Agenda item

Motion One.  Proposed by Cllr. Ron Tindall

 

 

1. This motion calls upon the Council to address the present Cost of Living Crisis which is a complex problem which may be with us for some years.  The Ofgem energy price cap has risen by 54%, the pension’s triple lock has been suspended, and food and petrol price rises have contributed to the highest levels of inflation for nearly 30 years.

 

2. Whilst the opportunities for action at local level are limited, it is important this council does what it can to ease the pressures on our residents.  Therefore, this Council resolves as a matter of urgency to

 

a.         instruct officers to look at and improve the current support mechanisms available to residents,

b.         arrange discussions with all concerned organisations across Dacorum including food banks and the voluntary sector, and 

c.         initiate discussions with Council Tax Preceptors regarding 2023/2024

With the purpose of enabling proposals to be brought forward in a timely manner to provide assistance and support for those most in need in our communities.

 

Cllr Williams proposed an alternative motion, which was accepted by Cllr Tindall.

 

Alternative Motion :

 

1            This motion calls upon the Council to recognise the present cost of living crisis which is likely to be with us for some years causing challenges for many in our community. The Ofgem price cap has risen by 54%, the pension’s triple lock has been suspended and food and fuel price rises have contributed to the highest level of inflation for nearly 30 years.

 

2          The Council welcomes the 37 Billion pounds of support the government has already committed to help families through the crisis but recognises that many will require more support whilst the opportunities for action at local level are limited it is important that we do what we can. Therefore this council resolves to

 

a.         Work with the Community and Voluntary sector partners to hold a Cost of Living Symposium to fully understand the extent of local issues and discuss potential solution

b.         Instruct officers to review current support mechanisms available to residents following the symposium.

c.         Work county-wide to ensure that collectively we ensure that we maximise the support available.

 

With the purpose of enabling proposals to be brought forward in a timely manner to provide assistance and support for those most in need in our communities.

 

The alternative motion was put  to a vote.

 

The Council voted unanimously in favour of this alternative Motion proposed by Cllr Williams.

 

 

Motion Two.  Proposed by Cllr., Garrick Stevens

 

1. While acknowledging that home ownership is an aspiration for many, this Council also recognises that many in the community will, for various reasons, be unable or unwilling to be other than a lifetime tenant of a Registered Social Landlord [‘RSL or Housing Assn’].

In this Borough approximately 5,000 dwellings are owned by RSLs and they make a vital contribution to the provision of affordable housing in the rental sector.

 

2. The Government has made a proposal to introduce the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations. Until now this has been restricted to tenants of public sector housing stock.

 

3. To safeguard the property and other assets of Housing Assns/RSL,  which are independent corporate bodies, and to maintain the stock of local housing for rent [or shared ownership], this Council -

 

Calls upon the Leader of the Council to write to the Minister  at DLUHCG, [with copies to the respective MPs, -

 

a. requesting that the Government proceeds with its proposals only with an unequivocal commitment to ensure that any dwelling so removed from the RSL Housing stock in the Borough shall be replaced on a 1 -for- 1 basis, and

 

b. the Government provide the additional funding to meet the full  replacement costs to include provision for the supply of land within the Borough.

 

Cllr England proposed an alternative motion, the motion was as follows

 

1. While acknowledging that home ownership is an aspiration for many, this Council also recognises that many in the community will, for various reasons, be unable or unwilling to be other than a lifetime tenant of a Registered Social Landlord [‘RSL or Housing Assn’].

In this Borough approximately 5,000 dwellings are owned by RSLs and they make a vital contribution to the provision of affordable housing in the rental sector.

 

2. The Government has made a proposal to introduce the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations. Until now this has been restricted to tenants of public sector housing stock.

