Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Thanks very much. Good afternoon members, officers, and any members of the public in the public gallery, or viewing on the live stream. Welcome to this meeting of the Scrutine and overview committee. My name is Councillor Graham Cone, and I am chairing this meeting. My vice-chair is Councillor Stephen Drew, sitting to my right. I will introduce other attendees when I invite them to speak, but I would just like to welcome Councillors Joe Tails and Peter Stanford as our new members of the committee replacing Sally Ann Hart and Peter Fain. So welcome to both of those members. Those of you in the chamber are reminded that the meeting is being live streamed. The normal procedure at Scrutine and overview committee meetings is to review and make policy recommendations to cabinet by affirmation. Only those members of the committee present in the chamber will be able to move and second or affirm. However, members present virtually may speak in any debates. May I ask those who are joining us remotely to ensure that their camera and microphone remain off unless they are addressing the committee. For those of us present in the room, please ensure your microphone is close to you when you speak so that you can address the room clearly. So we will move on to the agenda. Councillor Anna Braden. Thank you, chair, just a brief one. For the parity of the people listening online, the person who's joining us is Councillor Peter Sandford, not Peter Stanford. Sorry, my, yeah. Just in case people ask. Sandford, yeah. My apologies for that. So we'll move on to the agenda. So item one is apologies for absence. So Ian. Okay. We've got two committee apologies from Councillor Sue Ellington and Councillor Joseph Hills. And two members of the cabinet have sent apologies, Councillor Henry Bachelor and Councillor Pete O'Donnell. Thank you for that. So we'll now move on to item two which is declarations of interest. Do any members have anything they would like to declare? Richard Stobart. Chair, thank you. So I'm a board member of South Cambridge Investment Partnership otherwise known as SCIP, and also South Cambridge Projects. So in relation to both of those, I have to say I have an interest in future supply of housing in the greater Cambridge area but also perhaps in the what we would call the travel to work area. So I through my other registrable interest in both of those organizations have an interest in their financial success which may involve also the supply of housing to South Cambridge District Council. So from that point of view, I have taken advice and the monitoring officer is, well, we've had a back and forth and I will not be asking questions that concern themselves with future housing supply. And I do have questions on other topics but if you respond to my request to ask a question, I think we'll just revisit that point and I'll explain the background to the question. Thank you, Councillor Richard Stobart. Councillor Sandford. Thank you, Chair. I'm a member-director of Urban Street Housing which you probably know is a wholly-earned subsidiary of the Council and financed by the Council. I will temper my questions accordingly. Thank you very much. Councillor James Hogue. Thank you, Chair. So I'm in the same situation as Councillor Sandford being a non-executive director of Urban Street Housing through my membership of this Council. And so I will act accordingly. I don't believe that it's necessary to leave the meeting but thank you. Agreed. Thank you for that. Anybody else? No? OK. So we will move on. To item three which is minutes of the previous meeting. Has anybody got anything that they want to add to the minutes or points of clarification? Councillor Judith Ripeth. Sorry, just to say that I've abstained since I wasn't at the meeting. Thank you for that. Anybody else? OK. I also wasn't present at the meeting so I'll abstain from that. But I can take it that everybody that was at the meeting is happy with those minutes. Happy with the minutes. Thank you. Lovely. So we'll move on to item four which is public questions. We haven't had any public questions so we will move on to the substantive item which is item five. Review of the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy. This is pages five to 198 and we'll be taking the item in full. So I was going to first come over to Julie and John. Did you want to say anything briefly initially or are you happy for it to be open to questions? Well, yeah, I just make a few comments. Please do. If you want me to share. This is a very significant document which is laying out our plans for the future. Well, I'll leave it to the questions to see what you feel are the main issues in it. I just like to say and I hope that you would agree with me that this is quite unusual for large reports that come to us in that it's very accessible, it's laid out in a very sensible way and it's quite easy to find your way through it. And for that, I just like to pass on my thanks to Julie Fletcher and her team for a brilliant job there. Open to questions, John. Thanks very much, Councillor Batchelor. And so what I'll do is open it up to the committee and take questions on the report. Who would like to start? [ Laughter ] Not quite yet. Councillor Paul Bearpark. Yeah. I was looking in the introduction, introductory comments on paragraph 22. It said 10% of the, in response to the consultation, 10% of the individual respondents who said where they lived came from South Cambridgeshire. So I kind of was wondering, does that mean that you can extrapolate and say that only 10% of the respondents came from South Cambridgeshire in total? Or what does that, I suppose I'm struggling to understand what that means and whether it means that South Cambridgeshire residents didn't really engage with the consultation in the same way as city council, city residents did. Thank you. Councillor John Batchelor. Thank you very much, Chair. I'll pass that straight over to Julie. It sounds like a technical question to me, so much. Thank you, Chair. You can hear me okay? So you're quite right in terms of, so when we asked a question in the consultation on the online consultation, it asked where people either lived or where they worked, not everyone responded to that question. So we've got quite a few that are unknown. But yes, only 10% stated that they either lived or worked in South Cams. I think it's fair to say that there was wider interest perhaps from the city rather than more of the district, and that could be down to some of the sort of larger developments that are going on around the city or different various issues perhaps that are currently quite vocal in the city. I'm not sure of the reasons why but we did go out to every parish council in terms of our consultation. We did also hold briefing sessions with sort of developers and the housing providers because they were quite key stakeholders within that. But in terms of sort of general public, the response rate was probably a little bit poorer I think in terms of South Cams and perhaps, you know, when we do it another time, perhaps we need to think about that and how we can engage a bit more with our residents in that. But they had every opportunity like City residents did as well. So yeah, I can't give you a real explanation as to why, but that is the reality. Thank you for that. So, Councillor Paul Baerbach, a recommendation would be that we maybe next time look at getting higher rates of contribution from South Cams Residences, is that what you are indicating? Yeah, if possible. I mean, the number of responses in total was quite low. I mean, if you compare it with the Water Beech Neighbourhood Plan, which I was involved in, we probably had twice as many respondents. Yeah. So, I know the local plan gets lots of responses, but it just seemed a bit disappointing to do that, I think. Yeah, it's difficult, isn't it? So, I can remember all this work being done and going out to residents from parish councils and it being in the literature, the magazine online. And so, it wasn't like it wasn't advertised in fairness, but I will, Ian will note that as a recommendation when we're, you know, thinking about ways that we can maybe get that interest higher, albeit I know that's not easy given what we did last time. Did you want to come back on any of that or have anything else? No, that's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. So, I will come over to Councillor Richard Stobart. Chair, thank you. It's only a moment ago that I talked about my other interest, so -- Of course. It's probably fresh in everyone's memory. And so, I've got five things here, but perhaps I ought to just lay them out and then -- Yeah, if you break them down and we can take them. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. In this area, and particularly in the city, there's a pressing need for houses of multiple occupancy, HMOs as they're referred to. And if I'm -- you know, forgive me, I haven't got a reference, but I think it's quite clear from the contents list where the reference to HMOs is made. I was interested in, if you will, the companion concept of coliving. Because we do have examples of coliving developments in the greater Cambridge area. And I'm wondering about where the balance should be struck and how it should be reflected in the strategy document. So, that's my first question. HMOs and coliving. Should we take that one now and then come on to the next point? Is that okay? That's fine. Yeah, just to break it down a little bit. So, if I come to Councillor Batchelor? Yeah. Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, HMOs is certainly part of our strategy. But the reality is we find that it's quite limited in that the people that it suits isn't a wide audience, if you like. You know, Shire Homes has a number of HMOs that we use for homeless people. They have had difficulties in the past. And we're having a system now where, you know, it's actually much better if you can put people in their own place. Obviously, the HMOs are only for temporary times. There's a place for them. But it isn't a large one, you don't feel. The situation in the city is very different from that. And that they have their own policies there. Perhaps at this stage, I should make it quite clear that although this is called the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy, it's our strategy and the city's strategy. We don't have a shared service in housing. So, if you looked at the action plan, for example, there you would see that it's quite clearly put out that the city has a raft of its own policies. We have some different policies and there are some policies which we share. So in that context, there's probably more emphasis in the city for HMOs. But we are open to that. And we are looking to take on more. But it is not a mainstream element for the homeless as far as weakness at the moment. Do you want to come back on that, Councillor Stover? I would, if I may. And through you, Chair. I think HMOs, you know, goes beyond the homeless and, you know, catching those on the edge of society. You know, HMOs would feature in I agree in the urban setting. You know, in cities where, you know, there is a large population of young people at work who may be, you know, working away from home. I was interested in this contrast between HMOs and co-living because in co-living, there is kind of a drive to establish community and that's something that we're often calling out for is a stronger sense of community. And if we were to incorporate that into our policy. And I'm thinking, you know, in newer communities and perhaps we're thinking here, Water Beach and North East Cambridge might well be more needy of this kind of policy. So, it was just we're here now and I acknowledge that point. But the future is going to take us to some quite different places. [ Inaudible Remark ] In terms of just to add to Councillor Batchelor on HMOs, I think we do recognize now that actually we shouldn't just be looking at the traditional sort of market affordable housing. We do need to start looking slightly differently. And we are seeing especially sort of on the fringes of the city and within the city, build to rent coming forward as a sort of institutional investment that provides good quality sort of private rented accommodation. Now, we have been in discussions in terms of it can be more targeted I think for sort of younger single people maybe in terms of sharing some of the facilities. So, it's perhaps not what you would consider as a general HMO but they're more affordable because you perhaps share a kitchen facility where you have a communal area except for your rooms are slightly smaller. So, that is something that, you know, we will look at. But as Councillor Batchelor said, you know, that's only quite a niche part of the overall sort of housing need but that is something I think that we're sort of looking at more in terms of looking at those different models. In terms of cohousing, I have to say we struggled a little bit with that. We often get approached by sort of communities or groups coming together who want to almost build that sort of small sort of community cohousing. The issue we have is the competition in terms of land values and being able to bring forward cohousing. So, Marmalade Lane in the city is often quoted as a really sort of exemplar scheme I think in terms of that community living. But that was quite unique in terms, I think it was quite subsidised by the city council in terms of the city owned the land and that subsidised to them to be able to bring that forward and it was earmarked for that purpose really. As you know, our own land holdings, you know, we desperately need those to provide affordable housing. So, cohousing is not really affordable housing and we did try to have some affordable housing on the Marmalade Lane development. But that didn't really work out. So, we do get approached quite a lot in terms of sort of having something different. But it's how we can work that into a bigger scheme in terms of viability and everything. So, we haven't ruled it out and we do talk to the likes of Waterbeach in terms of how that might happen. But we also see sort of the custom build, self-build element helping with that as well in terms of bringing that forward.

• Can I just come in there very briefly? I'll come back to you Councillor Stobart. Just to clarify on that, so with the HMO sort of housing multiple occupancy or the cohousing like you described in the city sort of some of the almost like bedsit style houses where you'd have a shared living accommodation to a number of bedrooms which you're right, I think you'd see more on sort of adjacent to Science Park or Addenbrooke's Hospital or something like that. When we're looking at key worker housing, would that type of accommodation make a part of the affordable element as key worker or still not? Would that be, have I got that wrong and that would be separate to that? Yes please, yeah.
• So key worker housing, however you want to define it, again has been quite a high issue I think within the housing strategy. Obviously we acknowledge that we want the economy to grow and grow, strengthen and we need the workers to fill that economy. For those on lower incomes, there are still the options through the affordable housing route, be that through shared ownership, discounted market, rent to buy or affordable rent. So those options, they don't stop them but they are available to them. I do think build to rent has a part to play in maybe helping that element in terms of key worker. So for some of those who can afford market rents, that they've got good quality accommodation, I think it will help that. And within a build to rent scheme, it's different to affordable housing but you get private rented, private affordable rent I think we're calling it, in terms of it's still managed by the same landlord but it's at a lower rent. And I think again, that would be really attractive to key workers. So we haven't gone as far in the strategy to say an element of our affordable will be specifically for key workers. But what we have said is on specific sites, so like for Waterbeach, because of the scale of the development, we feel that there's sufficient there that we can allocate some priorities to people who work locally. So that's how we're tackling it at the moment. But as I'm sure you're aware, we've also sort of accommodated the Janone Campus and that's very different type of housing. And if there are opportunities to look at something similar, we wouldn't rule it out, but obviously we would have to look at that very carefully. What we're very conscious of is that it shouldn't detract from our affordable housing that's available to those in real need.
• Okay, and that sounds sensible. So we still have the whatever the percentage affordable on that site, and this would be almost additional to that if the site viability allowed it or if it's situated correctly within the district. What I'll do Councilor Stoker, I'll come back to you for another question and then I'll move to someone else and come back to you. So please go ahead.
• Thank you chair. So a completely different subject rural exception sites. So again, in the strategy it's covered well. But I wondered about the implications and the actions that this place is on parish councils, I know parish councils were included in the discussion, of course, it was very much a parish council matter and some have seen a parish council and local housing needs survey. But I wondered if, when we were talking recently about enhancing relationships with parish councils, whether this is something that fits with that stronger relationship and whether there's something additional we can be doing in respect of the expertise of the parish council at their equipment and also members, interaction of members with parish councils, I think can create a kind of environment where something like rural exception sites can be developed. So the question is, what are the... we've talked the strategy of its rural exception sites, it's well into the strategy, but are there implications for parish councils, parish council expertise and also the members in their relationship with parish councils in bringing sites forward. Also, are we going out, as it were, beating the bushes looking for rural exception sites, those landowners who are just prepared, you know, to take that hit on land value in order to bring rural exception sites forward? So yeah, I hope that's coherent here.
• Okay, Councilor Abbaczner.
• Thank you very much. Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting subject, rural exception sites. The history of that in the recent times has been that virtually none have come forward because of the expectation of better profits in the private sector. But that's been changing recently, where we have had a number of landowners coming to us, proposing exception sites. You know, there has been a change in our attitude about how the mix of properties and so on, so that with a shared ownership and in some circumstances, we might allow a few market houses as well, if that actually provides viability financially for the project. So we are looking at all that, and as far as the relationship with parish councils, I mean, we're always keen to work with the parish councils. We have programs of briefings, and we will certainly carry on with all that. So there are exception sites in the pipeline, not imminent, but they tend to be rather complicated in land ownerships and various other interests. But we are aware of it, and it is part of the strategy, and we do have the policies in place to pursue those. I hope that answers your question?
• Would you like to come back on that, Councilor Staubar?
• Chair, thank you, just briefly, and then through you. The role of members, are members sufficiently well-briefed that in the parish council context, they can be raising the question, prompting parish councillors to be thinking in the right direction. So member expertise is probably also significant in this context. It's a suggestion, yeah.
• Yeah, and just to build, I agree with Councilor Batchelor in that they can be quite complex. So we've had a rural exception site in Fullborn, which has been very successful, but I think they can be quite complicated to bring forward because of the engagement with local members, parish council, the landowner, and then also put in an application forward that is viable, which might sometimes have some private, for sale market houses on that to make the rest of the site viable. Just very briefly on that point, do you think that with rural exception sites, we should have sort of a, within this document, almost a strategy of what type of houses we would want to see on that, or do you think that would be variable depending on parish to parish? And if we should, would that be different to our normal affordable housing mix? So like the one in Fullborn has got the shared equity rental split almost 50/50 on that. Would you like to see more rental, more shared equity, or a particular type of housing coming forward on those future exception sites, briefly? Sorry.
• Yeah, thank you for that. Well, yes, is the answer as I suppose, but don't forget, you don't go forward with an exception site unless you have a needs survey. So the needs survey will in itself, dictate the mix of housing and so on.
• Thank you for that. Councillor Anna Bradnam.
• Thank you, Chair. I've got four questions, so I'm quite happy if you want to take them as you have with Councillor Staugment.
