Transcript

Transcript

window on the era so that we have a period up to the 31st of March 2024 where we now need to move forward with refunding any overpayments that people have made. We began a process to recruit a project manager to come in and take this project forward for us because it's a large project that's going to take a huge amount of resource. We've been very clear that it will need a number of staff in order to manage this. Once we are in a position to begin the refunds we have had some difficulties in recruiting to that post. We've advertised it twice and at the point of going to print with this report we're still in that position. We have now offered the post to somebody but we still have to go through all of the appropriate references and recruitment checks before we can be confident and announce formally who we've got in the post. So that has caused us some issues and meant that we've had other staff still covering some of this work. After putting the Reds right from April 2024 we did a huge piece of work at the very back end of March to try and identify the amount of money that is likely to be refunded because we were required by the auditors to include an estimate in our accounts for 22, 23 and 23, 24. We completed that piece of work at the very end of March and the outcome of that estimate is in section 4 of the report which identifies it just under 4.4 million is expected to need to be refunded either to the department for work and pensions if it's paid by benefit or universal credit potentially or to the tenants themselves if they paid that money. The next piece of work for us is to move on with detailed checking of the calculations to make sure that we have individual calculations on a property by property basis that we can validate and be sure that we are confident in the amount of money that we need to credit every tenant's rent account with and we are in discussions with the department for work and pensions that is really one of the biggest risks at the moment to our timescales is that we are in early discussions with the department of work and pensions on how we will deal with repayment of any universal credit in the event of housing benefit we are in discussions with the IT providers because it's down to how we actually communicate between the IT systems in order to do recapulations of benefit and pay the amount of benefit that's been overpaid back to the DWP through that route we have the IT systems within the organisation to be able to move that piece of work forward where universal credit is concerned the department of work and pensions pay the tenant directly and then they pay us their rent so we don't have any direct relationship with universal credit in the same way and we need to come to an agreement with them about how we will treat this and how we will rectify this error in relation to universal credit until we can resolve that we're not in a position to be able to move forward and start making any refunds we do still intend as we committed to in March to write to tenants in the summer we are anticipating sending that letter out shortly after the general election so we will write to tenants in July to give them an update on where we are and hopefully by then we will have some more information from the DWP so that we can be clearer on the timescales from the summer onwards. As I say the financial implications are identified in section 4 with just under 3.3 million in relation to the service charge error going back to April 2004 and just under 1.1 million in relation to the affordable rent error going back to 2015-16 and I'm happy to take any questions that anybody's got on the report. Thank you Julia, are there any questions? I can see they're going to be complications with universal credit because if people get refunds directly to them that could upset calculate it's complicated I don't know what what do you think the nature of these refunds might be maximum amount, the only idea then what they might be in terms of for an individual for the individual tenant it does depend on whether they're affected by the service charge error or the affordable rent error but they do you know move into thousands of pounds for some individual tenant so for some tenants the amount per tenant is not insignificant and that is one of the department of work and pensions concerns that if we repay universal credit that the tenant has paid us back to them directly that there isn't a clear mechanism or the ability for the DWP to ensure that they would get that money back or be able to recover that money back from the tenant. Legislation does allow for the DWP to demand that money back from us directly even though it was paid to us by the tenant so as I say we're in the early stages of discussions with them and hopefully we will have a way forward once we've concluded those. Thank you for well let's hope that paying back directly to universal credit will be better than individual tenants getting it whether there's an issue about them paying it back because it then affects their income so I can see it's a very complicated process yeah it is complicated yeah yeah thank you very much any further questions I think that's some very extraordinary anybody else oh yeah oh harmony sorry yes can you assure us that you will be searching for mechanism where universal credit or even housing benefit is paid directly back to the DWP because many people on benefits struggle to manage money as it is particularly with income coming in only once a month and therefore any system that pays it but directly back to the tenants may lead to increased debt for tenants where they cannot manage this overpayment and paying it back themselves. I can confirm that in respect of housing benefit we won't be making any repayment of overpaid housing benefit back to the tenant because we will work to identify and find a resolution to be able to pay that back directly to the DWP through our benefit system I'm not able to confirm that that will be the case in relation to universal credit until we've concluded those discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions because it won't be our decision in isolation and the legislation allows them to determine unfortunately which route we go down so I can't give that guarantee at the moment. But obviously that's what we hope. You can't give an answer, that's what we hope. We'll bear that in mind and I take what you're saying. Thank you. So we put it to the vote then. It's the, yes sorry that's just a small point I'm sure you've taken a central count but if you if we do end up paying people back money then and they were receiving universal credit or are receiving universal credit is that becoming income and might prevent them in the future taking that universal credit? But I think that's what I was kind of referring to. Once you get an unexplained bit of money then that's taking the count as that's your income for that month isn't it? So that then puts all kinds of complications into your future claims so we hope that you can get the best resolution for this for everybody's sake, yeah. Thank you, yes just to confirm I know you referenced there that you hope we will certainly be pushing for a resolution that doesn't put tenants into debt wherever possible that is obviously our preference. We have also in our communications already and it is planned this will continue to be in our communications with tenants is just reminding them that yes you're absolutely right their thresholds of income are taken into account and any savings they may have in their bank accounts does affect benefit payments over certain thresholds but what they are able to do and we've made them aware of this is pay off maybe other debts that they have you know so that they can you know make sure that they're within those thresholds but also put them in a better financial position with maybe other debts they have so that is part of our communication there because as you say you know as much as possible we don't want this to you know for anybody to be financially worse off as a result of this so we're working very hard in our communications in that sense. Thank you, all right, ready? Oh, last show really, I've been very generous here, gone. It may be that I could work this out but in it's the table under implications of financial implications so it's yeah item four so after three point eleven and you've got formal with name and former anonymous. How do you deal with the anonymous? Do you actually have records with the person's name or they disappeared? No, so we don't under the GDPR legislation which we had switched on we had the GDPR functionality switched on in our housing management and rent accounting system until we discovered this error we switched it off once we discovered it so we don't anonymize anymore but to be GDPR compliant we had some software that basically wiped the information in relation to any tenancy that was over six years old but you know terminated more than six years ago and had a nil balance on it so if there was no arrear and no credit balance on the account and it had been terminated over six years ago the system effectively wiped it so all we have is the tenant name being anonymous and there is no rent account to go into so we're able to calculate the amount of money that we know the person paid for that period because our charges are based upon the property and not on the tenant but we don't know who was in the property in that period what we do intend to do is to make sure that we provide information on the website so that if anybody who was a tenant many years ago feels that they want to contact us and pursue any refund that might be owed to them they can fill in an online form when we get to that stage and as long as they can provide us with sufficient information to be able to confirm that they were the person in the property for that period then we would consider making a refund to them so that is going to have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and the refund policy that we bought through in the march committee address that in the way we would approach it thank you and I'm going to say that I'm going to preach the vote now it's recommendations at two on page 317 those in favor of the recommendation which is basically noting progress those in favor yeah unanimous executive counsel do you agree the recommendation yes I do chair and I really want to thank Julia and her group for all the hard work over this it's took six months so far and they've done a fantastic job to get this far so well done to you and say thank you to your colleagues Thank you Councillor Burdle pass that on I don't want to be much I think if we can do next to gender item it says a need for another break should we go between this one the next year after ten yeah okay so I'm going to go now to a gender item ten which is the yeah after a gender item ten yes and it's a pay anyway one pay three two five and it's a kind of carry forwards and it's Julia again yeah thank you chair this is the out turn report for the housing revenue count for 23 24 and the recommendations in the report include a confirmation of the amount of money that is being requested as a carry forward from a revenue perspective from 23 24 into 24 25 those carry forwards were approved in principle in March we are now just confirming final figures in respect to them and it confirms a carry forward request of just over 12 and a half million in respect to capital expenditure which will be considered by this committee and then subject to approval at this committee will go on to full council for final ratification the out term position for the HRA last year at a service level reported an overspend in expenditure with the biggest contributor to that being an overspend in repairs that combined an overspend in response repairs because of disrepair claims and down for mold repairs with an overspend in void repairs because of the condition that we are receiving properties back in and the amount of money it's costing to get them back into a letable state with additional expenditure also in relation to some of our compliance areas where you're aware that we have done some significant work over the last few months and certainly in the back end of last year to ensure that we're moving to a position that we are compliant in respect of all of aspects of housing maintenance. So we would have been reporting an overspend for the HRA but we made a conscious decision and in the financing at the end of last year to restructure the way that we