 

3. To safeguard the property and other assets of Housing Assns/RSL,  which are independent corporate bodies, and to maintain the stock of local housing for rent [or shared ownership], this Council -

 

Calls upon the Leader of the Council to write to the Minister at DLUHCG, [with copies to the respective MPs,

 

a. requesting that the Government proceeds with its proposals “and forthcoming consultation” only with an unequivocal commitment to ensure that any dwelling so removed from the RSL Housing Stock in the Borough shall be replaced on a 1 -for- 1 basis, and

 

b. the Government provide the additional funding to meet the full  replacement costs to include provision for the supply of land within the Borough.

 

 

The Council voted on the Alternative motion

 

For  13      Against   20   Abstain 3

 

The motion failed

 

The Council voted on the substantive motion

 

For  13      Against   20   Abstain 3

 

The substantive motion also failed

 

 

5.1

Cllr Tindall: Could I thank the leader of the council for presenting an amendment which we have accepted, and, therefore, what is before you is an amended motion going forward on the subject of the cost of living. I understand the text is going to be put up on the screen but if you would like me to read it out?

Mayor: I'm instructed, Cllr Tindall, that you must move your original motion first.

Cllr Tindall: I've accepted the amendment and we have accepted the amendment in its entirety, and Cllr Williams is going to second the amended motion, so, therefore, there is no need to go through the rigmarole, as it were.

Mayor: I think the officer agrees with you.

Cllr Tindall: Thank you. Right, yes, it just saves time and everybody's energy on these warm evenings. Can I say, as I said before, I thank the leader of the council for proposing his amendment which we've taken in its entity and so this motion is a motion that I hope the whole council can agree. It is presented to the council without prescription or time limit so the Dacorum can come together to support those in our communities who are affected by the cost of living crisis. I do not intend to do anything to setting out the facts at present and urge the whole council to support this motion and the future work that will derive from it. There is a cost of living crisis and there is no doubt that it is likely to continue for some time, possibly two, three or more years. Further, we have no way of knowing when external factors such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine or further pandemic pressures will end. It is for that reason that this motion calls upon the officers to look at and improve Dacorum's present support systems that are available to help vulnerable residents including making available availability to such support easier to those in need. We're also looking to ensure that we're able to support our communities into the future. So, the motion also calls for an action to bring together all those involved so that the support given is co-ordinated, gets to those in need and our efforts are not wasted. It may be that we have to ensure that our local organisations are supported themselves so they can reach out to the communities in need. I know that the council presently works well with those local organisations but let us ensure that everything we are doing and could do is structured and gets to the target.

The third point concerns the burden of taxation on those who can least afford it and looks at the medium-term. There is no news of the cost of living crisis easing. Indeed, the available information suggests that interest rates will continue to rise next month, therefore, the motion asks that this council has discussions with The County Council-, I'll leave that bit out because the motion has changed slightly. The only other point I would like to make is The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has produced a first class summary of the increased problems of managing the cost of living crisis on a low income and I know that it is not necessary to repeat them in this council chamber, except, perhaps, one statistic that illustrates, most clearly the growing need. Citizen's Advice have reported that while foodbank referrals in a particular period in 2021 were 400 a day, demand has climbed in the equivalent period this year to 700 a day, and I doubt this extraordinary pace of increase will slow anytime soon. I commend this motion to you and ask for your support.

Mayor: Thank you, Cllr Tindall. Cllr Williams, do you wish to speak?

Cllr Williams: I second, and reserve my right.

Mayor: Thank you, Cllr Williams. I'll let any other contributions from the floor.

Cllr Taylor:  We are facing the worst financial crisis since the war. A financial time bomb of unequal proportion in modern times. Energy has gone up in price by 54%. If current predictions are followed, it will go up another 65% in the autumn, making a total increase of over 150% in one year and there is no likely reduction I sight. It is estimated that it would cost someone on the state pension, a third of that pension to pay for their energy bills in future. The £400 government help provided will be swallowed up and not be noticed when this is due to be paid back and any tax cuts that may be given will pail into insignificance compared to the cost of the energy people have to pay for. Families will be faced with a choice of starving or freezing. Brexit has cut us off from the European labour market to do those mundane jobs nobody else wanted. Companies are faced with no choice to increase pay to compensate for scarce labour. As a result, we hear stories of social workers quitting their jobs to work in McDonald's. How will we, as councillors, continue to provide the essential services in these circumstances? Inflation is now the highest in the G7 countries. It is likely to get worse. So far, many business have tried to absorb the increasing cost, but soon they will have no choice but to pass that cost on to their consumers. The way governments have always dealt with inflation in the past is to either increase taxes or increase interest rates.

