To consider the following housing related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 9 October:
· Housing Delivery Test Action Plan
· Housing Strategy
· Enforcement Policy – Private Sector Housing
· Discretionary Licensing
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Keiron Wilson. Portfolio Holder for Housing
Also Councillor Margaret Phipps, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning for Housing Delivery test Action Plan.
The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 1 October 2019 and available to view at the following link:
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3722&Ver=4
Minutes:
Housing Delivery Test Action Plan
The Portfolio Holders for Strategic Planning and Housing presented a report, a copy of which has been circulated and appears as Appendix ‘A’ of these minutes in the Minute Book.
It was explained that in February 2017 a white paper ‘Fixing Our Broken Housing Market’ was published setting out the government’s plan to increase housing supply. The white paper set a national building target of approximately 300,000 new homes annually.
A measure to assess whether councils were building enough homes locally was introduced and included a housing delivery target. Councils that fell below 95% of their housing delivery target were required to produce a Housing Delivery Test (HDT) Action Plan.
Cabinet were being asked to agree the publication of the BCP HDT Action Plan. The plan identified 5 key strategic factors to help drive forward the delivery of housing.
The plan would be implemented in 2019-2022 and would be monitored by a steering group jointly led by officers across Growth and Infrastructure and Housing. Progress on the action plan would be reported annually to Council and staffing resources would be increased to drive forward delivery.
The Board were informed that between 2016-2019 Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Councils granted planning permission for 10,425 homes, 3,705 of these were delivered. It was therefore considered important to understand the barriers to development and to work with landowners and developers to help progress developments.
It was also recognised that the national targets had some anomalies and further work was required, by national government, to understand them, with some councils struggling to meet their targets whilst others were reaching circa 200%.
Two technical errors were highlighted. On page 165, under 2.4, the figure should read 730 instead of 722. Additionally, on page 181, 4.12 Christchurch Town Council should be replaced with Highcliffe and Watford Parish Council.
A number of questions were raised and discussed by members of the Board at the meeting, including;
· The figures for the number of units to be delivered. This was available on page 167 of the report;
· Whether the target had been appealed, what was being done to appeal it and the cost of the work. Initially the Council would gather evidence to inform its Local Plan. The Local Plan would identify a housing delivery target for the BCP area. This target would form the basis of any challenge to the national target. The work would be carried out using legacy budgets;
· That environmental constraints would be taken into consideration when identifying a housing delivery target in the Local Plan and that BCP Council would work with neighbours under the Duty to Cooperate to deliver housing;
· That lobbying government was important and developing housing was on the LGA’s agenda. It was highlighted that this area needed further discussion;
· That taking direct action and being proactive in engaging developers was important, particularly in relation to the communications plan and in developing an understanding of barriers and reasons why sites may have stalled;
· Why the Winter Gardens wasn’t on the Cabinet Forward Plan. The application would not be moved forward until a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) was in place;
· That there could be a benefit in bringing forward the Strategic Planning Forum;
· Whether planning could be more flexible, particularly in relation to car parking requirements;
· The impact increased resource would have on budgeting. Existing resource would be redirected to priority areas. There could be a need for additional staff, but this was not yet determined because BCP Council’s restructure process was underway;
· The importance of ensuring delivery of housing because national government can intervene if targets aren’t being met;
· The importance of the communications plan and the engagement of key stakeholders beyond the BCP geography;
· Whether the Board could receive yearly updates on this item.
BCP Housing Strategy – approval to consult
The Portfolio Holder for Housing presented a report, a copy of which has been circulated and appears as Appendix ‘B’ of these minutes in the Minute Book.
The BCP Housing Strategy would be a key policy for the council. It would outline the local and national housing context and would assist in the funding and delivery of the council’s strategic priorities going forward.
The strategy would also anticipate future housing issues and would provide an action plan to address current local issues such as homelessness, new housing supply and private sector housing standards.
The Board were considering a report that set out the proposed consultation process to Cabinet. The proposal was for a consultation period of 12 weeks with high level communications across different channels, including a targeted interactive stakeholder consultation, engagement workshops and discussions at formal meetings.
A multi-disciplinary steering group would be established to manage the consultation process and the development of the strategy. The final strategy would be drafted in 2020 and then put to Cabinet for endorsement and adoption.
A number of questions were raised and discussed by members of the Board at the meeting, including
· That the Overview and Scrutiny Board were keen to be engaged in the development of the strategy;
· That the document would benefit from incorporating passion, actions and outcomes, particularly in regard to the communications plan;
· That affordability of housing for young people should be included within the plan;
· That including ideas within the consultation process could help facilitate it.
Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy
The Portfolio Holder for Housing presented a report, a copy of which has been circulated and appears as Appendix ‘C’ of these minutes in the Minute Book.
The Overview and Scrutiny Board were asked to review the BCP Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy ahead of its consideration by Cabinet.
The policy detailed how standards would be regulated in the private rented sector and how empty homes would be tackled in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. The policy also included details of the legislation and its application across BCP Council, in addition to information on the processes for formal and informal enforcement, risk assessments and financial penalties.
It was highlighted that the policy would also explain the service and approach that residents and landlords could expect from the private rented sector, including details of liability and expected standards. It would also help to ensure a consistent approach from council officers.
The aim of the policy was to raise standards in the private rented sector by working alongside owners, landlords, letting agencies and tenants, whilst recognising that enforcement can be necessary to protect the public and the environment.
It was highlighted that there was a significant amount of legislation to support the regulation of housing conditions and the policy had aligned preceding policies with minimal change to the legislative functions and processes. It was proposed that the policy be reviewed in 24 months.