finance the capital program for last year from the report that I've just presented in respect of the rent regulation errors we were required to adjust our opening balances our opening reserves for the HRA at the beginning of last financial year by the 3.8 million that we expect to need to refund to tenants up to that point in time and to deal with the half a million that we expect to need to refund in relation to last year's charges in the year itself. Now making that adjustment in the accounts and recognising that we need to refund that money if we'd left it as it was would have brought our general housing revenue account reserves at the end of 2324 down to a level that was below our prudent minimum level. We set a prudent minimum level of reserves to ensure that we can deal with any unforeseen circumstances and the rent regulation error isn't a perfect example of the reason why we have those reserves. We have minimum reserves of just over 5 million and target reserves of 7 million and that meant that we were able to respond in year to that error without it causing an immediate financial issue, a cash flow issue for the housing revenue account. So what we needed to do is ensure that even though we've had to take that into consideration we left ourselves at the end of the year still with a prudent minimum balance so that we can start 24/25 in an equally robust position and we did that by reducing the revenue funding into capital to leave more money in our revenue account and we instead used a capital reserve that we have to fund some of the new build program in last year. That money would have been used in future years, we just altered the funding to make sure that we had sufficient money left in our revenue reserves at the end of last year. We also used that reserve to avoid the need to borrow last year to fund new build expenditure. The borrowing the interest rates are so high at the moment that we don't want to borrow until we really have to and we want to be able to make sure that we utilise any existing resources we have before we go out and borrow at the rates at the level they are at the moment. We will have no choice but borrow in 24/25 because we have very little reserve left to fund any expenditure now and we're in a position where all of our new build expenditure will need to be funded by borrowing. The appendices in the report identify the major variances, so Appendix B highlights the major revenue variances compared to budget, Appendix C confirms the carry forwards that we requested in March and are just ratified as part of this process and Appendix D confirms the position for the capital program and the request to carry forward 12.5 million in respect to capital resource into the next financial year. Although that is a significant carry forward, it is lower than we have had in previous years and we did spend a significant proportion of the capital program last year. There was still some unavoidable slippage in relation to the delivery of the decent homes programme and access issues into properties and there was some slippage in the new build programme that we recognise every year where we'll always set budgets at the outset of a project and then there will inevitably be delays when we get on site in securing planning and securing vacant possession in some of the site surveys that we do when we get on site. Some of those things will always introduce delays in the process and we re-phase those budgets. The request as part of this report is to re-phase quite a considerable amount of the new build investment based upon our latest estimates of when we will deliver those homes and I'm happy to take any questions anybody has. Thank you, Julia. You've made all that very complicated process reasonably clear because it's a complicated one. Are there questions? Councillor MARTINERLE. Thanks, Chair. So I think, I guess, looking at the revenue, obviously one of the other spends that jumps out is the underspending on smoke detectors to a tune of about £150,000 which strikes me as quite a lot of smoke detector installation and, obviously, access issues are highlighted as part of that. I suppose my comment was really I presume that underlines the need for a kind of consistent access policy for the installation of critical works like smoke detectors and I think regarding the capital program our concerns would relate to as you've already alluded to the significant underspends, particularly in the decent homes program, which, as we all know, is it's important for residents to be living in best possible conditions. I know the underspend this year was about $6 million and last year was about $3 million. Do we consider this is going to keep increasing indefinitely with further slippage or is there a natural sort of point where we have to fundamentally rethink about the way we're delivering that program and, I guess, to a lesser extent the same would apply to the estate investment program, which also is underspend by about $1.5 million.

• Thank you, Councillor Martinelli. In relation to the smoke detectors, you're right, there were access issues. We have had access issues with that program. We have requested a carry forward of that money so that that work can be completed, but you're correct and I will feed back to the relevant officers that, you know, there is a requirement for us to consider how we best access the properties in order to avoid this issue in the future. The same thing goes with the capital program and the decent homes program. We don't re-phase all of the money into the coming financial year, so some of the money from previous years is re-phased further down the line because there is a recognition that if we keep re-phasing any underspend into the following financial year, that it is impossible for the contractor to have sufficient capacity to actually deliver, you know, two years worth of work in one go, they don't have the workforce to be able to do that, so there is some element of re-phasing into future years and we will revisit the entire 30-year investment program again as part of the medium-term financial strategy in November of this year, where we will re-phase that capital investment based upon updated information on stock condition and on the capacity of contractors to deliver it, but I do take on board your comment about access issues and I will feed that back to colleagues. Thank you, Councillor Gough for all of you. Okay, I've got quite a few questions, so with reference to its item 312 on the capital financing and reducing the use of direct revenue financing, but I just wondered on the high interest rates, so I agree that we have high interest rates at the moment, but I just wonder what the public works board interest rate was at the moment, so that was my first question. And then the second is, it's really a minor comment and this is on the diagram, I hope you can hear me, because I'm sitting back from my mark frame. So this is on page 328 of the report, so section 31, and it's the table showing gross expenditure and income charts for 2023, 4, and 2022 to 3, really I would like to see in each of the top charts, the total expenditure and total income, I mean you've got £1 million, you've got the breakdown, this is clearly meant to show the breakdown, but it's useful to have, rather than have to add it up myself, just have that included, so that's really for future. So yeah, and then on 3, 6, depreciation, so on the infrastructure assets, plan equipment, equipment, okay it's not a huge amount we're talking about, but this is less than expected, is this a function of the standard depreciation formula, is it a good thing, why is it less than expected, and will there be a smooth or big step down in value perhaps next year? And then I had some, well I had some questions, one on the care home improvement agency 311, so I understand the end of spend, but we do have a lot of tenant repairs outstanding, and it's really how much would the access, shall I carry on talking, can you hear me Julia? I can hear you, yeah. Access and tenant, how much do access and tenant refusal contribute to this, I'm somewhat worried about outstanding repairs for aging residents, who used to do the work themselves, some are in the old people's bungalows, and others are having difficulties with minor repairs, so given we've got furniture and other things I haven't expected spending in council housing, I'm really just a bit surprised about the care underspend, so that's the home improvement agency. And then on for weeks I had some questions, do you want me to carry on, or does this- Shall I answer the first ones first and then come back to the second set, if that's okay? Okay, so get back to the beginning of this. So in relation to the charts, yes, no problem at all, take on board or comment and I can add the totals in the future. In relation to the depreciation question, so we depreciate our plant and equipment, things like our IT, so we invest money periodically to purchase a new IT system or upgrade the IT system that we have, we then write that asset off over a number of years, and I think it was our main housing management system has been written down over a number of years and therefore doesn't have the same value as it did, it's written down and we now have it in there, so that was a fortuitous underspend, and we will adjust budgets going forward to take account of that, but at some point we will then need to reinvest in order to replace or upgrade the system again, and then the depreciation will kick back in for the new investment, so that there is a bit of peaks and troughs in relation to that investment. The table, 311, you had a question around the disabled facilities grants, so we underspend by 384,000 in respect of disabled facilities grants, work delivered through the Home Improvement Agency, that services demand led, so if they publicise the service, they market the service, they've been out and about doing all sorts of things to try and garner greater interest in it, but we were only able to spend that money where we have people that put in applications for those grants, and it's not that we're turning people down, it's that we just don't have the demand for it that we had many years ago. In relation to the capital financing, you think 312, we did you just want an explanation of that? Well, it was really how interest rates look in comparison. Okay, so the interest rates at the moment, the Public Works Loans Board changed their interest rates twice a day, every day, and they do fluctuate, but they're probably up at about 5.5% at the moment. We get a slight reduction on their published rate within the HRA at the moment, which brings it down to I think 0.6% below the rate that they publish, so if we were to borrow at the moment, we would still be looking to borrow at just under 5%, whereas the assumptions in our business model at the moment are that it's going to be just over four, so the rates are still considerably higher than they are in our current business plan because we had expected them to come down, and they're much higher than we had in two years ago when we were borrowing at 2.5%, and it had been at that sort of level for quite a long time, so the borrowing rate does have a really significant impact on our business plan. Then you said you've got a question to move on to in relation to voids? Yeah, thank you. So on voids, yeah, so we've got 618K, I think it was. So we've got poor condition temporary housing voids, so the normal void repairs are quicker, and then we have the housing audit, so that presumably means that the normal housing, the voiding is that they're in less bad repair. But why are the temporary voids in poor condition? And what's the churn? Is this significant? Are these all ten properties that we own as a city? Okay, can you just confirm where in the report you're referring to? Sorry, I'm in appendix B now, sorry. So it's actually in the table, under this maintenance at the bottom of page 3.37, where does some stuff work? Yeah, there's a section. So we did have quite a significant amount of void work in temporary accommodation with properties that we purchased to accommodate refugees, having void works on them. I don't think our temporary accommodation is any particular poor condition, the comment around the poor condition that voids are being returned to us in relates to our stock more generally. So that comment doesn't relate specifically to temporary accommodation voids. We are receiving back properties in a worse condition than we have done in previous years, and that's