If a government will not do the former, The Bank of England will do the latter. It will have a very serious impact on anyone who needs to borrow money, whether you're a house buyer or a business, it will be hard. I have touched on just a few of the problems that we face in coming years. We, as elected representatives, have a duty to act. Governments at all levels must prioritise helping those least able to help themselves. We will need to open the doors of public spaces to allow people to come in and keep warm when they cannot afford to heat their own homes. We must focus on how we pay our employees so that they are not forced to seek alternative employment when they are not able to cope on the salaries they currently receive and we must plan now, have focus to respond to this crisis so we are ready with the help, and help is needed. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you, Cllr Taylor. Any other contributions?

Cllr Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm happy to rise to second this motion and when redrafting this, I didn't want to make it too long and wordy, but I did want to emphasise that it is not just in Dacorum or with our partners in Dacorum that we are seeking to work. I was at a meeting of The Herts Leaders this morning, the eleven councils in Hertfordshire, and we have set up a cost of living working group amongst the Herts leaders to co-ordinate activity across the county, recognising that there will be challenges for our community going forward and it's not going to be a one or two-month fix. Clearly, there has been some significant support from government in the £400 that Cllr Taylor mentioned in the significant rise in the National Insurance threshold, in the council tax rebate and in the £650 of additional funding to people on Universal Credit, but it is right that the challenge will rise as we face the winter. Those challenges will get all that greater. We can only hope that some of the international pressures that are on, not just us, or Europe, or the world, will ease, but most notably, the war in Ukraine, not just for the benefit of the residents of the United Kingdom, but more significantly, I suppose, the residents of Ukraine that that situation is resolved, but the effects of that situation are obviously far more widespread that just in Ukraine.

So, we are working across the piece, and I do hope that on the conclusion of currents events in Westminster and the successful selection of a new Prime Minister in September that the government will continue to focus on the cost of living crisis and effects on the residents of the United Kingdom in supporting that. What does disappoint me, is not for the first time this evening that we try and weave this link to Brexit into problems that clearly are not Brexit-related. Thank you, Mr. Mayor

Mayor: Thank you, Cllr Williams. Cllr Tindall, do you wish to sum up?

Cllr Tindall: I don't think I need to.

Mayor: Thank you, Cllr Tindall. In accordance with the suggestion made by the Chief Executive, we shall have to go to a recorded vote on this.

Mayor: I'm instructed that we can only move to a recorded vote if three members request it.

Cllr Williams: Sorry, if I may, as the constitution doesn't require a recorded vote, and I suspect this is not going to be contentious and likely to be unanimous, I'm not sure what the benefits of recording are.

Mayor: May I just ask if anyone is going to object to this motion, as amended? Can anyone show if they intend to? If not, I agree with your suggestion, Cllr Williams, that we accept the motion as amended by universal ascent.

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Williams:

 

1. This motion calls upon the Council to address the present Cost of Living Crisis which is a complex problem which may be with us for some years.  The Ofgem energy price cap has risen by 54%, the pensions triple lock has been suspended, and food and petrol price rises have contributed to the highest levels of inflation for nearly 30 years.

 

2. Whilst the opportunities for action at local level are limited, it is important this council does what it can to ease the pressures on our residents.  Therefore, this Council resolves as a matter of urgency to

 

• instruct officers to look at and improve the current support mechanisms available to residents,
• arrange discussions with all concerned organisations across Dacorum including food banks and the voluntary sector, and 
• initiate discussions with Council Tax Preceptors regarding 2023/2024 with the purpose of enabling proposals to be brought forward in a timely manner to provide assistance and support for those most in need in our communities

 

 

DECISION: A vote was held and the Council unanimously agreed the Motion.