• Lovely, thank you for that. We'll take them individually, and we'll do a couple, and then come back to you. Thank you. - Thank you. So the first one is, since I raised the matter of our obligation as a local housing authority to care leavers in the area, I'm very glad to see all the references to making specific provision for care leavers and recognizing our legal responsibilities to them throughout this report, which is excellent. But I just wanted to point out that, for example, on page 40, we've got, it's under preventing homelessness, and so in that sense, we're looking at making sure that care leavers don't fall into homelessness. And so they are listed, they're included in a list which refers to vulnerable groups such as rough sleepers, care leavers, those suffering from domestic abuse, mental health issues, and/or drug and alcohol addiction, or leaving prison, and that's absolutely appropriate that they're included there, because they are vulnerable in all sorts of ways, and that's why we are here. In all sorts of ways, and often have multiple combinations of some of these difficulties. But I also wanted to applaud your inclusion at page 177 when you're looking at the summary of comments and homes for specific groups where you've, in the second bullet there, you said, need to cover housing for younger people, including young professionals as well as care leavers. So rightly and appropriately, you've included them as young people with potential, and you know, who will be working and looking for accommodation. So thank you very much for covering that so thoroughly in this report, I appreciate that, because that was something I raised with you last time. But the question that I wanted to come to was, how are we going to measure how effectively we're doing that, and do we have any monitor and measure KPIs on that? And how will we make sure we're delivering for our young care leavers? Thank you. - Thank you, Councillor Bradman, Councillor Batchelor.
• Yeah, thank you very much for that, Councillor Bradman. It sounded very much like a duly question to me. Thank you.
• Please, yeah, Julie.
• Hi, that chair. So we can monitor that. We do have a care leavers protocol within our housing options team that's followed very carefully in terms of working with partner organisations when, you know, people are coming up to leave and care, et cetera. So there's a protocol set out in terms of how that will work. I think I'm right in saying the majority of them will come through our home-link system. So they will be monitored by that. So we can pull off information from our home-link in terms of how many people we've got as care leavers, how many have been housed, you know, where they've been housed, et cetera. Have they had support to move, et cetera. So we can do that. That probably sits with our housing options and homelessness team. I'm not trying to pass it up, but that's sort of the role that they do in terms of working with those key organisations really to make sure that that's supported through the system. But the majority of them, you know, just need that little additional support really in terms of finding the home and making sure they can sustain that tenancy so they can go through the system into general needs accommodation.
• Please, yeah, come back.
• Thank you very much. And you know, what's clear to me in working with some of the young people in our county who are care leavers is that they're often very resourceful, young people, because exactly, because of what they've lived through. So it's, but you're right, they sometimes they often need just a little bit of support at the early stage. And one of the things I just wanted to be sure about was that we are categorising care leavers as band one on home-link. I understand we should be. So if it's possible to check that, and I'm not saying you can answer that now, but if it's possible to check that, that would be great. Thank you very much.
• Thank you. I'll wait for a question.
• Thank you. Councillor Judith Ripeth.
• Thank you, Chair. The document refers quite often and as it should to the issue of service charges and on page 68 on the paper edition as policy position, although, as I understand it, it's really difficult to influence this. And we, I don't think have much control over service charges as it says in social rent sector, which obviously if it's our own council housing, that's okay. But if it's another provider, I'm just sort of wondering is there any way in which we can actually control this besides from encouraging reasonable rates and not those which go above inflation?
• Thank you, Councillor Ripeth. Councillor Bacha.
• Yes, thank you very much for that. I think as you implied, but probably the answer is no. But there may be ways of, well, I mean, the government was bringing forward legislation which would have touched on this area. But of course, that's all fallen off as part of the business about landlords and their responsibilities and so on. So I don't know if Julie has anything to add to that.
• My chair, thank you. Just on service charges, I think what we've tried to do within the strategy, we realised that it is a bit of an issue. But sometimes the design and what the developer is looking to do or what was being asked for them through planning can actually have implications in terms of service charges. So what we've really sort of tried to emphasize that within the strategy to take, to consider things like adopted roads, myths, et cetera, communal areas, everything like that, just to consider what impact that has on service charges, just to be mindful of that when designing new schemes. I think also just to be aware in terms of affordable rents that is inclusive of service charge. So actually, if the service charge is really high, then the housing provider loses out because they can have to charge lower rent because there's a cap within rent and service charge. So that helps to keep it sort of at a slightly lower level as well. In terms of the private sector, we have no control really in terms of service charges. And I think that it will be market led what people will pay. So if there's a comfy urge or something like that in the flattered block then obviously, you're gonna pay for that through service charges.
• Councillor Boston.
• I suppose my real issue, and there's been quite a lot of this on the media, on television and I think it's a problem across the country, is that the service charge often starts off reasonable and a few years down the line, that service charge has become unaffordable. So what was an affordable property is no longer affordable. And you're just confirming to me that there is absolutely zero we can do about that really, unless it is the affordable rent sector as you've already explained and really clearly laid out on page 68. I just sort of wondered, another quote from that page, Furthermore, once the development is built, there should be an active approach to reviewing service charges on a regular basis to help minimise costs." But in effect, I'm getting the message that that's not gonna happen unless an incoming government puts a cap on in relation to inflation. Just to confirm that I'm right in my assumption.
• Yeah, Julie.
• Just to come back on that, Councillor Riffa. That relates purely to affordable housing requirements. So that is within the social housing sector. So it isn't trying to say that we can do that through the private sector, because clearly we can't. But what we are saying that service charges should be monitored for the affordable housing. And we can have some sort of controls on that. And they are controlled through the regulator of social housing as well, in terms of service charges and rents that are paid.
• Thank you.
• Thank you. Councillor Leaming.
• Thank you, Chair. I'd like to focus on a paragraph, which is on page 53. Which is speaking about a young people's experience of finding housing in our area. I really welcome the fact that you've put this paragraph together about a young single person housing. I'm just trying to put it in context and sort of what Klein just said. So if this has a look on right now, whilst we're sitting here and at the moment you could rent a house share for 750 pounds a month, two bedroom house for 1,375 pounds a month. These costs are, they're incredible. Young people who either grow up in this area or choose to move here to start their careers, are really struggling to balance this. Especially as you say in this paragraph, if they don't qualify for a social or affordable rent in housing. I appreciate this paragraph here. I wonder, when we had our task and finish group, it was an issue that came up time and time again when we spoke to young people in cost of living in this area. And I wondered whether you had sort of focused on this as a sort of specific piece when you were doing this work, putting this housing strategy together in the mixture of everything else. And I also wanted to ask about the decisions that were being made about things like build to rent schemes. So when you're building, sort of allocating build to rent schemes, are you focusing primarily on one and two bedroom properties or larger properties? Has that demand changed over time? Just very much with giving people's experiences at the front of my mind, thank you.
• Councillor Batchelor. I think I'll hand that to Julia by my.
• Anything?
• Thank you, Chair. Okay, so I completely agree in terms of the affordability of housing across the district is astronomical, which is why we really push for the affordable housing as much as we can, but recognize that not everyone is gonna get an affordable rented property. That's why we're very keen, especially on some of our larger slides, to have more of a mix of different types of accommodations. So at Northstowe, we've now got the Northstowe discounted market housing. So they are primarily one and two bedroom properties and that's sold at a discount. So hopefully that would help, a certain group of single young people. And going back to really like build to rent, you're completely correct. We wouldn't focus on one and two bedroom properties in terms of that need. Research that's been carried out, identifies that it is usually sort of the younger people that want to live in the build to rent complex in terms of having things close by, facilities close by, et cetera. So build to rent definitely, I think, would help that. I'm not saying that the cost will be low, but that they will also meet some need. And then it's going to, like I was talking about, sharer type accommodation or smaller accommodation with some elements of share, accommodation which hopefully would be cheaper than a normal sort of one bed private rented accommodation. So we are looking at it, obviously we can't control the market in terms of house prices, but I think there has been a step change in terms of recognizing we need to be building smaller properties, not just the big, large detached properties and I think that's been a step change over the last few years, really.
• Councillor Lehman.
• Thank you. So is that in terms of the standard market properties that have been built just, you know, buying the one bedroom flat and the buy to rent properties, and I'm just sort of thinking primarily about the private market as opposed to our affordable housing, which is meeting some of this need, but it doesn't help all the people that are struggling to pay these rents. So is that for both buy to rent and buy to buy, as a house purchase?
• Julie.