been a pattern over the last couple of years. We'd hoped that it might be something that was COVID related, and that it was because we maybe hadn't got into as many properties for a period of time, but it does seem to be continuing. So it is something we do need to address. We do have the tenancy audit process in place, and over time, we are getting into more and more of the properties as part of that tenancy audit. So we're actually identifying the condition of properties earlier, and we're able to engage with the tenants and do what we can to try and remedy the position before it gets any worse. But it is something we've experienced, as I said over the last couple of years, and it is costing us more to put these right. Thank you. I did have one more question. Oh, I don't know. You might have used your allowance. Yeah. So this is three, three, eight, and it's about the estate management. I still have concerns about the underspend, and it's on estate lighting, because I do have problems. We have problems, it seems, in my ward, with legacy estate lighting, and a particularly for elderly residents and for security. So I strongly support the upgrade program, but it's really more of a comment than anything else. I think that's me. Don't say thank you. Thank you. Okay, well, that's it. I've got Councillor Robert, you finish it. Councillor. I think Councillor Robert would discover what I wanted to cover. Thank you. What's a lovely approach? Thank you very much for doing that. Are anybody else's questions I could see harmony, yes? Yes, I just want you to make one comment on the underspend for the disabled facilities. I would just like it noted, basically, that one of the things that is contributing to this underspend is a lack of signpost to within the council. As a disabled person, many times when I've approached about getting adaptions and such like, we don't do that rather than, we don't do that, but there are these grants available to get it done. So can the council be more aware of signposting disabled people to the appropriate resources? Thank you. Thanks, Harmony. Samantha Shimon's going to respond to this. Thank you, Chair. Yes, absolutely. We need to be clearer on that. We do have a process that we follow. It does require residents to have an occupational therapist report because, you know, what we need to also make sure that the adaptations made are the right adaptations for that person and that, you know, they will deliver the clear outcomes, but absolutely, you know, that's another area where I talk about transparency. We're trying to make sure where possible we get our policies published so that they are there for tenants to reference and staff as well so they know where they are and there is work on the website that is taking place to help with all of that. Thank you, Councillor Burd. Thank you, Chair. And also, if you have any problems, please come to me. I've used the system. I do understand it all. And we've got to also think about the new builds we're doing, the new housing. We're building there now accessible homes. So some are just slightly accessible. Some are wheelchair accessible. So they go through the stages. So again, that's why we're underspending as well. But I think we've always had an underspindle on this. So, OK. The one thing to add, Chair, if I may, that the underspending relation to disabled facilities grants is in relation to housing association, tenants and private residents because they're the ones eligible for the re-disabled facilities grants to the better care fund. Our own tenants would have adaptations funded through the Council's Disabled Adaptations Program, which is different to the DFG program and we're not able to fund Council tenants using the DFG program. So we don't have such a significant underspend in our Council disabled adaptation program. This is the one that's out there for other people out in the community. Perhaps we'll just make sure that those other people out in the community, they get the information through whoever their lands. Thank you. Any further questions? Oh, sorry. Oh, I thought you... Anyway, you saw I shut up by that. So, I do have one question, which is, again, it's on page 338 and it's really a general question on how many people we have in temporary housing. And then I did have another minor question and this is about rental income on non-housing and Acumen Street is mentioned, which has been proved difficult to let. So I wonder what steps will be taken to ensure that these sorts of non-housing properties can be left in future. For example, Buckingham Street, and that development is completed, the shops there. But yeah, the first is on temporary housing numbers and the second is in the... So in relation to temporary housing, we have approximately 150 units of accommodation in our HRA that is currently used for temporary housing purposes. As a Council, we have a larger number of people in temporary accommodation, but from this report's perspective, which looks at the housing revenue account, we have about 150 units of our stock that are used for temporary accommodation purposes. In relation to the commercial property income, that's a mixture of garage income and commercial property income from shops, et cetera. You're right, we have had issues with letting the shops at Acumen Street. We do need to consider that on future investments. We did have a tenant lined up for the shop at Acumen Street, and we've done quite a lot of work in terms of agreeing heads of terms and getting right to the final stages, and then unfortunately it fell through right at the very end. We have put a budget aside to be able to do fit out works to those properties so that they are more attractive to commercial tenants, but it is still proving difficult to find a tenant for the Acumen Street shops, particularly in some of the other areas. Sometimes when we are building development sites, we are replacing shops that are there already. If those shops are well used, then the expectation is that we will be able to re-let them at the end of it. I think the Acumen Street shops weren't as well used prior to the redevelopment, and as I say, it's proving difficult particularly for us to let those. We haven't had the same issues on other sites yet, and we don't have the same issues when it comes to re-electing the rest of our portfolio. I take on board your comments and I will talk to property services and make sure that we consider how we market them and how we deliver them on future sites. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Julie. I think Councillor SWIFT had a question. Councillor interjecting. Thanks very much. This is following on from Councillor Porthrot who has just about – there's 150 people, we say, on temporary housing and in temporary housing. I just wondered how long the average is for those people to be in temporary housing before they get permanent positions. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. I don't have that data directly. I don't know whether Samantha Simon can answer that question. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. So again, I don't have that information. I am aware that the average amount of time in temporary accommodation has gone up as the number of homelessness applications has also risen. You know, we are aware of that. It is something that we are trying to address, but I'm more than happy to get back to Sarah with some figures around that to go in the minutes to be circulated. Councillor interjecting. Any more questions? I asked. Right. Okay then. We'll go to the recommendation then, which is one. Oh, we got these two parts. I ended up asking for voting on part one, which just got a little bit there. You can see it. The recommendations on page 327 are two. So under part one, those in favour of that recommendation, we can all vote on that. Yeah? If you wish to. Okay. Those in favour? Those against? Anybody abstaining? I've lost count of the numbers. Those four abstentations that are absent. I now hand over to the chair of the committee who is going to do the second vote. Thank you very much. Yes. What we're going to do now, I don't think there's any more discussion needed. So we're going to just vote on recommendations B and C of the report. So all those in favour? Six in favour? Those against? None. Those abstaining? Three. Okay. Councillor Burd, do you accept those? That recommendation? I do, chair. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. What we're going to do now is have another 10 minute break. We're being request of 15 minute break is being requested. We'll return here at five minutes after nine. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] If you have an older, for example, if you have an older people's housing strategy, then you might want to then have a younger people's strategy. You might want to have another strategy about other people's groups, but that's where we've moved to over the years to having a single housing strategy, but also a separate homelessness and rough sleeping strategy because we're required to do that. >> Thank you. An enormous amount of work has been done in preparation of this document, but it is opaque in my view. It doesn't, I clearly identified the changes in policy which it proposes. They're buried in the report, but there are a series of proposals within there which need us to examine and to consider. I'm going to take you to the next two where there are proposals on affordable housing requirements. And the issue of primary concern to me seems to be that of the affordable housing element of 40% on most properties and 25% on smaller sites. The proposal is that 25% of the 40% in other words, 10% of the total must be for some form of homeownership. And apparently this policy has been not that different in the previous five year plan. However, this council has never built any shared ownership housing. We do have some we took over from a scheme that the housing association has set up. But we've never built any so what is the point of having the policy in there that we can't, we never apply. There may be some social housing units which we do have a go at it. But the problem is I understand it and the offices have told us, is that in Cambridge house prices is so high that shared ownership doesn't work. So that's the first question which I think we should address. So, yeah, this has been in our policy. Well, the requirement for affordable homeownership and a proportional affordable homeownership in terms of affordable housing delivery has been in our in council policy actually for a number of a number of years. It was under affordable housing supplementary planning document in 2006, which I think required 70% of rented homes. And then the remainder would be an intermediate homeownership tenure. I think what we have to consider here is that a number of things really that national planning policy and I don't know whether Stephen Kelly would want to come in on this. I think he's on the call national planning policy requires 10% of all homes on new developments of 10 or more dwellings to be affordable homeownership. Now, what we're saying for this policy is we're not saying it has to be shared ownership, but we are saying that shared ownership is the preferred tenure. If you're considering those intermediate 10 years because since the last strategy was introduced, we've had new first homes policy, which has come home, come through nationally. And that has we've done some work on that. We've got a first we've got a first homes statement on on the website, which explains why first homes doesn't really work in Cambridge in high value area like Cambridge. We won't go into the detail at the moment. We're also have been instances in the past where things like rent to buy have gone through nationally. And there may be issues where people, you know, they can be in a property for five years and then they have the option to buy it. But then there's always, in some cases, I think nationally they have been either required if they haven't been able to buy they've been required to then leave and that causes issues as well. What we're saying here is that of the affordable home ownership 10 years shared ownership is the preferred option for greater Cambridge, but we do recognize that there may be cases and maybe areas and maybe parts of the area where it's not so easily deliverable because it's not affordable. We also consulted with housing associations. And again, some of those, not all of them said that actually shared ownership is one of the things