5.2

Mayor: Thank you. We shall now move onto motion 2, which is proposed by Cllr Garrick Stevens. Cllr Stevens, do you have a seconder?

Cllr Freedman: I second the motion.

Cllr Stevens: Thank you. Do you want me to read out the whole of the motion?

Mayor: I think we can take it as read.

Cllr Stevens: In June, the soon to be ex-Prime Minister announced that the government was confirming its plan to extend the Right to Buy to housing association tenants. That set off alarm bells, as the reality of a historic right-to-buy policy has undermined availability of much affordable housing, which is leading to societal breakdown. In addition to that announcement, I came across an article written by Lord Kerslake, who used to be the former chair, head of the civil service, who is now chair of the Peabody Trust. It was rather an angry document, pointing out the fact that the trusts are independent bodies and do not take kindly to being told what to do. Among the little detail released by the government, it said 2.3 million housing association tenants would be given the Right to Buy as an extension to the current Right to Buy scheme. The government would work closely with housing associations on the design of the scheme. The scheme would be capped, to ensure it is affordable within existing government budgets, and there was going to be a commitment to build replacement homes for each one sold, with minister Gove suggesting a like-for-like replacement. So, on the face of it, what's not to like with such a proposal that appears to address the replacement issue? As with much that comes from government, the devil is in the detail. Not being an expert on social housing sector, I looked for reports that councillors would regard as authoritative, and found the 2022 UK Housing Review by Glasgow University, which is commissioned, amongst others, but the Chartered Institute of Housing, and found that in part of the summary, over 2.8 million homes have been sold under Right to Buy, and potential buyers under the Right to Buy face a lottery of different purchase prices and relative costs of mortgage payments and rents, which in layman's terms means that a three-bedroom house costs a lot different in one part of the country from another.

The discounts, especially in England, provided a disproportionate benefit to tenants, often far exceeding their cumulative rent payments, and in fact the discounts are a huge transfer of public wealth to the private sector. Up to 1.1 million Right to Buy properties have been private tenancies, possibly on multiple occupancy, with greater insecurity, higher rents and often poorer management and maintenance. The downside, many are new households and small towns in rural areas who cannot afford to buy and are unable to access housing locally, because of Right to Buy. For households unable to buy, the long-term consequences of Right to Buy have been very serious, and in the 40 years from 1980, capital receipts from Right to Buy across Great Britain exceeded £58 billion. Most were used to repay debt, or reverted to the Treasury, and few were retained for local reinvestment, and the section on the summary concluded, 'The Right to Buy has become a strategic failure in England, and unless reconsidered, the policy will continue contributing to social disadvantage, and exacerbating in equalities.' Now, that's very anodyne language from a study by well-respected academics. Contrast that with another headline, 'How Right to Buy ruined Britain,' which arguably reflects the views of countless thousands of people, desperate to escape the worst of the private rental sector. Now, the extension to the Right to Buy in the housing association sector was in the Conservative Manifesto in 2015, as it's long been an aspiration of the Conservative Government. I found that work had already been done to pave the way, with the National Housing Federation leading for the housing association sector. In 2015, the federation on behalf of its members put forward a proposal to the government on how it could deliver its commitment to extend Right to Buy, by way of a voluntary agreement, rather than legislation.