• Right, yes, so obviously there's different models that I've talked about in terms of the affordable, so buy to rent, rent to buy, discounted market, et cetera. But in the private sector, private market sector, we are also looking at, you need to be thinking about the types of housing for younger people as well, it's like I say, the larger accommodation, which obviously, you know, I think are more financially viable than smaller units, but we need to be catering for that. And I think this strategy sort of heads that way in terms of we need to be thinking of much more of a mix in the private sector as well as in the affordable as well.
• Councillor Lehman.
• Thank you. Is that something that we could just expand on a little bit in that section that's in the polls at the moment, just to sort of beef that up, because there's a lot more behind what you've, than what's in those two paragraphs and what you've just said just now. So if there's anything extra that could be added into the report to speak about this strategy, I think that'd be really helpful. Thank you.
• Julie.
• Happy to look at that. Obviously, this is a joint strategy, so it's also going through the process with the city council. But what we are asking is that Councillor Batchelor have delegated authority to make minor changes. So we can certainly have a look at that and see if there's any scope for sort of just expanding that a little bit.
• Thank you. I should imagine that people in the city are equally interested in this. Thank you.
• Thank you. Councillor James Hoegruegh. Come back to you.
• Thank you, Chair. And first of all, I'd like to say that this is a hugely readable and informative document. I mean, it's clearly meant to be readable by members of the public and not just members of the council. And I think it's a real achievement to have this level of detail in such a presentable form. So to flesh out that compliment, then in particular, I think having the links to all the related policy documents for anyone that actually wants to dig into this is exceptionally useful. I mean, I find it useful. I'm sure that any members of the public who go into these documents would also find it useful. So I wanted to say thank you very much to the officers for making it such an accessible document. And I did have a couple of specific questions if that's okay about the environmental issues around new homes and existing homes. So I wonder if I could just the question on the new homes. So this is with reference to page 25, mitigating and adapting to climate change. And I think my comment would be that if I were a climate campaigner, looking at this and had heard that South Cameron's is green to the core, that then I would be looking for a little more concrete detail in what we plan to do on new homes. So I just wondered if we're in this part of the document where we're talking about our plans for new housing and how energy efficient that new housing is, if it's possible to be a little more specific for example in the extent to which we'll be using onsite renewable energy. So all of these things are mentioned. The, we talk about high quality energy and water efficient homes, we talk about onsite renewable energy, low carbon technologies. But there's very little that says how much of our housing, for example, will be, and what they will be having. So I just wondered if it's possible to have something a little more concrete in the document at that point.
• So your recommendation would be more detail on those points essentially.
• Something a little firmer in terms of our commitment to making our new housing stock that really are energy efficient.
• Okay, thanks very much. Councilor Batcher.
• Yes, thank you very much for that. Perhaps it'd be helpful if I just outlined how we actually come by our affordable property. 'Cause we're not building anything at the moment. What we do is buy out of the planning 106 allocations. So we actually are buying from developers. We cannot actually enter any negotiations with the developer until such time as they actually have the planning authority. That means that we do not have a role in the initial design in the 106 arrangements. Things are improving, but we're still taking on some properties with gas boilers and things like that, which we wouldn't necessarily choose to. But they then become part of our ongoing program. We've got a program up to 2050 to come to zero carbon. So we've got a massive refit plan which will cover all these things in due time. But of course it's a massive job. It's the investment of more than 400 million pounds on our behalf. So, you know, it's a big issue. Now where we do have influence, of course, is the new development in Campbell. And we have insisted that we have the highest possible standards there. Now we also have to understand that to have these standards is costly. That every house we've brought up to passive standards for the project in Campbell, this costs us 28,000 pounds per property, on average. Particularly with lots of flats and things. The foundations and the walls have to be much thicker and all of that sort of thing. So we're doing what we can and we have a robust program for refitting a whole stock. But this will take time, it'll take money, and we have to bear in mind that we have quite an old stock. The new homes element is quite relatively small compared to 4,000 or 5,000 houses that we have, which we inherited. I hope that answers your question.
• Councillor Hovland.
• So thank you very much, very comprehensive answer. I suppose the two concerns that I have, first of all is that we are using all the levers available to us to try and maximise what we do with new homes and I think Councillor Batchelor has assured me that we are. And I think secondly too, perhaps if there is a way to indicate some of that detail a little more in this report, I think it would be comforting to see see it laid out, and the area that I was afraid to is page 25 in the report. May I ask the second question which is about the retrofitting?
• You may, I will get Ian to note the recommendation that you've made and Cabinet can do that as they see fit in terms of the detail on page 25. Yes, move on to your second question.
• So my second question, which I think Councillor Batchelor already touched on in his answer to the first, was about the retrofitting of existing housing stock. And I noticed that we do have, so we have a clear target with a date on it, on page 31, which I think is excellent, which is to bring all houses up to EPC rating C by 2030. I did notice that unfortunately on the previous page, Cambridge do not have a date for their similar target, which is a bit disappointing. There's also mention of solar panels and I wondered if there are any numbers or dates that we could be more specific about in that area. And I had an associated question about the retrofitting because there are some very easy wins in retrofitting. For example, a lot of older houses have very poor loft insulation and improving loft insulation is exceptionally cheap and easy, but it only gets you so far. The really good retrofitting is very expensive. So I wondered if there's very little detail in the objectives and the plans here on how we're spending that money. And I just wondered if we could tease out some of the detail on to make sure that we've done everything we can in terms of the easy gains before spending the big bucks on these much more expensive external insulation kind of approaches.
• Thank you very much. Councillor Bachelor.
• Thank you very much for that. Yes, so we've just carried out a conditions survey of all our properties and that is currently being analyzed. Once we have that, we can actually have a proper costed program for the next five, 10, 15 years. So we're working on that and we have to have that ready for November, December. There is already a significant retrofit program ongoing and I do have some numbers here of what the sort of thing that's been happening and how many has happened. So we've had air source pumps installed in 295 properties. We've had double or triple grazing in 4,971. We have external wall insulation 254. Cavity wall insulation 3,628. Adequate loft insulation 4,000. Yeah, and on it goes. There's a great deal of activity going on and we have a particular group of workers who are constantly on that one. So not sure if we can provide more numbers on that or they are actually in the annexes somewhere.
• I don't think we do at the moment actually in terms of those specific numbers, but I was just thinking we can probably add them to our key achievements appendix. What we tried to do was actually keep the actual strategy body itself quite concise so it didn't get too technical in terms of numbers and everything. And also just to mention, we have an asset management strategy for our own council stock. The housing strategy is obviously much wider than that. So the detail is more in the asset management strategy. And as Council Member Batchelor has said, within the strategy we do mention that we're currently working on the cost of five, 10, 15 year plan, which will then give us proper figures following the stock condition survey. So that's one of the key actions and then following on from that we will work through that. But I can certainly have a look at our key achievements there and maybe add a few sort of things that we have done so far to some of the figures that Councilor Batchelor has quoted there, that's helpful.
• I think that seems a reasonable proposal in terms of the appendix and the key impacts on that, would that seem a reasonable recommendation?
• Yeah, that's very helpful, thank you. So I suppose I was really looking for a little bit of assurance in the objectives on that balance between the cheap and quick and easy gains versus the longer term investment and how our money is being balanced between those two types of improvement.
• Yeah, thank you very much. So I think that's noted and yeah, brilliant, thank you for that. So I'm gonna come to Councilor Braden and then Councilor Staubar and I've got Councilor Bygone and then yeah, Councilor Lehman. So Councilor Braden.
• Thank you, am I allowed two this time round?
• Yes, please do, yes.
• Okay, so I have some more after that, but I'll go with the two at the moment. So on page 54, we're looking at Gypsy Roma traveler accommodation and the fact that the Councilors have commissioned an assessment. Now, in my role as a County Councilor, I think I was involved in looking at this traveler needs assessment, but I'm aware from that point of view and indeed from a district council point of view, that a number of the meetings have been canceled. So I just wanted to check on page 146, we've got a list of, I hope I haven't got mixed up my references, but let's see 146 was a list of achievements. Perhaps I'm getting mixed up there, but--
• Just on page 54, that section, but if that's what you were--
• Yeah, that exactly, but the point was have we actually, it says we're expecting to have the needs assessment brought out by mid 2024 and we're sort of there in June. And I wondered how we're getting on with that and whether it's likely to come soon.
• Thank you for that and Councilor Batchelor.