in some areas that helps them to deliver because they get the subsidy cross subsidize the delivery of the other affordable housing. And it helps them to deliver the rented element of that affordable housing. The other issue I think just to really to bear in mind is that the vision proposed vision for the strategy is about homes and communities for all. So if we were to sort of remove any of that home ownership requirement, then we would be missing a group who are unable to access rent through housing through the normal housing register but also struggling to rent or buy on the open market. So yes, I don't know whether Stephen Kelly has something to say about the national position on that. The second area of concern is to do with affordable housing sizes, which also in our next two. Here we have the example of we are just, yes, we are told we must set housing sizes in line with the proportion of needs for the homes in the area. Now, the plan that we did have that ran until the end of last year allowed for Cambridge's needs and fortunes to be put her bedroom in size, for instance, to be taken as appropriate for Cambridge. And South Cambridge sure for different percentage use to be applicable to them proposal now is to put the same, both councils have the same ratios, in other words, we're averaging between them. It's certainly unnecessary. Cambridge and the South camps are quite different in the way they residents and population are set up. I do not understand why we should have to put the two together. My suggestion is that we identify what the Cambridge needs for the family size are and apply them to Cambridge, and the South campuses apply theirs for them. Why do we have to have them put to the same proportion. Well, what we have is we have the evidence that was taken from a piece of work that was carried out to support the emerging local plan, which was which showed the number of sort of the starting, which gives a starting point, shall I say, for the number of for the sizes of homes that might be required. We can take into account, you know, one of the things we would take into account is the number of how applicants on the housing register at any time. But what we also do is we don't, we don't just, I mean, you know, we might be, we want to clarify this in the policy, but we have sort of a set of sort of guideline criteria that we look at for each individual site that comes forward. So we don't just go for that starting point. We then look at other issues. So we'd look at, for example, the number of applicants on the housing register, we'd also look at things like how many homes have become available in that particular area over a period of time. So for cities for cities and South campuses, you say that might well be different. So the turnover of housing stock at that particular time, because that gives us the flavour of sort of what sizes might be required. We'd also look at things like the, the stock in the existing stock in the local area, because, you know, if you have an area which has, for example, a very high concentration of houses, we might want to sort of redress that balance between that particular area. We'd look at, you know, what sizes are being required for people who come through the homeless route, homelessness route. We'd look at existing, any existing section 106 requirements around sizes. And we'd also, if you have a large scale development, it might be more appropriate to develop smaller units in one phase, and then take that into account when you're looking at the next phase of the development, try and get a bit of a balance to make those needs. So this is purely a starting point. And then we look at each case on an individual basis and say, and look at what might be the appropriate mix for that. So it's not, it's certainly not setting stone. Stephen Kelly, did you want to add anything there? Chair, not to say too much more, but I think it's right that obviously the housing strategy is red, hand in glove with the planning policy framework and generally, in most circumstances, is used to shape new to shape third party new developments. Council's got its own program, and it's a facilitator alongside the local plan policy that we would always look to try and customize the housing, the precise housing format, tenure split and so forth, based upon locality and circumstances. So I think that I think looked at it looked at in parallel with the planning policy framework and the local plan, your housing and planning officers effectively use both of those documents and the evidence of patterns of need and so on that you've been referred to to shape a particular set of outcomes and it's then put in front of the planning committee for their final judgment on that point of balance. So it is, as has been outlined, a kind of starting point, but needs to be seen in combo with the policies in your local plan that also suggest that each site, a appropriate housing mix needs to be delivered and that gives quite a lot of flexibility to be able to deliver on your objectives in any particular area at that at that time the policy this policy is a kind of a door opener for that process, but it's not the singular way that we deliver the right mix of houses in each site. Thank you. Councillor Robertson, would you like to add other questions? It seemed to me that both officers are saying that, in fact, things are made more local, so therefore it would seem appropriate that we do separate the needs in the two. Anyway, I'll move on to the next one item. Next item I've got is minimum bed spaces, which wasn't in the previous plan, but it has come up to be proposed. I have no problem with that, actually. But the final point I do want to raise is, you know, next four, the affordable rents policy. This is in relation to bill to rent, isn't it? No, sorry. No, I've got the wrong one. That's also acceptable. Going on to our next five, bill to rent policies is the main last item. The existing policy has been for some time that we require a minimum of 20% of the total number of homes produced to be affordable. For the rents on them to be affordable. The experience that we've got in Cambridge, the only one in recent years of bill to rent, perhaps the only one there's ever been, of bill to rent in Cambridge, is one on Devon, Chicago, which has been approved on the basis of 20%. Because the developers just said 20%, so we'll have 20%. You said it's a minimum, but it isn't. It sure said great, effectively, is what they were saying. But we should be going for 40%. Maybe we should be saying a target of 40%, but we definitely shouldn't be going for 20%. It's just asking for travel. You can negotiate down from 40. You can't negotiate up from 20. It doesn't happen to the world either. So I would be interested to understand what else is going on about that one. So yes, we have our what our current policy and what we're proposing here is that a target, sorry, a minimum of 20% of homes in developments of 10 or more homes will be required to be provided as affordable private rent. And that 20%, what's the other one? Oh, so there was a discount to the market rent of 20%, sorry, I didn't explain that very clearly. The rent should be 20% below market rents for those types of property. Now, that, again, I think we know sort of need to consider in the context of national planning guidance, which sets those figures. At the moment, we don't have any evidence to suggest that anything more could be delivered. There was a little bit of discussion around, I'm not quite sure whether viability work was done through the local plan, but certainly we've had discussions with planners on this. And there isn't the evidence at the moment that we could achieve any more than that 20%. If you're asking for a target of 40% homes, I don't necessarily have a view on that, but I don't think we need to understand how that fits in with that. Having that kind of wording would fit in with the national planning guidance, which requires those percentages. Thank you, Councillor Bajint. Chair, I'd just like to talk just briefly about the 20% for affordable rent. Very shortly, Cambridge is going to have a lot more development the whole of this area. Hartree is coming in towards the planning committee right now in outline. The government have said, and I'm sure the new government, whatever colour that might be other than red, will say something similar. But a lot of the new builds that are coming to Cambridge and Cambridge will be billed to rent. And so the 20% is not about a few houses. It's about thousands of houses. And I think that we should dig in on the 40%. It shouldn't be a target. It should be something that we require. Now, if we approve a policy today of 20% and the new government comes in and changes things, then we're going to be behind the eight ball. I think that we should be talking about 40% and not even blinking. It's our policy. If it's laid down by government, then why would we be bothering to put it in there? So it's our policy now. I've got a number of other things that I want to say, but I just want to speak on that 20% of this second. Can I just respond to that? The one of the things to bear in mind when we consider this is that one of the other policy elements in our. Build to rent policy is that what we're aiming for is that you have a large scale development, which comes forward with a number of different 10 years. Then we would want what we'd be seeking for would be 40% affordable across that whole development. Now, whether we'd achieve that or not is a different matter because there's a lot of factors that would be considered. But if we wanted to achieve that policy by requiring 40% affordable private rent in those schemes, you could then potentially jeopardize bringing forward other 10 years of affordable housing on that wider development. So I think that just needs to be borne in mind when considering that. Thank you. Counselor Beijing. Did you have other questions? Yes, Chair. I think that we look on this. There seems to be some ambiguity here. My first question is, if we approve something here tonight, and if South camps approve it in their meeting, will any amendments then will have a combined policy? Will any amendments to that policy have to be approved by South camps as well as us? So that's a simple question. Yes, or no, I guess. My other point is that I think that we should be discussing building design. We should be talking about our environmentally friendly, how new homes are going to be, whether they're going to be single aspect, what sort of sizes they're going to have. So there's a whole framework of new policy. Now, some people are saying that's down to the local plan. I'm not totally convinced that it is down to the local plan. In fact, I'm far from convinced that it is. It should be part of our housing strategy. Stephen mentioned something about design in what he was saying, but I just want to clear the ambiguity. Should this contain an extra annex? It's funny that we call the manexes. Anywhere else we call them appendixes, but it's because it's housing, isn't it, that we talk about annexes. But should we need to know, should this include the design of new homes? Because right now, planning committee, for example, we get new homes come to us, which we're advised are not very practical because the single aspect homes, there's no through draft. Now, there's no policy to stop that. And every time it's mentioned a planning committee, people say, that's down to housing to deal with. It's not a planning matter. Housing have got to produce the methodology for designing new homes in the city. Now, my question is, is it down to housing or is it down to planning? Is it down to the local plan or is it down to this committee? So there's two questions. Really, both yes or no answers are. Thank you. Councillor Robertson would like to interject. Before the officers answer that one, can we just clarify? My understanding is that planning and planning, the local plan, produces a design which applies to all housing, whether it's owned by the local authority, or whether it's housing association, or whether it's privately owned. So I don't see why we would need it to have a annex in this document to cover the design. But the only of the officers could clarify that for us. Stephen Kelly, could you clarify that? Certainly, yes. I mean, it's pretty clear, I understand the kind of sentiment, but it's very clearly set out in the national planning policy framework. And that first point, the affordable rent levels in private rented housing