It wanted to make sure that any system delivered for tenants, housing association and the government. The agreement was based on four key principles, discounts for tenants, control over which houses to sell, full compensation, and flexible one-for-one replacement. They undertook a number of pilots, and the outcome was evaluated by consultants, with a report published in February 2021. Now, as a result of that, we'd expect policy would be developed from a very sound evidence base. I assessed their website. The federation, on its website, summarises, 'Our agreement with the government at the time that the voluntary Right to Buy pilots was based on a clear set of principles, with our red line.' Remember that phrase? 'Our red line being that every single social home sold would be replaced. The evaluation of the pilots demonstrated how difficult this is to achieve, as there's not enough money from sales to build new social homes. On current figures, less than half the homes sold have been replaced, and those that have been replaced are rarely replaced at social rent levels.' I have a very enthusiastic comment from the author of the original guidance, which went on to say, 'Tenants have the opportunity to buy their homes, which is great. Extend the policy,' etc. 'It really delivers for everybody, and it provides the blueprint for best practice,' and it's also going to extend the Right to Buy and increase the number of properties, which I don't understand how he got to that stage. Among the little detail released, the government said-, sorry, wrong page-, it's going to increase the number of affordable homes under the voluntary agreement. Now, I've identified the fact that he has a pretty casual relationship with numbers here. Replacing one-to-one does not equate to boosting the supply of new, affordable homes.

 

I think you'll all agree on that one. So, here we are, in 2022, with a government determined to grab a headline with a scheme that the evidence shows will lead to a policy failure, with further loss of affordable homes. If the home or related alternative is transferred to the tenant, its replacement, according to government guidance, can be anywhere nationally, it says. The government in effect is treating the housing association sector as one homogenous body, as opposed to the myriad of individual housing associations rooted in their communities. The text actually says, 'Replacing one-for-one basis nationally.' Now, it stands to reason, a transfer to a tenant without a local replacement will reduce the availability of an affordable home to a local resident. We already have huge difficulty in negotiations with developers for affordable homes. We need to avoid making things worse for our residents. I hope all members can agree that there are some serious flaws in the current guidance on the scheme, and this needs to be corrected. Our motion recognises that one of the key elements of the guidance, the government has undertaken to meet the full cost of discount, but this doesn't go far enough. In light of the published evidence from the pilots, as the current scheme specifically allows for replacement nationally, we also call upon government to commit to meeting the full replacement cost of the dwelling within the same locality, and to meet the operational costs of administering the sales process. Housing associations must be given a solid commitment that government will meet all the costs to replace the property, not just for a one-for-one, but I'm told it needs to be on a like-for-like basis in the same area, in our case, in this borough. I move the motion.

Mayor: Thank you, Cllr Stevens. Cllr Freedman, you seconded the motion. Do you wish to speak now?

 

Cllr Freedman: I will reserve my right to speak.

 

Cllr Griffiths: I will be voting against this motion, on the basis that from all the evidence I have, this is out for consultation. There is no direction yet on where the government is going with social-, sorry, with the-, oh, the likes of High Town, housing associations. Sorry, I do apologise and so, are we not putting the cart before the horse? I presume that the member himself, and the group opposite, will be joining in the government's consultation, when it goes out for wider consultation. At the moment, it's only happening with the housing associations, and I don't think that we can judge something that none of us have seen the detail of, because it hasn't been published yet. So, I don't think we can really vote on something that we don't know anything about, Mr Mayor.

 

Cllr Hollinghurst: I don't think it's quite true that this is something about which we don't know anything, as the previous speaker implied. We do know quite a bit about it from the hints that have been given, and the drafts which have been made leading into the consultation, but the problem with social landlords is that the whole situation is flawed. If you introduce Right to Buy, better described as compulsion to sell, then you will find it very difficult to replace like-for-like, and in the same area. I'm not surprised that the Peabody Trust got very upset about this. Quintessentially, that is a historic, high-quality housing association which developed in the East End of London, and around the Docks. It was precisely located to solve the social problems of the day, and sadly, the situation has rather persisted. The properties are in the right place for the people that need them, and they are in very valuable locations. So, anybody who acquires one of these properties from an RSL like Peabody, is really going to get something in a prime location. Wherever you build a replacement, it is not going to be in that same situation, it will be removed from the people that Peabody was set up to help, and I believe this will be true for a great number of housing associations. What we will have is a, sort of, pepper-potting of estates and people in the local area being forced to move to somewhere else, which may not be convenient and may not be conducive to solving the social problems that RSLs were originally set up to achieve.