• Right, thank you very much. I believe we actually have a meeting on the 8th of July.
• Okay. - Monday, two to three.
• Okay.
• Obviously, as you would be aware, perhaps that we already commissioned the survey once, but that had to be abandoned because the returns from the subcontractor didn't include actually visiting the sites or speaking to anybody from the Gypsy traveler community. I mean, so we've employed that's why it's taking so long, but they have actually done it now, I believe, and we're waiting for the report. And hopefully by the 8th of July, we'll have a look at it at that meeting.
• Good, lovely. Thank you very much Councilor Batchelor and the Chair. Thank you. The next one was great that we've employed an officer to help bring empty private homes back into use. I think that's excellent that we've, and I believe that officer has made a big difference to the number of houses that are in use. I just wanted to ask, what is the progress on that and are there, what is the number of homes that are empty and how do they plan to move forward with that?
• Councilor Batchelor.
• I'm not sure it's actually my responsibility that the environmental health.
• Okay.
• Okay, so I don't have the numbers, I'm afraid.
• Okay. But I think that might be worth adding in because it was referred to on, let me just see. Hang on, let me note the page number. So I think it was on page 146, I think it was listed under the achievements of, you know, we've managed to bring lots of houses back into use, which is great, but I couldn't see it.
• Councilor Batchelor. - Here we are.
• This is 146. - The fourth bullet from the bottom.
• Yeah.
• So that was 20 homes and I just.
• We're working on it, definitely. I mean, my recollection, I think we had a review or a report recently, I remember, I think it was about 10 properties have been brought in recently, but often they're quite complex. I've got one, you know, virtually next door to me that's been empty for 10 years because of probate issues. And these are merely quite complicated and, you know, one officer is not gonna be able to sort all those out.
• I appreciate that.
• But, you know, there's a return.
• Good, thank you. Okay, I'll wait for my next two if you, do you want me to go now? - Thank you. Yeah, we'll move on and come back to you. Can I just very briefly build on the point that Councilor Bradner made about the traveling community? I agree with you. I think it's gonna be very hard to effectively plan for that until we've looked at the report and had the numbers in July. In terms of the strategy around that, do you think we need to sort of be clear around, and I know part of this will be impacted by numbers, but be clear on what we expect in terms of community facilities on those sites and what sort of things they should be in proximity to, and the report does touch on that in terms of health care, schooling, and so forth, but do you think we need to talk more about what should be on those sites in terms of provision when they do come forward? Councilor Bradner?
• Yes, we certainly do that. I mean, there's a raft of regulations and already there with environmental health and all the rest of it. What I suspect will come out of the report is a need for transit points, overnight stops and short stays, and people coming to the hospital and that sort of thing, but the underlying issue is having the land available to actually accommodate these things.
• Agreed.
• So one, we've got to establish the need, which has been difficult, but hopefully we will manage that this time round. And once we know that, then there's more difficulties about making land available, and obviously the county council will have to be involved in that aspect since we don't have the land.
• Thank you for that. And I also accept there are numerous regulations in terms of what should be incorporated. I was just thinking in terms of us, are there additional things that we could think about on those sites that would make that better? And that could be many, many different things, but yeah, thank you for your answer on that. So I'm gonna come over to Councilor Staubar.
• Chair, thank you. I'm going to comment on and then ask a question about annex six, the summary of evidence. And it's a well structured and comprehensive account of the wide range of evidence that's been gathered. It does, well, but it does represent a snapshot. My question is, will this be refreshed from time to time? And then that brings us to the question, what's the lifecycle of the strategy? Can we expect, perhaps in 12 or 18 months time to see the evidence refreshed and maybe some adjustments made, to know what's the period of that?
• So yeah, and is there a kind of a governance process around that?
• Lovely, Councilor Batchelor, review process, reviewing strategy around that.
• Yeah, Julie's got the answer to that.
• Lovely, Julie?
• So the actual strategy document is a five year document, which sets out a high level sort of vision and aims and priorities. The annex is one of the reasons why we've done it how we have, in terms of having separate annexes, we can update them when we need to. So in terms of the summary of evidence, I think you're right, we probably need to review that on an annual basis just to update the information in there, in terms of if we've got any new evidence of need, et cetera. So we can do that without having to go and take the whole strategy through the whole review process again, especially a summary of evidence, which is actually factual information. I think we can just update that in terms of, you know, on an annual basis, perhaps just to make sure it's still fit for purpose. I don't think that needs to go through all sort of the consultation and everything else 'cause it's just a factual summary of evidence. Some of the other annexes, like the affordable housing requirements, et cetera, that they're on sort of policy as we know it now in terms of national policy. So again, if there are to be any sort of significant policy changes during the life of the strategy, we are able to look up particular annexes to amend them to make sure they still fit for purpose in terms of meeting policy requirements.
• Brilliant, that seems very reasonable. Councillor Stauber.
• Just one kind of rider question. So, very much approved through you, very much appreciate the answer. I think that's the notion of a refresh or a review is very sound. It's not just data though, it's the way it's been interpreted. And I think there's kind of ample given in this annex six about the way the data is being handled. But I wonder if that could be just a focus. It's not just the data, but it's the way it's been combined and interpreted, or perhaps there's been a particular spin put on some data that might actually, that's useful to capture somehow. So that's the cabinet member for housing could comment on that.
• Councillor Batchelor.
• I think that's probably Julie again, Julie.
• I think some of the evidence just needs to be the evidence has produced in terms of the factual evidence that's been produced by whoever has taken that study. That obviously informs what we do in terms of policy. And I think that's where you get your sort of analysis in terms of why you come to the conclusion on something. So for instance, one of the things I'd just highlight to you is we had two reports in terms of housing needs for older people. So we had the GLM home report, which was undertaken part of the local plan process, which looked at the need for older people's accommodation. And then the county councils commission side for all the people's accommodation. I've done some separate research in terms of what they think is required for older people. Now the county's view takes a policy direction as well in terms of more independent living. The GL home report actually just looks up population and the trends will continue as they are in terms of where people live now in sheltered. Maybe they'll be living in sheltered in future and not looking at, maybe changes in models and things like that. So the numbers are quite different when you look at them for example, the need for care homes. And we've struggled a bit with that because it's, which one's right? And we've actually sort of come to almost a middle point because there is still, there will always be a need for care homes and we'll need to improve some of our care homes and make sure that's still fit for purpose. So we shouldn't lose sight of that, but also that's a strife and more independent living. So we've taken both sort of policy research of both of those and sort of come to our conclusion with me somewhere in the middle in terms of our need. But you can interpret things, sort of how you wish in some cases, can't you in terms of research?
• Councillor Stover.
• No, there's a kind of anecdote. That Julie has just mentioned is an excellent example of how you capture, what did you do in that moment? And you can always go back and review it. Solid that conclusion is based on that data. So yeah, I'm grateful for that as an illustration.
• And Ian has noted the point you made about reviewing that in those timescales. Councillor Bygo.
• Thank you, Shannon. So my question is about self and custom build housing. So apologies I don't have the page numbers 'cause I'm looking on the online version and they're different to the ones on the paper version. But in annex one on page nine in the section housing for specific groups. So I don't know if anybody's got the paper page number for that. Page 56. Great, thank you. So there's a section 11, self and custom build housing. And then a paragraph 11.3, the councils hold the joint register of people interested and recognize that this type of housing can help to diversify the housing market. We will seek appropriate provision of self and custom build homes and new developments in line with national planning policy et cetera. In the annex six, it comes out summary of evidence. It comes back to the same issue in section nine, which is page eight of annex six. Yeah. Page 118. So it says paragraph 9.1. The council self and custom build register identifies the number of people wishing to either self build or purchase a custom build home and the number of planning commissions granted. So it gives the definition of self build when you actually do the building yourself and custom build when you own the land first and then commission a builder to build for you on the land that you already own. That latter mechanism is in many countries the overwhelming majority of houses built. It's historically not something that's happened in the UK much for at least a century. But in many countries, the overwhelming majority are. If you actually follow that link through where it says self custom build register, it comes to a page on greatcambridgeplanning.org called the self build and custom build property register. And there's a table of the number of people who have registered to put themselves on that register in each base period set of dates and the number of permissions granted to sort of match to that. And what you see is that for the first two periods up until the end of October 2017, the number of permissions granted within three years matched the number of people added to the register. But from the 2017, '18 period, it suddenly drops down to only 10% of the people who registered. And then for two more years, there are some built, some permissions granted, but much less than people on the register. And then for the past three years, it says that no permissions have been granted at all from November 2020 onwards. So I make that 733, a cumulative shortfall of 733 between the permissions granted and the people added to the register. So my question is what is some, what is happening with self build register and why is it that so few permissions have been granted?
