Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendices (at pages 18 - 20) as delivered and summarised by Interim Chief Financial Officer (Section 151 Officer) which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

With reference to rent levels for 2016/17 at paragraph 4 (at page 19), Councillor L A Bentley enquired as to whether there was a possibility of a further decrease in rents and its discernible impact upon Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and, consequently, the point of service-delivery. The Member further suggested that a review of the Council’s non-dwelling sites and assets be undertaken to ascertain, and capitalise upon, any potential better use(s) of the same.

The Interim Chief Financial Officer stated that the 1% reduction in rents per annum was to apply over the duration of the next four years, after which increases in accordance with CPI +1% would resume (subject to the discretion of central government policy). He advised that should rents continue to see a reduction by a further two to three years (2022-2023), the Council’s ambition for the redevelopment of its housing stock would not be achievable and would require a scaling-back of capital programmes and investment of £50,000 per annum: if extended over 30-years, the impact upon the HRA was said to be significant. In respect of non-dwelling sites and assets, it was reported that all local authorities were expected to undertake a purpose-review of their estates and dispose of any redundant holdings.

Councillor J W Boyce stated that the disposal of the Council’s highest-valued housing stock would not proportionately yield a commensurate return. He further expressed serious reservations in respect of the approximate, accumulative shortfall of £250,000 from the 1% reduction in rents and its impact on future capital projects.

The Interim Chief Financial Officer advised that, due to the ongoing consultation process, there was still uncertainty as to criteria to be used to identify the Council’s highest-valued housing stock. It was suggested that this may involve the taking of a percentile-value calculated upon the valuation(s) of those highest-valued properties. He emphasised that the levy in question was compulsory and therefore would either necessitate the disposal of property or a payment rendered to the value thereof.

Councillor Mrs S Z Haq sought clarification as to “void” at paragraph 3.4 (at page 18).

Councillor Mrs L M Broadley sought further clarification as to the determination of “high-value” housing stock and whether the proceeds of the levy were to be retained by central government. The Member further raised concerns in respect of the ever-increasing diminution of housing stock, particularly under the new Right to Buy (RTB) scheme, and the impact upon the housing needs of social tenants. She was hopeful that the levy’s proceeds would be reinvested into social housing projects in the Borough.

The Interim Chief Financial Officer was unable to provide further clarification to the points sought above until such time as the outcome(s) of the consultation process were known.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

The report be noted by Members and the new levels of rent and service charges (as set out at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report, respectively) be recommended to the Policy, Finance and Development Committee.