 

Cllr Maddern: When I saw the motion, I absolutely understand everything that Cllr Stevens is saying about this, in fact, I've spent the last year studying social housing at university, so it's something that's very interesting to me. I was a massive fan of the Right to Buy scheme when it first came out. I thought it was wonderful that people who wouldn't ordinarily be able to afford to buy their home, were suddenly able to do that. I naively thought at the time that that housing would be replaced. What's really happened is, of course, that it hasn't been replaced. So, if this is something that is absolutely, definitely going to be on the table, I would absolutely be supporting the Liberal Democrat motion tonight, but I do take on board what CllrCouncillor Griffiths said. This is very early stages and I do think it's a bit premature, so I will be abstaining on this one. Thank you.

 

Cllr England: As a district with a large social and housing association dependency, we of all boroughs, must use our voice upstream now for maximum affect, and write to the Ministry, early doors. It seems vital for our residents that we agree this motion and help government to help thousands of our residents. Perhaps a tiny amendment would help in the paragraph, 'Calls upon the leader of the council to write to the minister, with copies blah, blah, blah, requesting that the government proceeds with its proposals.' Why don't we insert, 'And forthcoming consultation.' And then, this is a timely motion.

 

Mayor: Cllr Stevens, do you wish to reply to that?

 

Cllr Tindall: I believe the constitution allows for amendments to be made to the motion and the discussion. It is for the person to suggest that and that is then seconded, an immediate local statement is taken on that amendment, and then the debate continues with or without any amendment.

 

Mayor: Councillor England, can you confirm that you're proposing this as an amendment?

 

Cllr England: Yes I am proposing and amendment

 

Mayor: And do you have a seconder?

 

Cllr Barr-Mears: I second the proposal

 

Mayor: Thank you. So, we have to now discuss the amendment to the motion.

 

Cllr Griffiths: Point of clarification as to what the amendment actually is?

 

Mayor: Could you repeat your amendment please

 

Cllr England: In the paragraph which begins, 'Calls upon the leader of the council to write to the minister, at blah, blah, blah.' After the words, 'Requesting that the government proceeds with its proposals.' I propose an amendment that we insert, 'And forthcoming consultation.'

 

Cllr Williams: Yes, speaking to the amendment, but what I might be able to clarify is that we're not going to accept the motion as amended, or unamended. Now I'll take the opportunity to say my piece on that. I think Cllr Griffiths has clearly indicated, I accept there are lots of flaws in the Right to Buy scheme. It's been a huge success in some aspects, and it's liberated thousands-, millions of families into being able to own their property, as Cllr Madden said, in a way which they would never have been able to do. But from the get-go, the way in which that funding has been redistributed was perhaps not as helpful as it could have been, and through the late 1990s into the 2000s, when perhaps we might have expected a more lenient view on the council housing situation, the changes in the early 2000s to housing finance made the situation for new housing-, and it's some of those years, if you check the figures from the relevant government department. There were no new council houses built anywhere in England in some of the early 2000 years because the funding mechanism was so against councils. The transfer of funding from tenants back to the centre, from rents, made the whole construction of new council housing extremely difficult, and housing associations have picked up that piece. But in 2005, in 2014 and in 2019, and now again in 2022, there's been proposals to open or extend the Right to Buy scheme to housing association tenants. It's never come to fruition before, in this occasion it seems to have gathered a bit more pace with the Prime Minister making a commitment to it, but I'm not sure now where that policy will stand going forward over the next couple of months. We understand there is a consultation going on with housing associations, registered social landlords in that sector, and if they proceed beyond that, there will be a consultation more broadly with councils and other providers. I think that is the time when we should make our case. If at that point, there is a clear commitment to proceed with the policy, I would support the principle in what Cllr Stevens is moving, and that is that for every property sold, there should be a fully-funded replacement. And I would even go slightly further, that that fully-funded replacement should be at social rent and not at affordable rent, because I contend, in this part of the world, that affordable rent is not genuinely affordable for people who are doing some of the sorts of jobs that we were referring to earlier.