schemes has to be determined through the local plan process. So I understand Councillor Bajans concern about that process and the lag and the delay in that process and levels of growth. But the government requirements are really clear. And bearing in mind that the way that that affordable rent and the affordable housing within the affordable rent process gets delivered is through the regulatory framework provided by the Town and Country Planning Act. So if you don't follow that process, essentially, and you sort to introduce that approach through your housing strategy, it would simply be ignored by the development community, but rightly so in legislative terms, and they would point to the local plan as the basis for setting that is very clear in national planning guidance that that's the process in terms of the point about design and parameters. Again, the decision making around whether something is approved or refused by the city council is through a planning permission. And therefore you are bound by the process of your local plan and the relevant supplementary planning documents that sit under policies in your local plan to frame any requirements or criteria that you want to apply to housing. So again, it is not the place for a housing strategy, which has no planning standing for the purposes of setting design or indeed affordable housing policy, quantum for you to bring that to bear into this strategy. And the simple reason for that is that the local plan process is subject to independent examination. And so those policies and the requirements of them are appropriately tested, allowing all perspectives to be heard, whereas the housing strategy is not subject to that process. And so shouldn't be used to set planning policy, and indeed can't set planning policy. So hopefully I realized how frustrating it is with a local plan process that takes a lot longer. But unfortunately there's a very clear framework as to how those requirements are brought forward into the planning permission phase, and therefore how they bite on new development. Thank you, Councillor Beijing. That's very confusing, Stephen, because it's talking in here about the percentages of affordable funds. And it's talking in here about the affordable rents. So if it's laid down by national policy, as you said, and we can't negotiate around that, why is it even in here? My other point is, this is not just about Council homes, this is about every home, as I understand it, is going to be built. And the vision is the objective is building the right homes, the right homes, in the right places that people need and can afford to live in. The objective is high quality, low carbon energy of water efficient homes. That's this policy, it's not another policy, it's not the planning document, it's this policy. And this policy doesn't cover all those issues, and that is a fundamental flaw. So I don't know how long we'll backwards and forwards on. But this is about the right homes in the right places that people can live in and afford to live in, low carbon energy and water efficient homes. There isn't a design code in here about that. Would you like to reply, Stephen Kelly? Yes, if I can, I think I'd go back to my original comment, which is that you need to see the housing strategy and the local plan as effectively complementary documents. So your corporate plan vision also talks about the right types and forms of development. But the means for delivering that need to reflect the respective responsibilities. So it's the objectives for the housing strategy mirror in many respects, the objectives of the local plan, but the determination of policy for the right homes in the right place. Those are spatial planning components, and the elements of water efficiency and, as you've touched upon single aspect homes and so on, are matters of physical design that relate to planning policies on on design that need to be addressed in the local plan. And they have to follow a process before they can be material planning considerations of some weight that allow you as planning committee members to make decisions for and against them. So you could prepare a design code and append it to this document, but it would be largely irrelevant as a planning consideration because it wouldn't have followed the process set out in the Town and Country Planning Act for the adoption and introduction of those policies. And so the ultimate objective of achieving higher quality outcomes would would not be delivered because you would still have to do exactly the same things through the local plan process to be able to enshrine those documents as supplementary planning documents or indeed planning policies against which a committee could refuse planning applications. So I think it's, I understand that the narrative in the housing strategy seeks to achieve what many of your strategies do, but the right tool for delivery of that is either in our case is defined through statute. And is the local plan, the, the quantum's and the local interpretation of policy underneath the quantum's for things like an affordable private rented affordable housing requirements are absolutely the space for this housing strategy because the local plan policy effectively says that and passports responsibility for the details of housing mix and tenure and forms to this document to bring forward so it adds weight and standing to this document as a tool for negotiation in the planning process. I realise that's kind of confusing and the documents are sitting trying to do slightly different things but I think when they work in concert together. And as we update the local plan, the objectives in both should be achievable but we have to use the right mechanism to do that. Thank you. I believe Helen Reed would like to add something. Yeah, just to add to bear in mind that the objective around high quality low carbon energy and water efficient homes doesn't just apply to new build it's also the strategy also covers existing homes as well. So we're, you know, we're trying to capture that within within that objective. Thank you, Councillor Lee. I had a number of comments about the documents, not really questions and to be honest, I think, Stephen, you have successfully confused me about the point of this document as well. But I mean, I was going to say that we broadly support this at the end of the strategy. We have reservations about how we go about achieving its aims, particularly because a lot of it is incredibly fake. I would like to thank the officers involved for their hard work and dedication producing this strategy. And I also want to acknowledge the difficulty in producing a joint strategy covering two areas with sometimes divergent needs. There could be the case that some of my comments are as a direct consequence of this kind of these divergent needs. I'm happy if it's explained that that's the case. So first and foremost, we've been unequivocal about the need for formal housing, especially for local people and key workers in Cambridge. I personally know many friends and colleagues that have had to move away from Cambridge either to actually get on the property ladder or to actually have the space that they need for their grand families. Given that Cambridge is expected to continue to grow into vital and welcome that we have an effective strategy to ensure that people can continue to come here, afford to live here, be happy and healthy here, and settle here, which will stay to the aims of the strategy. We, in particular, welcome the focus on affordable housing with consideration to local workers, which is something that the Liberal Democrats have championed before and was the case with much of the new development, overseen by the Liberal Democrats in Trump return over the last 20 years and has only in the last few years become Labour policy here, it seems. We also welcome the recognition for the need of housing for specific groups of people and the continued efforts to tackle homelessness. But some of the issues that I have, we do feel that the public consultation needs to be more widespread and more effort should be made to increase and widen participation so that we get a more accurate reflection of local people's priorities, and so we don't see the acrimony and ill feeling with which the plans to redevelop the eke and roadside have seen. I, in particular, am not convinced that a 130 people data point in the city of more nearly 145,000 is going to file us with the meaningful data we need on which to base a strategy that also includes South Cambridge. We also have reservations that the flexibility to ensure scheme viability will inevitably lead to the Council and therefore the residents of Cambridge being shortchanged in favour of developers and their shareholders seem strange to me that developers are allowed to essentially get out of their obligations to the taxpayer to provide what they've placed to provide, whether it's a certain number of units that should be affordable or whether it's space for the community. I would say that the aim to build new communities, perhaps a bit vague, and I would like to be more explicit. It seems self-evident to us in the Liberal Democrats that one does not simply build community by building a number of houses and flats in one location. Community requires community space and is not limited to community centres, but also includes the shops that people go to, the cafes to take ways and pubs they stop at, and the parks they walk their dogs in will take their children to. And I think about recent developments, Cambridge City Council have done a fantastic job of building much needed housing, but I've been less successful in creating spaces where residents can foster a sense of community. We think that any development must necessarily have some of the communities that any community might expect, and this includes both community centres but also commercial units where businesses can be set up in. Lastly, probably the main issue that I have with this strategy is its vision or lack thereof. It mentions that transport and infrastructure came up in the comments of the consultation, but it's not laid out whether transport and infrastructure will be considered, and if so, to what extent, if you develop months. There is no mention of how transport orientated development could encourage and facilitate people to use and rely on public transport in Cambridge, or how developing communities around both active transport and public transport could lead to people opting not to rely on cars. There seems to be a lack of consideration of providing local communities to new communities within walking distance can further reduce the dependence on cars. It's possibly the case that this is considered a sole preserve of transport planning committee, but I disagree that this solid approach produces the best outcome for our residents. Likewise, we're told that the vision is for healthy homes and communities for all, and no mention is made of how to include or promote active travel or healthy lifestyles. We must take it for granted that these things will be delivered as such, maybe a future Labour government can legislate that they are indeed healthy. But when this Labour Council have been so slow in dealing and surveying with damp, modern conversation, I think it's appropriate to ask and expect the strategy for ensuring the help of our residents is laid out in a strategy document that purports its aim to boost the residents' health. Those are my comments. I don't really have any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any comments from the officers on those? Thank you. So I think Helen is very kindly written down a number of points. Firstly, in regards to the consultation and the low uptake that you have indicated in that, that is something that we are considering as a council that is trying to work appropriately around how we can engage residents better in consultations, not just all public consultations, but more widely. And I think, did you have any comments? And I can see that Stephen has also got his hand up as well. Stephen. Thank you. Just to make the point, a lot of the comments that we've just heard relate to matters that are fundamentally captured through the plan making process. Obviously, the housing strategy is around the detailed components of housing and implementation for all homes, rather than the kind of growth strategy for the area. The points that were made are important, nevertheless, in terms of the approach that we're following. And the emerging local plan had, I think, a