• Councillor Bachelor, please.
• Yep, thanks very much for that. First off, self build is a planning obligation on developers. It's not an obligation on us. The obligation on us is to actually have the register and provide that to the developers. We did for several years try to use some of our small plots of land to encourage self build, but that proves not to be a great success. I think over three years, there was eight houses built and there were contractual obligations put on those in order to try and prevent them being simply a backdoor for developers to simply develop and sell. So there was an obligation on the self builder to actually live in the property that they built for several years. None of the ones that we dealt with actually kept to that. This required us to go through legal processes. And anyway, it wasn't a viable operation and we as an authority do not offer self build plots. So we've stopped doing that. So the self build obligation is on developers on, I can't recall the precise number, but it's the size of the project. They have an obligation to do a few self builds. So our responsibility is the list which we have and provide, but the rest of us doesn't appear to be a great success as you pointed out. And it's not an area that we're pursuing.
• Councillor Byram.
• So do we not have an obligation for enforcement for developers who are not providing those plots as was intended in the local plan, and these people who have been added to the list, so I said I counted 733 that have added to the list and not been mission granted. Do we know much about these 733 people and do we believe that they are genuine people who wanted to have a self build or custom built property?
• Councillor Batchelor.
• Technical question going to Julie.
• Thank you, this is really sort of within the remit of our planning colleagues I think. Unfortunately we've not got the expertise to drill down into the figures. If I may, I would suggest that we provide a written response to that so we can make sure that we're giving you the right information in terms of your question on what's published here, on the self build register.
• Happy with that Councillor Bygo.
• Great, thank you, I look forward to that.
• Perfect, exactly. I'm gonna move on then, Councillor Leeming.
• Thank you Chair, it's a very small thing actually. On page 68 in paragraph 8.1 there's a typo. The rest of, I'm trying to say the document's really clear, really good to read but there's a bit of a, you need a full stop and a space in the middle of that paragraph is squished, thank you.
• Okay, so do you want to note that, and yeah.
• Yes please Chair, but sorry I didn't pick the number.
• It's page 68 and it's paragraph 8.1, it's in the service charges section. So there's two sentences that have got crushed together, thank you.
• Lovely, thank you for that. I'm gonna come to Councillor Hoeber, and then Councillor Bratton, Councillor Hoeber.
• Thank you Chair, so I have another question about improvement of existing housing stock, sort of a little way following on from my previous question. But this is with respect to the key achievements, so I'm talking about page 145 in the pack. So we have a clear list of really strong achievements on our housing, our council housing stock, which I think is very impressive. But of course, a large number, I mean the majority of housing in the district is privately owned. And I noticed that the city council has listed some achievements on advice for homeowners in retrofitting their properties, and they've gone as far as producing a document in 2022. So my question really is do we have, or might we consider a similar program, or at the very least perhaps using what Cambridge City have done, although their document is clearly related to the kind of housing they have in Cambridge. And it would be only partly appropriate for the range of houses we have in the district. So really I was looking for comments on the whole issue of encouraging homeowners to bring improvements to their own properties, rather than the focus on our own council housing stock.
• Thank you. Councilor Batchelor.
• Thank you very much. So if I understood that, this is the private sector you're talking about. All we can do, the private sector, is provide advice, isn't it? And, yeah, there are practical issues here in that we've got quite a big project in hands ourselves. And to actually take on responsibilities for the private sector as well. I'm not sure it is terribly practical. We do have obligations, as I understand it, to encourage good practice, particularly with the developers themselves, and that stage. But I'm not sure that we have a role. We just checked that I've got that right.
• Thank you. Yes, just to say I think the guidance you were talking about, that is within our action plan to do this year. So we are looking at something similar to what the City has produced. And Councilor Batchelor's quite right. Most of it we can give is around advice, et cetera. We are also part of the partnership in terms of providing energy grants, et cetera. And again, that's in the action plan in terms of what we will do going forward this year. We're also doing some sort of analysis about the housing stock more generally. So I think that will help to identify areas in terms of poorer housing, maybe, that needs targeted help, maybe. So that's all work that's being carried out through our Environmental Health Department in terms of private sector housing.
• Councilor Holbrooke.
• So thank you very much. I appreciate this is all about advice, because it's part of the spirit which is there in the document. And I'm really pleased to hear that we're planning to do something along the lines of what I think looks like a very excellent advice document that's come out of the City Council. So thank you.
• Thank you for that. Councilor Braden.
• Thank you very much, Chair. Right, so this is observing something missing. What came up into my head when Councilor Leeming pointed out about the costs of renting and whether costs were affordable, and that she mentioned rentals of 700 pounds a month and for shared houses and small houses at 1,375 a month were not affordable. And so as a result, a lot of our elderly residents and perhaps in some cases, because they have no other recourse, they end up living in park homes and park home estates. And they are, as a result of that, extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of the landlord. And I just wondered, I know they're a part of the private rental sector, but I know I have had a recent conversation with a tenant in a park home and said, is there any way that you can get onto our home link register? And that person said to me, I've looked, and absolutely I can't because I cannot afford any of the homes on the home link register. Because they, and it chimed with me when Councilor Leeming mentioned those prices, because that was the sort of amount, quantum that she had referred to me as not being affordable to her. And a lot of people in park home sites are extremely vulnerable. Often they're elderly, often they have a remit that they can only be rented to people over 50, which immediately puts that into people who are older, retired, perhaps on benefits, but perhaps also getting not very well, and to have limited resources. And I just wondered if we have any recognition, or whether we have any responsibilities to people in park homes.
• Councilor Batchelor, thank you.
• Well, I'm sure we do. First thing is that the particular, the person should actually be pursuing benefits. If they can't afford 700 pounds a month, which for our area is low, we work on the basis affordability is 35% of the disposable income. So, that's the measure. I mean, we have this responsibility and she should come to our housing advice officers, who will, I'm sure, direct them to a suitable outcome.
• Julie?
• Yes please, if I may. Just on the point you mentioned Home Link, I would be surprised of that, because obviously we've got quite a high proportion of sheltered housing within our own council stock, which is at social rent. So, that's the lowest you're gonna get really in terms of rental. And obviously we do have quite high turnover, I think, of our shelters, so quite surprised to hear that in terms of the comment around Home Link. If she is on a very low income and struggling to afford a private rent, then she may well qualify. So, as Councillor Batchard have said, she's probably better off chap talking to our housing options team, 'cause it doesn't sound quite right in terms of what she was saying in terms of Home Link.
• So, you may be right, I may have misunderstood or misheard, but the point being is that once you've bought a park home, let us just say you bought it for 150,000 pounds, some of them have been sold for that sort of price. If you then try to move out of it and sell the property, it goes back to another person buys it, but they don't, if they were to buy it at 140,000, a 10th of that goes directly to the park home owner, not to the person who's selling the park home. So immediately that person loses 10% of the value of their home. And often, because these are people who are elderly and vulnerable, they're often, that's their only resource. So I just wondered if somewhere in this report under the other forms of affordable housing section, which is section 10 on page 69 or annex two page 11, I just wonder if we need to be mindful that there is this sector of housing, which is sort of outside all sorts of other protections. And I would appreciate it if we could put something in with regard to that. I appreciate that may not be easy, but I wondered if we could, because I think it's quite, just take it. We have one park home site in my own village or used to have, but in another of my villages in the three where I'm a district Councillor and my colleagues are too, we have at least one other park home site and in another village, we have I think three park home sites. And so this is a considerable proportion of the affordable housing in our area, which is available to the elderly. Okay, I'll leave that thought with you. And I'm sure you'll look into it if you can. But my last question you'll be pleased to hear is, but it's a fundamental one. It's, and I can see Stephen Kelly's on the line as well. That's interesting and nice to see that he's there. But the other point is whether we have a strategy to replace our affordable homes, because I know in previous legislation, we haven't been able to use the income that we get to build more affordable homes. And I know we're now buying from developers, but do we have a strategy for replacing our stock of affordable housing? This may be blindingly obvious in the report. I might've missed it, but it would be great.