 

You know, I've always had trouble with the concept that affordable rent is affordable for all those who can't afford to house themselves, and that's why I've committed discounts to delivering new housing at social rent, because I believe that is more genuinely affordable. But there comes a point where you make your case and move your motion, and you make-, the leader writes to the government, when you understand what it is, the government policy is. At the moment, I think Cllr Stevens doesn't have enough information or facts. That hasn't stopped him putting the motion forward, to understand what the government policy is and therefore, for that reason, we will not be supporting it until we understand what it is writing to the government about.

 

Mayor: Thank you CllrCouncillor Williams. So, now, Cllr Stevens, do you wish to speak again to your motion?

 

Cllr Griffiths: Are we not discussing the amendment?

 

Mayor: Does anyone else want to speak to the amendment?

 

Cllr Townsend: can we move the amendment to a vote?

 

Mayor: Cllr Stevens so you want to reply to the amendment

 

Cllr Stevens: I'm happy to accept the amendment.

 

Mayor: We vote on the amendment. Okay. I think that this had better be a recorded vote. So-,

 

Mayor: I need three members to propose that it be a recorded there

 

3 members requested a recorded vote.

 

Vote results

 

For 13 – Allen, Barry-Mears, Claughton, Dhyani, England, Freedman, Hobson, Hollinghurst, Link, Stevens, Symington, Taylor and Tindall

 

Against 20 – Barret, Adeleke, Anderson, Arslan, Banks, Bassadone, Beauchamp, Chapman, Douris, Elliot, Griffiths, Guest, Harden, Peter, Riddick, Rogers, Su Mahmood, Sutton, Williams and Wyatt-Lowe.

 

Abstain 4 – Birnie, Maddern, Townsend, Hearn.

 

The amendment to the motion was not carried

 

Mayor: Okay, now, we are now back to the substantive motion, Cllr Freedman.

 

Cllr Freedman: Just a point, I know that Cllr Banks had her name down at one point, I don't know if she still wanted to speak.

 

Cllr Banks: I have some concerns around part B and freeing up more land for more housing, that sits rather uncomfortably with me when residents have made a clear commitment that they don't want us to build more housing, taking up green belt. So, I find that rather uncomfortable, so I will not be supporting this motion.

 

Cllr Taylor: I wasn't originally intending to speak at this point, but I was curious, by some of the comments by the leader of the administration that because it's a government consultation, it'd be wrong to debate this motion. Surely, if it's a consultation this is an ideal time to have this debate, as it's far easier to shape government policy before it is firmed up, then when it is firmed up. So, maybe I'm new to this and therefore I do not understand those ways, but I've always found that once government makes up their mind, they tend not to change it. I'm also very pleased to hear that Cllr Banks is no longer intending that the administration allow any more release of green belt. I'm sure my residents will be very pleased to hear about that, but I'm not sure that the government will be, in central, if that's the reason for not doing it. I also have to ask a question about this whole principle of the Right to Buy, which, if the government sees fit to extend the Right to Buy to social housing tenants, why does it not just extend the Right to Buy to all tenants, and apply the rules consistently across all tenancies? And I have never understood this, it seems to be one rule for one group, and one rule for another group. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on that. Thank you.

 

Cllr Banks: If I may just clarify my position, I do apologise if I wasn't clear. I am uncomfortable with Section B because it seems to be suggesting that there be further house building, and I don't think that sits very well with the response that we've had to our local plan.

