepare a considered response to the points made, to enable a full and informed discussion.

The Chair of the Tenants and Leaseholders Panel thanked Peter Maguire and the others involved in putting the presentation together.  It was important that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To receive an oral update on consultation activities since the previous meeting

The Steering Group received a brief update from Ilona Cowe on progress with the consultation programme. 

Sheltered Scheme meetings – about 200 tenants had been contacted directly

The Roadshow on 7 April – had made contact with 66 more people

The door-knocking programme had now reached 605 homes

An event at the Sports Centre on 11 April, targeted at younger tenants and leaseholders, had been successful and led to useful discussions

The Survey of tenants and leaseholders had now closed and the responses were being compiled.  Preliminary findings should be available for the next meeting.

The write-up of Questions and Answers form the Grange event was now available and would be circulated.

Tuesday 2 May 2006, 7.00pm (Minute 33 refers)