significant number of comments on its key themes, including the topics touched upon in terms of well-being, but also the climate emergency, as well as the environment. And those will be brought forward through that process, but it's obviously a significant process in terms of both the evidence that's required and the time scales for it. For this document, it'll inevitably be seen as a complimentary component of it, but I'd want to reassure Councillors that together with the housing team, the planning service and most definitely not ignoring those really important considerations about community making and well-being and transportation that have been touched upon. Thank you, Helen Reed. Yeah, I think the only other issue I think that I've captured there that hasn't been addressed was that flexibility that you were talking about and shouldn't be flexibility. I think it is actually quite important there is flexibility in there because there's not, it shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all for every situation because there will always be different circumstances for different developments, different housing coming forward. So, whilst we are laying down what we require, we do recognise that there has to be some flexibility, but the important thing is if developers aren't able to meet those requirements, that they can clearly evidence why they can't meet those requirements, and that's the key to it, really. Thank you. Councillor Thiitala-Barki. Stephen Kele, when you answered the question which was asked by Councillor Beijing was that your answer literally confused me. It's not your fault, it's my fault. So, can I ask you this question again? If we were to approve this today and then in the future, if we bring in an X or any changes, can that go ahead without the approval by South terms? I would be great if you could just see me straight forward, yes or no answer. Thank you. Who would like to answer that question? Helen Reed? So, I think it would depend on what those changes were and whether they impacted on South camps as well. We have been quite clear in the strategy that there will be differences in certain areas of the strategy between the priorities of the two council and I think it's important we recognise those. In terms of some of the new development issues, I think what we have to bear in mind is that quite a bit of the development has been taking place on the fringes of the city in developments which straddle the two authority boundaries. So, we need to sort of think about that when we're, you know, suggesting any policies really that require the new development, but that's not to say that we couldn't have some differences where appropriate between the two authorities. And I think, you know, there are certain areas where we have said throughout the strategy that there may be differences, but it just depends on the circumstances and what's being requested. Again, the time here that put more confusion on me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So you're suggesting that if we make an additional annex and down the line, maybe six months or maybe eight months time, it depends whether that can be approved. Without the consent, or they have the whole camps can be doing it. If they don't approve it, it won't go as part of the current plan. So I think that democratically, we could potentially approve a Cambridge city only annex. What we need to be careful of is what the content of that annex is, and whether it may apply to sites that straddle the borders. And then that's where it becomes challenging if it is something that doesn't align with South Camps policies that, you know, and their aims in the strategy. So it's, it's not to say that we couldn't, as Helen said, there are areas of the strategy that have identified differences. It's just, you know, it would be challenging if it was very specific around new build, and it, you know, how would we apply that to a fringe site. So that's why we're just being a little bit cautious here. And it's not really a yes, no answer. Thank you. Councillor Tom. Thank you. Hello, so as Stephen's already acknowledged, although I'd really love to talk about the kind of environmental ramifications of building more housing. That's really related to the local plan. So it's kind of pointless for me to do. I thought I'd go through some of the stuff I really like within this, this housing strategy. So firstly, housing is really, really important. And I don't want to see people priced out of Cambridge. So I think our focus should be on providing more social housing at social rent. And it's really great. That's knowledge acknowledged within the report. I'm also really happy to see that we acknowledge the value of both cooperative housing, as well as the need for more provision for people from the gypsy Roma and traveler community. Often that overlook. So it's great to see that here. And it's also really good to see a big discussion about retrofitting our old homes because it can be very tempting to just think about the new stuff we're making. But we have to think about the stuff, you know, retaining and maintaining our housing stuff as it is. Unfortunately, I think when it comes to the green measures, so making more environmentally friendly homes, there's just not enough detail here. So my temptation, unfortunately, would be to abstain on this, but I do appreciate all the work that's gone in so far. Thank you. Diana. Well, mine's just quite basic. I've got lots of little questions. The key thing is my concern is over the years how social social rents housing with social rent is diminishing diminishing diminishing. And that does have an impact on people. I moved from a social rent property to an affordable housing policy. And I looked at the shelter criteria and I'm overpaying by that under pretty month. Now, I'm just saying it's that our definition of affordable housing here based on local housing allows its secretary. It's a good one, but it's still it's quite a contrast to what a social rent is. And I think it's so sad. I just want to note the fact that we cannot deliver more socially rented homes. We can have affordable homes, but they're not quite at the levels I feel they should be for people in a variety of difficult circumstances. Samantha. Thank you. And yes, you're absolutely right. The amounts of social rents, you know, the true social rents coming through have decreased. Unfortunately, that has been in line with grants for social rents reducing, which makes it very difficult to deliver and make schemes stack up financially. And I'm sure Ben could attest to that. And obviously having this in the housing strategy, which we haven't had before, having a kind of threshold that we would like to meet is is better than the position we have in the previous strategy. And we would always strive to achieve that where we can. But that, you know, affordable rent. So those sort of 60% that we typically use in our own council stock as affordable or even the 80 the full 80% of market rent, which is the maximum that can be charged does, you know, that that was created to be able to help fund more housing. And, you know, and unfortunately that that's kind of got us to where we are now with, you know, with having to use that as a mechanism to make these schemes stack up financially. I know why we have to do it. I'm just deploring the fact that we have to do it. And I think it's a bit of a challenge when we are doing redevelopment and we're saying we can rehouse you from your social house, the social rented property to an affordable rented property. And I don't know those an assessment down to see whether you can afford it. It is a bit of a challenge when people do move into something. And what you're, you have a nice new flat, but a natural fact your disposal blink and go down considerably because we're not all on housing benefit for me. Yeah. Okay, I'm going to take two more questions of counselor, agent, and then. Sorry for this. I knew it was here somewhere. Thank goodness for computers. The new strategy and its annexes will be a material consideration in dealing with that in applications. Now, this is a material considerations. So therefore the policies in it are material to accepting a planning application. And so I bring back to the thing that this should include. The outline of what housing houses should look like, be like, and all the list of things, all the things that are promised in here and I keep quoting. They will be material considerations of planning applications. Stephen, would you like to reply? Yeah, just to clarify, it is a material planning consideration as the housing strategy. But the, but the design policies that you're talking about referencing are fundamentally planning policies that fall from the local plan design policies. And they gain their weight, not from the housing strategy, which is a freestanding, but material planning consideration. But from potentially, for example, supplementary planning documents, which are material planning policies of great considerations of greater weight when it comes to matters of design, because they're effectively its horses for courses. So if you want to design policy on the design and appearance and form of new homes, the policy that is the most significant determinant is your local plan policy. In fact, it's not just, in fact, local plan policies are not just material planning considerations. You're obliged by legislation to make your decisions in line with those policies. So they're much stronger than material planning considerations where they are, where they're relevant. So there's a hierarchy of policy. And all I was trying to communicate is that the process set out through the planning legislation for those policies and the consultation and testing of them means that they have significantly more weight. So it's not to say if you put a design code as an annex to this document, you'd have to go out to public consultation on it. You'd have to prepare it. But it would have less weight than a supplementary planning document prepared pursuant to your local plan, which sought to do the same thing. And indeed, that's what we're working towards as part of the planning process. So if you want to have the maximum force to a policy around design, the housing strategy is not the place to put that piece of work. It is through the local through the plan making process and pursuant to the local plan. And indeed we've produced it. We've done some work recently which you may be aware of, which is a design code for East for East Barnwell area. That document is a planning document for good reason because it is justified and gathers its force from the local plan. There is no such equivalent for the housing strategy. But the local plan is coming out when. That is part of the challenge. Finally, Councillor Robertson, please. If I can take us back to the points I was making earlier, which I wasn't intended to return to. If we look at the, I'm interested to understand whether changes can be made without having to go through a parlour of full consultation or whether that is necessary on depending on what the issue is. So for instance, if we took the affordable housing sizes where I was suggesting we should have our own needs listed and South Campus have their own percentage needs, could that be done without too much trouble? When you were saying what the needs are, what we have in there is a starting point. What I do need to double check, and I can't recall exactly, is it goes back to this evidence base that I was talking about that was prepared for the local plan, which gives you that starting point. Now I can't recall exactly whether that was split down specifically between city and South Campus or whether it was a greater Cambridge figure, I'd have to look at that and come back to you on that. I think the thing to bear in mind that that is a starting point, I think you made the point earlier outside of the meeting about sort of having housing register break down potentially within there, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do. We do need to consider some of those other factors that I talked about earlier as to what we take into account. So let me go back to the evidence base that we took that from, and I'll come back to you about whether or not that's given us something specifically for city and South Campus separately. So first the point I'm trying to make is that we're being asked to approve a document which will last for the next five years, we want to make it right. I understand that