 

Cllr Freedman: So, thank you everyone for your comments on the motion. It actually seems that we all appear to be in very violent agreement on this. I think the fundamental point where the majority party is taking the view to oppose this motion, is to do with the timing of it, and when it would be appropriate. The reason why I disagree with them and feel that it would be appropriate to comment at the moment, are actually for exactly the reasons that Cllr Griffiths mentioned, and Cllr Williams extrapolated on. Dacorum has an enviable record when it comes to social housing provision. We've got one of the largest stock of housing in the country. Comments from the leader of the council, or, as I personally think, the housing portfolio holder, carry a huge amount of weight. You've got the experience and the expertise of all of the additional challenges of managing, for example, a building split between social tenants and ex-tenants. It's vital to those to be submitted to the people creating that proposal. The reason that these things need to get to the authors as quickly as possible is, yes, this is not being formally proposed to consultation, but there is a draft out there in the public interest that is on the road to consultation. By somebody with the expertise and, let's face it, there's not that many councils in the country. You are one of a very, very small number, so we can say you are national experts when it comes to this. Your input onto this is going to be seen a lot more than just a statutory consultation. You will hugely influence it, and if you are pointing out some of the major concerns of that before this document comes out to full proposal, anybody competent in government would be taking those comments on board before they draft that white paper.

 

Right at the moment, the people behind the white paper, we may disagree, but my position is it's mostly being driven by the private developments. And anything that we do at the moment that gives the private sector advantage over councils and housing associations in providing housing means that the housing, that ultimately will be provided, is not necessarily going to be for those who need it. It's going to be for the benefit of the people developing it. So, housing associations, and still ourselves as local government, need to be able to provide housing that we know that our residents need, and that we know that it's with a view on the tenants side. So, we need the certainty of stock, we need the location and the communities that are affected. The housing associations need to know they're going to be consistent with charitable objectives, so this is the reason why we're proposing it now, and why I would very much ask you to reconsider about whether it's appropriate for you to comment right now. In response to Cllr Banks comment, the motion talks about assuring that there is appropriate funding put through for replacement housing. It doesn't say anything about where or how that's to be built. So, one of the things I would say, and again, yes, we want to see what a final proposal is, but one would imagine that the government should provide as much resource as needed to build on a more expensive brownfield site, if that is what the market is requiring.

 

If they turn around and give a partially funded rebuild cost, then yes, people are going to start thinking about whether they have to build on a cheaper greenfield site or not. We're not in any way saying that that's what they should do, but the policy should ensure that is is being a fully funded return, and that means the replacement of like-for-like housing. Thank you.

 

Mayor: Thank you Cllr Freedman. So, we shall now move to a vote on the original motion

 

Motion;

 

1. While acknowledging that home ownership is an aspiration for many, this Council also recognises that many in the community will, for various reasons, be unable or unwilling to be other than a lifetime tenant of a Registered Social Landlord [‘RSL or Housing Assn’].

In this Borough approximately 5,000 dwellings are owned by RSLs and they make a vital contribution to the provision of affordable housing in the rental sector.

 

2. The Government has made a proposal to introduce the Right to Buy to tenants of Housing Associations. Until now this has been restricted to tenants of public sector housing stock.

 

3. To safeguard the property and other assets of Housing Assns/RSL,  which are independent corporate bodies, and to maintain the stock of local housing for rent [or shared ownership], this Council -

 

Calls upon the Leader of the Council to write to the Minister  at DLUHCG,

[with copies to the respective MPs, -

 

a. requesting that the Government proceeds with its proposals only with an            unequivocal commitment to ensure that any dwelling so removed from the RSL Housing stock in the Borough shall be replaced on a 1 -for-          1 basis, and

 

b. the Government provide the additional funding to meet the full replacement costs to include provision for the supply of land within the Borough.

3 members requested a recorded vote:

 

Vote results

 

For 13 – Allen, Barry-Mears, Claughton, Dhyani, England, Freedman, Hobson, Hollinghurst, Link, Stevens, Symington, Taylor and Tindall

 

Against 20 – Barret, Adeleke, Anderson, Arslan, Banks, Bassadone, Beauchamp, Chapman, Douris, Elliot, Griffiths, Guest, Harden, Peter, Riddick, Rogers, Su Mahmood, Sutton, Williams and Wyatt-Lowe.

 

Abstain 4 – Birnie, Maddern, Townsend, Hearn.

 

Mayor: Thank you. The motion has failed. Thank you all for giving me such a hard time on my first stint as the convener of these meetings. We will now move on to questions, and we have-,