• Councillor Batchler.
• Thank you very much. I'm not quite sure I understand the question quite honestly. So are we talking about disposing of the very elderly housing and building new or?
• No, I mean, do we, I suppose what I'm saying is, have we got a strategy for building at all? Can we have a strategy for building?
• A new 40-hour strategy.
• Yeah, a very active strategy for building. This last year, we, well, we keep saying building, but we purchased 109 houses to increase our stock. This followed '91 in the previous year, '89 and '64 then, this year, we currently have either under contracts or plans, 100, 25, 26, we have got 140, 26, 27, 132 and so on in the pipeline. So there's big projects going on, obviously, you know, in Allstow and the new towns and so on. So that there are a lot of houses coming forward where we will be the social landlord, and at this moment, what by '28, we've currently got 866 houses that we've always, this has since the little democrats took control. So that's, it would almost certainly in that 10-year period be more than 1,000 houses that we would have added to our stock.
• Thank you for that. Councillor Bradman?
• Just one other element of that was that because of course people can have a right to buy and, you know, they can either buy, there's the shared element but obviously, we keep a shared housing, we keep a stake in the property, but right to buy means that we lose stock as well. So will that be sufficient to replace the stock that is lost to us through right to buy?
• Briefly, Councillor Thatcher?
• Yes, right to buy it, unfortunately, it varies a lot from year to year, I think the last numbers I saw was about 30 or 40 in the year, right to buy it. Yeah, so something of that sort of number, so we're net gain with our numbers. 30 or 40 a year, yeah. But the other side of that is of course we've got, what is it, 40% or 50% of the income from that the government lets us keep and so that that is reinvested in new property.
• Thank you for that. - Thank you, Mr. Thatcher.
• Thank you. Councillor Paul Barepart, please.
• Oh, thank you, these are all quite minor things. Just give me one minute, my laptop decided to restart. On page 31, there's the word insultation, which I presume is meant to be insulation, and on page 39 there's a repeated section. The other thing I just wanted to mention was in the, on page 10, which is in the context section, it talks about the two councils climate change targets and talks about city being net zero by 2030, but 2050 in South Cambridgeshire. And I think possibly that's, because that's state, that's possibly 2030, the city target is 2030 because that's its own state, and the 2050 is from the target to have the whole South Cambridgeshire district net zero by 2050. But if I had a quick look at the, had a quick look at the, can't remember which document it was, it's gone now, it's made, okay. (audience member speaking faintly) No, I think looking, no, looking at the, the council, South Cam's own targets, I think the target for its own state was 75% by 2030, so I think they should be stated on the same basis.
• Okay, Councillor Baxter, can you comment on that and those two figures?
• Yeah, thanks, thanks very much. Yeah, well, we're aware of the extremely ambitious target with the city. We don't believe it's gonna be achievable. Ours is a sensible assessment on the basis of our properties, their condition, and reality. So I'd be very interested to see the city delivering in 2030, but I doubt that that is actually a possibility. Having said that, the housing stock in the city is very, very different from the housing stock in South Cam's. There's a great deal that, it passives on lots of flats. The management and refitting of those are quite a different project to actually dealing essentially with houses. So I'm not a technical person, I don't know whether that is a reality or not, but good luck to them, that's why I say.
• Thank you very much for that. Do you wanna come back in there briefly, Julie? Yeah?
• Thank you, if I may. Just to add, I did sort of go back to our climate change team to make sure that that 2050 figure that we're quoting is correct, and it is correct as it stands at the moment within our net zero carbon strategy. But I understand that the strategy is currently under review. And so the target may well change, but at the moment, as it stands, that 2050 is correct in terms of the net zero. Whether the two are slightly measuring something different, I'm not sure but we're quite clear in our documentation that zero carbon strategy, that it's a 2050 target.
• Councillor Bear dawn.
• Yeah, I mean, first of all, I agree with Councillor Bachelor, the city target is pretty ambitious and whether it's chief of heart, don't know. But I am looking at the SouthKAM zero carbon strategy for 2020, we have a similar target which is 75% reduction by 2030. I think 2050 is for the district wide target. So it's on the stated on different bases, that's the specific point I was making. It was the 2030 one for the city is on their estate and the 2050 is for the, according to the zero carbon strategy for SouthKAMs is for the whole of SouthKAMs and not just the councils.
• Thank you, Julie.
• Can we take that away to clarify? 'Cause I completely understand what you will say and I think we just need to clarify that. Make sure we're clear within the document that we are both sort of talking about the same thing. So thank you for that.
• Or if you're actually talking about different criteria, it needs to be clear 'cause otherwise it looks as if we're not doing very well compared to the city and it might be based on a different space as it were.
• Thank you. So we'll have a written response and circulate that to the members. Are you happy with that Councilor?
• Yeah, that's fine, thank you.
• So I will come to Councilor Richard Stobart.
• Chair, thank you. So I'm looking at, it's page 11 of Appendix A and that's page 22 in the Agenda Pack and the topic of new homes. Comment about the linkage between the housing strategy and the local plan. Now I think Councilor Hobbo mentioned earlier the accessibility of this document. I do have to commend the team, the officer team who put it together because it is all very accessible. But I think the linkage with the local plan makes it even more powerful. But perhaps this is something that is coming up as the local plan is developed. Then linking with the housing strategy will enrich both documents and their readability. I just wanted to point one thing out and ask a question. Supporting, so one of the things that is encouraged in the local plan, but of course would have implications for the housing strategy, is the, well, supporting development by small and medium enterprise builders. So very often we're dealing with builders, very large companies. SME builders have a lot to offer in a kind of, in this kind of very flexible environment that we've been talking about. For example, rural exception sites, an SME builder could handle a rural exception site and bring local crafts and skills and insights into the process. So I was interested in the dynamic around SME builders. And because our business strategy is a lot concerned with SMEs, perhaps this is a kind of, very much kind of multifunctional initiative that the council could pursue, to the enrichment of the housing strategy. So a thought, but linkage between the housing strategy and the local plan looks great. It just enhances accessibility.
• Are you happy to take that on board as a comment in terms of how the document is, you know, read and the linkage between the two?
• Indeed, certainly.
• I don't know if Stephen was rather keen to come back on that one.
• I don't know if we need to take it any further, really. I'm happy with the comment. And if you're happy to, yeah, council Stobart.
• But is this opening suggesting an initiative to encourage SME builders?
• Councilor Batchelor.
• Well, I'm not sure that we're in a position to actually encourage them really. I don't know. I think this is a planning issue that Stephen is, I don't know if you did ask Stephen to expand on it.
• I think I'm happy with your answer on that, that it's more of a planning issue. And, you know, the document is such that, you know, we want to try and encourage parish councils to consider, you know, exception sites and using those developers. But I think there's a limit to what we can do to encourage that also. I'm happy with that, yeah. Are you happy with that, Councilor Stobart?
• More or less, Chair, yes.
• Yes. If you're not, say, do you want some more clarity?
• No, I think we've probably explored that enough in this context. It is there in black and white in the housing strategy.
• Yeah, yeah, it is.
• So, you know, the implication is it will be acted upon. But I think it's a fine objective.
• Yeah, noted. So have we got any other speakers, any other questions? Councilor Stobart?
• Well, just one thing. I did comment on the quality of the work and the document. I'd just like to underscore that. And then just one final question, the action plan that comes as the final part of the strategy is, yeah, an excellent thing, because it shows what is being done by the various parties involved. But is there a governance and review process associated with it? If this time next year we're looking at maybe reviewing the housing strategy at scrutiny, will we see that progressing? And can we ask questions about it? What's the governance process and our opportunity to scrutinize?
• Councilor Batchelor?
• Well, it'd be part of the usual management process. Obviously, I have a weekly meeting with the senior officers, and this will be part of that sort of review. I'm not sure about the formal dates or whether we would report the cabinet at some point. Perhaps we can check that with Julie.