some need to get on and approve something, but still we need to know whether we can adjust a few things. But the next item I would ask about is, if we decided to set a target of 40% of build to rent, rather than the minimum of 20, could we do that really easily. I think Stephen would have to respond to that. I think in respect to if you wanted to set a higher affordable housing target for build to rent properties you have the guidance is really explicitly have to do that through the local plan process. I mean that once the local planners progressed, you can't revisit the housing strategy, but the government are clear that that is the mechanism because you would need to test that against viability in order to justify setting it. And that would require an independent examination process, because there'll be a range of views about whether or not as a consequence of that policy, you deliver nothing and no bill to rent at all, or whether or not the development industry can actually bear that in terms of other conditions in the local plan around infrastructure, and the other people have touched on that community facilities and so on that also have costs associated with them that the development needs to cover. So the process really has to go through that assessment process in the local plan, and all of the guidance in the national planning policy framework is that that is that that's the only mechanism to change that to move that figure. So why doesn't this document tell us that. Did you hear that question, Stephen. I did. I didn't. I mean, I think the strategy is intended to do a number of things and even through the annex is I think is designed to be accessible rather than to recite all the detail I think if there's a desire for members to see that more expensive. To see that more explicitly set out then it's certainly something that we can discuss with the housing team about how we show that in the text, as an as part of the explanation for what we can and can do. Yes, I don't see any reason why we can't have that conversation and see whether we can make it make it clear without confusing things further than something we can look at. Sorry, could you clarify that? Are you saying we could change it for you? No, what I'm saying is we could clarify that that has to come through the planning process and through the local plan process, which because I think the question was why is it not in here and I think it's, you know, there's no reason I can see. Why we shouldn't be able to make that clear. Thank you. I just understood what you were saying. Are you? Yes, okay. So basically, although it appears to be in this document, is it something we want to choose on that we have no choice on it, because it's all part of the planning process. Okay, I didn't think of it that blatantly really ought to be in the report in the strategy that this is how it comes about. Anyway, going back to the final point, which is why I raised first, which was to do with the percentage of affordable housing that could be in the form of tenure that had to be for some sort of ownership. Again, does this sounds to be what is the status of the national pro national format, as we call the NPPF. What is the status of that if we, if we decide we don't like having to comply with it, what happens. Should I answer that. It's effectively government policy. So you are required to make your decisions. It is a material planning consideration of significant weight, such that on something like this, unless we had a compelling evidence base, which we were able to set out through the local plan. We would, we would simply have to follow national guidance. And the only way of departing from that, as I said, is through the, the local plan process. So it is, it is effectively very difficult to range away from that government policy without without significant evidence to underpin your reasons for doing so. I'm sorry. Thank you for that final contribution, Stephen. There are issues here which are clearly have not been understood by myself, possibly by others, about how this document, how much freedom it's got to express itself, and how much it's got to be to follow Dictac from elsewhere. I'm at the point where I need to consult with my group before we come to inclusion about this matter. So I would ask the chair to have a break for two minutes. Yes, let's have a break for two minutes and be back here promptly. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So, the recommendations are on page 350 and 351 of the agenda. All those in favor, please raise your hand. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. Does the executive counselor for housing approve the recommendation? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you very much. We're ready to move to agenda item 12 update on new bills. Please, could the assistant director of development Ben Bins speak to this item? Hello, I'll try and be as succinct as we can. It's been a long night. This is the regular update on our house building program. Delighted to confirm 948 new build homes have been completed across 22 sites, 554 new council homes. We've also got a bit of an update on the March committee when we last reported where we were successful around 1 and 2. For the refugee housing and that's 37 homes that have now been purchased for that round of funding. We've also submitted an expression of interest for the third round of funding and we hope to be successful for that. Although there are no handovers to report in this quarter, we are working hard towards the pipeline as you wear a virtual road has received. Planning approval and we are expecting new reform and ATS workers to follow suit in July and August as well. And that will also increase the number of council homes. I think there are a couple of points I just want to highlight in the report for your consideration. There is an update on the proposed review of Davy Road, which we can confirm now excludes Blacken Road and Blacken North and South Road elements of that initial proposal. Residents have been informed of this ahead of this committee, so although it's not in the report, I just want to clarify that that's the case. The other updates just worth pointing out are there's a bit more commentary on the rooftop appraisal that has been going on, a bit more background to that in terms of the level of detail. We are expecting to bring back a report at some point in the future, possibly this autumn. And then finally, there is a note about the design code for Arbery that I think is expected to be approved in September later this year. The point just being made on that as a commercial centre with quite a few long leases there. We now need to start considering that as a district centre and what implications those long leases may have and what that might mean for the future. So those are the sort of key points I want to get across. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions, Jenny? I'm sorry, Councillor Gortner. This sounds a bit more like a comment on the fray role and the question again. Now, the design code for Arbery, Kings, Hedges, and West Deston, well, I really do support this. Now, I tended to work with the Grove School and saw their input on how Arbery caught and its environs could be improved. I'm looking forward to seeing how this framework, and I note it's not a master plan, a framework can inform and improve any designs in the Arbery and Kings, Hedges area. So I really do look forward to see the outcomes of that and the work that's been done on that. Now, whenever there's any change, there are concerns. We've talked about how uncertainty can affect people. There will be concerns and worries. I know how much residents want and need the facilities of Arbery caught. So, looking to the future, I'm very keen to see how this is planned to make sure that the existing businesses can be sustained, kept open for residents. So, yeah, I know how much residents want and need the facilities of Arbery caught, but they also need and they do need improvements for the area. How much they need and want good quality, sustainable, warm homes, but also decent amenities and access to green space. And of course, there are lots of flat dwellers, both council and now private tenants, as well as people living in houses in both Arbery and Kings Hedges. Of course, this is very dear to my heart. So, it's more of a comment than the question, but, yeah, keep me posted, keep us posted on what the design code looks like and on any plans and timetables for Arbery caught. Thank you. Thanks. I know your comments and we will of course do that. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Can we move on to a vote then? To approve the recommendations. Yes. Those in favor? Those opposed? Those abstaining? Thank you. And I would just like to compliment Ben Bins. I think, you know, when so many councils in the country no longer are building any council housing, no longer delivering any council housing. That's very common today. We're doing an extraordinary outstanding job here and I think you should be proud of that. Thank you. Let's move on to the last agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Now, Councillor Burd, you accept the recommendation. I do and build and build and build. Thank you. Let's move to the last agenda item. Who is speaking to this? Samantha. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everybody. Again, like Ben, I will try and be concise in presenting this report. So, as I'm sure you're all aware, we have been considering options for Stanton House, one of our sheltered housing schemes in the city. We had historically been looking at this mainly around the building itself and certain criteria that made it less desirable. It doesn't meet national space standards. The flats themselves are quite small, and we have been looking at what refurbishment options there might be. And in fact, what development options there might be for the site. The track that we were on was that we were looking to link the future of Stanton House with a possible new build site on East Road that we could move residents from Stanton House into a new scheme. However, what has happened subsequent to that is that we have, in continuing with our fire risk assessments and our work that we do with the fire brigade, it has been identified that there is significant investment required to even keep residents in until an East Road site would be built, and that it's a level of investment that is not something that we would want to put into a building that doesn't have a longer-term future within our portfolio. So what we are requesting is that due to the increased investment required that we look to move residents out of the scheme now, Ben and his team will continue to work on potential options for the site and we'll be looking to bring back a paper in September, but we didn't want to leave residents in situ whilst whilst we worked that up. As I'm sure you're aware, we've done quite a lot of consultation with residents, it is an anxious time, and we want to provide some certainty to them. Their safety is paramount to us, and we do have some mitigations in place because of the works that are required. We have a 24/7 staff coverage of the scheme at the moment, which is covered by both our independent living teams during office hours, and then we have a security firm that is providing that coverage outside of office hours. And the idea behind that is to ensure in the event of a fire that we are able to assist residents with evacuation as the scheme has moved to a full evacuation strategy as opposed to stay put that sat out previously. So, in summary, we are looking to have lots of recommendations, apologies. We have made a number of recommendations is to note the costs of the compliance work at £635,000. Note the options appraisal that was carried out that proposed that any option for that site would require residents to move out and to approve that we move that resident decamp process forward in the process and to approve a capital budget that will allow us to provide the financial support to residents to enable them to decant, and to also agree that there will be a further paper to come back on the options for the site for a lot of future use. Thank you. Thank you. Are there, let's move to questions. First, Councillor Robertson and then Councillor Martinelli. Okay. Councillor Martinelli. Thank you, Chair. So, a few comments and then a question as well. So, I think, obviously, as ward councils, we've been involved in this. And I think, in