A number of questions were raised and discussed by members of the Board at the meeting, including;
· Changes to the policy included the introduction of civil penalties and the tenant fee’s act amendments;
· The aim of the policy was to work with landlords to improve housing standards informally without having to take formal action, outcomes of the previous policies included 100’000 civil penalties for offences committed;
· That owners of empty homes would be engaged as soon as possible. This could be through long-term support, advice and guidance. If the property was having a negative impact on the community there would be targeted action;
· Whether the policy was having the desired impact on landlords’ behavior. It was highlighted that engagement included a landlords’ conference, direct emails and other methods that could promote awareness and provide skills and knowledge to landlords;
· The impact of changes to amenity standards. It was explained that partnership working was key to ensuring affordable and carbon neutral options;
· Gaps in data in The Equality Impact Assessment were due to the council not collecting personal details that weren’t required for the job. It was highlighted that the policy was likely to have a positive impact on equality and where there could be a negative impact mitigation had been included within the policy;
· Details of risk assessments for Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO’s);
· The policy would be made available on the BCP website. There would also be signposting and work with partners to promote it;
· That a record was kept of landlords and agents who were repeatedly not managing properties effectively;
· Tenants having problems with their landlord could call the Council’s helpline or contact their local Councillor;
· Whether enforcement policy had been an effective way of working with Private Sector Landlords;
· That prosecutions took up a disproportionate amount of time which meant resources for proactive work was limited;
· The Housing Health and Safety Rating System was being discussed nationally;
Discretionary Licensing
The Portfolio Holder for Housing presented a report, a copy of which has been circulated and appears as Appendix ‘D’ of these minutes in the Minute Book.
The report sought approval to launch a public consultation on the potential introduction of two Discretionary Licensing Schemes within the BCP area. These were Additional Licensing which is the licensing of Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO’s) that fall outside of the mandatory licensing definition and Selective Licensing which is the licensing of units of private sector accommodation within a certain area.
It was highlighted that the private rented sector accounted for 22% of homes in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole compared to a national average of 19% of homes. In some areas up to 62% of homes were in the private rented sector.
It was explained that high density, high population areas with high levels of private rented sector accommodation often suffered from a lack of community cohesion, tenants with challenging and chaotic lifestyles and high levels of anti-social behavior and crime.
It was recommended that Cabinet approve a 12-week consultation on the introduction of Discretionary Licensing due to the significance of this issue and the need to facilitate a greater impact than could be achieved through small-scale interventions and strategies.
The consultation process would include the development of a business case and options appraisals, that would outline the rational for Discretionary Licensing. Residents, tenants, landlords, managing agents and members of the community who live or operate businesses or services in the area would be consulted.
The consultation would cost £69,500. This cost would be recovered in licensing fees, if the scheme was agreed. If the scheme was not agreed the consultation response would be used to develop service responses and strategies to tackle issues that arose from the consultation’s evidence base. The scheme would require approval from the Secretary of State.
It was highlighted that if implemented effectively Discretionary Licensing could ensure landlords were a fit and proper person; there was good and fair management of tenancy relations; landlords had support to participate in regeneration and to tackle antisocial behavior effectively; there were protections for vulnerable tenants; strategic knowledge for targeted inspections and actions were developed; support was available for landlords to improve the worst properties; the number of occupants would be limited to the properties size and the properties would be properly maintained.
A number of questions were raised and discussed by members of the Board at the meeting, including
· That Bournemouth Council had previously looked at Selective Licensing and it was concluded, through seeing it in action, that positive results hadn’t been seen in other councils;
· That there was no exact figure for the cost of the scheme to landlords because Cabinet approval was necessary before further work on costs could be undertaken, however the Chartered Institute of Housing said the average cost was £500 over 5 years. This is the equivalent of £1.92 a week. There was also potential for savings, for example draft proofing could reduce energy bills;
· The costs and benefits of the scheme would be considered in the consultation;
· That the National Landlords Association and other bodies were against Discretionary Licensing;
· Whether there was a risk that the problem of bad landlords would not be resolved;
· The financial implications of the scheme, particularly considering enforcement would not be funded through the license fee. It was explained that enforcement officers were in place through existing budgets and it was expected that the need for enforcement action would reduce due to the continuous regulation of licenses;
· That persistent issues had been identified around private sector renting across BCP and a high-level analysis around whether Discretionary Licensing could support dealing with some of those issues had been carried out. The next step would be for Cabinet to agree the public consultation. Following the consultation, a detailed options appraisal would take place;
· There was concern that there was no evidence or proof that the scheme had worked elsewhere, and the Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy covered this without the additional expense of the licensing;
· That there was evidence from different councils that Discretionary Licensing worked due to continuous regulation and the ability to target specific areas. It was also explained that having a regulatory body can engage landlords and help residents;
· Whether the increase in standards could lead to an increase in rents;
· That landlords may leave the area if licensing is introduced;
· The risk of landlord fees being higher than anticipated and of costs being passed on to tenants;
· Whether Discretionary Licensing would still require an enforcement route;
· The importance of signposting to the scheme;
· Whether or not residents were likely to benefit from the scheme;
· That an independent review by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government found Discretionary Licensing did not cause displacement of residents or cause landlords to move out of the area;
· That the Chartered Institute for Housing considered 50 cases of Selective Licensing across the country and said the scheme was not a quick win but many of the schemes delivered significant benefits;
· That targeted enforcement was a considerable cost to the Council and the consultation was not pursuing the case for Selective Licensing but was intending to consider options;
· Whether more evidence for Discretionary Licensing should be considered before the outlay for the consultation.
RESOLVED that:-
That prior to the consultation period associated with Discretionary Licensing further information on the success of targeted enforcement be considered by Cabinet to determine whether Discretionary Licensing is necessary.
Vote: 6/5