• I think we're open to what suits members really in terms of if cabinet would like us to bring it back to cabinet, then obviously that's what we'll do. And the same, I've originally requested them. That's what we'll do. We will be reviewing it on an annual basis.
• Agreed, agreed. And obviously, any members of this group, any committee, could request that to be looked at at any point as well. So, lovely. Did you want to come back on that at all, Councillor Staubar?
• No, Chair, thank you very much.
• Thank you. Councillor Paul Bear Park?
• Just wanted to come back on something that Councillor Batchelor said earlier. We talked about some big numbers related to retrofitting our own council house properties of about 400 million, I think, and also 28,000 pounds for the passive house. I think it's useful to know those numbers, but it's also useful to know the numbers on the other side. So, just to give you an example, the government spent 51.1 billion last year on energy support policies. That's on top of what householders themselves spent on their energy bills. On top of that is what the IPC talks about in terms of the social cost of carbon, effectively the damage to the environment, and that's another $100 per ton. So, if you think typically carbon dioxide emissions from each house at roundabout 12 tons a year, that's another $1,200 on top. So, I just think it's important to balance those big numbers against the numbers on the other side when we're talking about these things.
• Fair comment. Obviously, this report is focusing on things within our remit, but yet a note around those additional costs is a fair comment. Did you want to comment on that, Councillor Batchelor?
• Well, just to say that obviously we're pursuing the grants. You know, there is quite a bit of money. We've already secured more than three million pounds.
• Anybody else? Councillor Drew.
• Thank you. I'm just going to page 28, first of all. I just noticed that, apologies, I'm just sitting here and just waiting. I just noticed on page 28 in relation to new homes, in the Cambridge City Council section it references the 40% affordable housing requirement in the local plan, and obviously brings that to the fore. In the South cams District Council section it doesn't reference the 40% affordable housing target. Since everything that is in any report is obviously a choice and a decision, I was wondering if there's any reason why the City Council referenced the 40% and our District Council does not.
• Councillor Batchelor.
• I believe it is mentioned elsewhere, but not in this bit. It's certainly the 40% is our policy.
• Thank you very much. Yeah, and if I can move to page 53. (muffled speaking) Page 53, Section 7.1, where it says, and this is talking about affordable housing for local workers, and it's obviously the need to recognize wide range economy, blah, blah, and then in the middle of 7.1 it says, The Council general approach is therefore to promote housing options which meet the need of people working locally, rather than solutions targeted at specific groups of workers." What does that mean?
• Councillor Batchelor, that Julie's going to tell you.
• Julie.
• Thank you, so what it means is rather than specifically saying a group of people, so people working, just for instance, at Adam Brooks Hospital, as an example, we felt everyone is essential to the work that they do, and actually it's more around promoting travel to work, et cetera, so it's more targeted at local workers rather than restricting it to a specific group, so that's why we've done it in terms of working locally rather than saying, Oh, we're gonna target just people working at a certain teachers," or whatever it may well be. It's more about that travel to work and local workers.
• Okay, thank you. If I can move to page 64. On page 64, in sections, I think, in section 4.1, talking about two bedroom homes for South Cambridgeshire and for homes with nominations for charity and two councils, it says, We will expect the affordable housing provide a similar proportional split between houses and flats, and then in 4.2, it says, For three bedroom or larger properties, we will expect the affordable homes to be provided with houses. Why are we using the phrase, We will expect, rather than making it a requirement? 'Cause if I'm a developer and I see the phrase, We will expect, I think I might interpret that as, I don't think I'll do that, 'cause it'll cost me money, 'cause all the district council is doing is saying, They will expect.
• Councillor Thatcher.
• Right, thanks very much. Well, this is, in the planning, it would specify exactly what that meant. We expect it, but we have to see what the actual planning has given them. I mean, there are cases where on viability grounds and so on, there is an allowance, which is lower than the 40%, so we're in the hands of planning as far as that's concerned, but the fixed point is we want 40% on every project.
• Okay, so 4.1 and 4.2 are actually referring to the split between houses and flats, so that's my fault for not explaining that I jumped to a new section, Councillor Thatcher, sorry there. I mean, the principle of we will expect, you've answered in the way that needs, whether it was about one or the other is absolutely fine. I mean, the point being made in this section is, I think, a really important point about the fact that it's very clear that the District Council is saying that we certainly do not want developers to simply provide the affordable housing in a way that may well suit simplicity of their development. We want it provided in a way that meets the needs of residents. I think that's a fair way of interpreting what's been written, yeah, great, okay, thank you. Am I right to just carry on?
• Yeah. - Okay. If I can just, I might make this, I suppose this is a point. You may choose not to respond to it, it's absolutely fine. And you've referred, Councillor Thatcher, a number of times to the aspiration, aim, policy, whatever you might call it, of affordability being that a household isn't spending more than 35% of its net income on housing. Now, if I go to page 91, there is a table two, I think I'm going to, page 91. So, yes. So page 91 in 5.4, it kind of explains the fact that the policy document for housing is written around this promoted idea that we should aspire to affordable housing or housing generally being never more than 35% of their net income on housing costs. But it then explains towards the bottom of 0.5.4 that this is a incredibly difficult thing to achieve and that unfortunately, if applied, is likely to make delivery of a scheme unviable. So I'm wondering what your view, Councillor Thatcher, or from one of the offices or whatever, is about the fact that a large amount of the kind of aspiration within this housing policy is made incredibly difficult to achieve by the fact that it may well make some housing schemes unviable. I'm wondering where the kind of balance sits for us in that.
• Councillor Thatcher.
• Right, thanks very much. Yeah, it is very difficult. And that's why we don't pursue every single opportunity. The baseline for us is the local housing allowance. So this is the government cap for benefit purposes. So we're looking to have a rent which is no higher than the local housing allowance benefit level, 40% of our tenants have their rent paid either in full or in part through benefits. So that's our position. We can't pursue everything, obviously, because it's simply not viable, as you pointed out. But still, there are opportunities. We are currently picking up about a quarter of all the affordable housing that becomes available in our area.
• Excellent. Just as a final bit, thank you for that. I just wanted to go on to flag, and I think it's something that's... It comes out of the report, and it comes out in terms of the, I suppose, the summary of the report and the presentation of the report. But I think it's something that I would perhaps like to see issues such as the one I'm about to flag, which comes out from page 120.11.5, really being made very, very clear, I think, when the reports such as this are being presented. It is interesting to note that the second bullet point for South Cambridge on 11.5 points out, the lower quartile resale property would require around 26,000 pound net income for one bedroom, and at least 57,000 pounds net income for a three bedroom house in South Cambridgeshire. And if I scroll up to table three, it is made clear that 70% of households have an income under 20,000, and 30% under 30,000, and 28% 30 to 50, and 40% 50 to 65. Now, cumulatively, what that means, taking 17 and 32 at 49, and then adding my 27, I get to 77, and then I can take 20% of that. We are looking at a very high proportion of households in South Cambridgeshire who simply, in terms of the housing policy, do not possess the net income to even be able to afford a three bedroom home. And I think that's something that really should be pushed very, very clearly in relation to this, so that everyone reading and everyone understanding really does understand the crisis position that the council is attempting to deal with.
• Thank you. - Councillor Batchelor.
• No, you too. - Thank you. Anything else, Councillor. - No, I'm done, thank you.
• Perfect, anybody else want to speak on this item? Okay, then we will go to page five in our papers, and I think, if we look at the recommendations, we have thoroughly gone over the report that will go to cabinet for them to take our comments and recommendations on board. Are we all happy that that takes place as recommended at point three on page five? Is that agreed? - Agreed.
• Lovely, thank you very much. - Great, thank you.
• So I'll go back to the agenda. So next on our list is the work program. So that is pages 199 to 214. And I'd like members just to note the work program and see if you've got any questions on that at all. No questions on the work program? Okay. Thank you. Then that is our last agenda. I would just like to thank Councillor Braden who has agreed to take the scrutiny report to cabinet on the 25th of July. So thank you for doing that, Councillor Braden. And we will close the meeting. Thanks very much everybody for your attendance. (gavel bangs) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) [BLANK_AUDIO]