general, very likely, for this recommendation, I think it's obviously very clear that, you know, five cities, as you say, paramount, and really obviously therefore do need to make sure that the tenant's safe from that point to be and welcome to work that's been done so far in that regard. And I think regarding, you know, the more contentious part is likely to be the kind of few options, which is, you say, is going to be the subject of further work. And I think all we just wanted to make clear was, and I think it's common knowledge that our preferences that it's very important in the city have sites to include social housing and therefore we would be keen, you know, even though these are those as well as we would potentially to other places, we would be keen to keep that social housing option within the city centre. And we look forward to the further report. I think the slight clarification is related to that, which is in recommendation 2.5. It says that the recommendations agreed that we further reconsideration of the redevelopment options. And I just wanted to clarify what redevelopment options specifically means there because in the kind of report that follows on as an appendix to the officers report on page 607, the summary conclusions, you kind of split into various options 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B. And in that report, 3A and 3B are classes redevelopment and the other ones are classes refurbishment. So it is in 2.5 is redevelopment referring to all 5 of those options, or is it saying that we would specifically only consider 3A and 3B? Yeah, so I think in many ways we're starting again. So we know your preference for social housing on the site that's been made very clear. As you know, the initial proposal was sheltered scheme, perhaps partially funded by some market sale on Stanton with some affordable housing. So everything's now starting from fresh. And so therefore we will liaise with you as we do in the ward council briefings, what we have to look at viability, we have to look at finances, we have to look at what grants available and so on. So in effect, we are starting again on two separate sites there and we will liaise with the appropriate ward councilors to let you know the update. Thank you. Harmony, did you have a question? Yes, looking at those reports, I do have some concerns. Elderly housing provision is problematic as it is. We don't have a strategy of housing or older people, and when we look at these options for redevelopment, it's talking about family homes. So we are losing shelter homes and talking about replacing them with family homes. We're losing provision for the elderly, and I think it's important that you keep that in mind that if you're losing provision for the elderly, perhaps you should be looking at replacing with provision for the elderly, not with family homes. Thank you. Samantha, thank you. Yes, you are absolutely right that we have, you know, potentially we are looking to lose the standard house site as elderly accommodation or sheltered retired living, whatever we want to call it. What I would say is that the council is bringing forward an additional shelter housing scheme is smaller, but that is one that we purchased and have been doing some repairs to. I think you're already aware of this at committee, but I appreciate. Harmony isn't as a new attendant rep. You won't be, but that's called the haven, not to be confused with the haven that the women's refuge. So just to clarify, they're two different things. And, you know, so that will bring an additional eight units. Diana mentioned earlier about we used to have an older person strategy, which has been rolled into the wider housing strategy. And I think what we actually need to do is understand what the older person's need is because actually we don't see a huge demand for our existing sheltered accommodation, which means that we don't, you know, at the moment we're not seeing a demand for new sheltered accommodation. But it may be that there is an ask out there that we're not meeting. There is sort of more, you know, if you take the McCarthy and Stone type models in the private sector, there are retirement accommodations out there that are popular. So, you know, we need to understand what an older person's scheme might look like that would encourage people perhaps to downsize from their family homes, because at the moment our existing sheltered isn't necessarily meeting that need. So I think that requires further work to understand exactly what it is we need rather than just building another modern sheltered unit that may not meet that future need that residents have. Thank you, Councillor Gortner put. Well, it's very interesting what you've just said about looking in depth of what people want or need. Who are getting on a bit, because one of the things I've realised them just walking around my own ward is that there are a lot of people who moved in when they were built, housing was built in the 80s, but they are now starting to find that the stairs are difficult. Or they're confined to amazonets to the ground floor because they can't manage the stairs because they're bedridden, but I'm quite a few of the more able elderly who don't like what's on offer. So I'll stay input. So I think there is something to be looked at in a lot more detail. I was also a little bit confused because in the housing report it did the early early one that Julia presented. It did look as though, well Ditchburn, I think it was that it was, there were fewer voids, the vacancy rate was lower than normal. So it seemed to be that there was a lot of, quite a lot of demand, at least of that one shelter scheme. And the other thing of course is to remember that Stanton has along with the others doesn't just take in elderly people, they're people who need support one way or another. Thank you. Did you want me to respond or was that a comment? Oh dear, sorry it sounds like another comment. It's sort of question on, you know, how, well actually how long do you think it would be and when would you be able to look at what needs and not being met for older people and those need more support. I'm not sure anybody can hear me now over the fireworks, but we don't have a project as yet in place, but I think it is definitely something that is needed. And it's probably something that we look to doing conjunction with the place group as well around what does a good asset strategy look like right across the HRA. So, you know, I wouldn't like to say exactly when it is, but I think we can definitely look at a project to go away and look into that information and we would probably need to seek assistance on that. I don't think we have either the resource or necessarily the skills that would be needed to do that piece of work. So we would, we would need to look at how we how we finance that and where that sits in in the business plan going forwards. Thank you, Harmony. Yeah, I wonder if you could tell us how many boys there actually are in the current shelter to housing provision because I'm seeing the ones at Brandon important did for feel really fast so that would be interesting to know. So my colleague Laura is on the call or I don't know if you're able to give a bit more context to our voids and some schemes are more popular than others, but laws will be the expert here. Yeah, thank you so much. And we currently have eight voids across our shelter housing stock of just over 500 units in total. We have been holding those for a number of weeks. Due to this report coming forward so that we've got them if needed for Stanton residents. But yeah, we, as you said, there's no voids at ditch burn or Brandon court, but there are eight across the wider, the wider stock. Thank you. I believe we're ready to move to. Wait. Councillor Roberts and I'm sorry this issue has been around for some time and we just feel council as we were consulted about the need for the community at Stanton House to be to be located. I know the walled council as we're concerned that they felt there was a community people wanted to say together. I think that it's going to be extremely difficult to do that. Was being talked about as being, as you said earlier, the east road scheme would be built and then the community would be moved into it. That clearly happened because the fire that they've already had and the threat of further fires mean that we must take action more quickly than that. But it's difficult to see. I've also told that many of the community in Stanton House were living on the street before. They're not traditional sheltered scheme tenants. They've all, they've not all been that process. Many of them have been in homelessness accommodation for one sort or another before they went to Stanton House. They also felt they wanted to stay near the city's entrance possible. None of this is going to be possible as I can see. It does seem to me that very unfortunately they may be, they have to be dispersed. But I personally can't see anywhere around it. Councillor. I tell you, we just had some further information. He's probably more accurately got than I had. You know, I think you exactly right and all kinds of things, and I think the other thing that says is what your outlines are. These are, I would say, very vulnerable residents generally. You know, we know them pretty well over many years. I would say they're definitely going to need an enhanced level of support throughout this process. I think particularly, I think many of them are probably on the digitally excluded sort of end of the spectrum. And I think that's going to be important. I know officers are very aware of this already and have already been working on this. I think you're right. The initial feeling was that they want to be grouped together. But I think based on recent meetings, I think most recent one was about a week ago. I think, you know, there are probably solutions that can be made that would be acceptable to residents. But in general, you're correct. Yeah, so I think just to clarify, I think you're absolutely right. There is an ability to meet some of those, but maybe not all. So as an example, we did mention the eight units at the Haven. That has not been let. That is available when we have completed the repairs needed. You know, so there may be an ability for some of the residents, but I appreciate that is not as close to the city centre. So it will be a case of, you know, residents weighing up what is the right situation for them. Laura and her team have, you know, as Councillor Martinelli has reflected, you know, done a lot of work with the residents, you know, over the last sort of few days. And in fact, their families as well to reassure them on the support that will be required, you know, that we will be able to offer. And I appreciate Diana has already referenced that as well in this meeting tonight, but we will ensure that we support all of those residents and make sure that they fully know the support that we can offer. And in fact, that may be, you know, we do take a practical approach based on people's needs. So where there are, you know, people may need physical help packing up that perhaps isn't needed in general needs, we will make sure that all of that is available as well. Diana. Just a quick thing, you mentioned there a group of what we know in the Stanton House of some older ex homeless people. And I think when you're looking at a strategy, anything relating to the housing for older people, we should actually look at how we do provide adequate housing for people who have been homeless and have a history of that, because everybody is living a little longer. And I think that is important to take and vote because it's not shelter to come, that isn't always the most appropriate, there could be other, we need to have a look at that and make sure that's a group that's not missed out. Homelessness strategy, doesn't usually tackle older, older people, or the older, the older homeless. And I think we should make sure that's included. Thank you. I think we are now going to move to the vote. The recommendations are on page 576 of the agenda. All those in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. Does the Executive Councillor for housing approve the recommendation? Thank you. Thank you, everyone. And we can now conclude the housing scrutiny committee meeting. Please, could members leave the chamber promptly and return any used glasses to the red trays outside committee room 1. Thank you. Good night. Good night. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] You