Agenda item

Report of the Director of Services

Presented by the Housing Portfolio Holder and the Corporate Portfolio Holder

Councillor R D Bayliss presented the report to Members, drawing their attention to the previous reports to Cabinet and the proposal to fund the additional non-decent homes.

Councillor N J Rushton commended Councillor R D Bayliss and commented that he was exceedingly proud of what had been achieved, as the housing stock had been the worst in the country run by the worst administration. 

Councillor J Ruff thanked Councillor R D Bayliss for the update.  She welcomed the investment in housing, particularly as waiting lists were increasing.  She stated that the problem was that the assessment had not been thorough enough, and if it had been done properly, this cost could have been avoided.  She commented that it was Labour who had introduced the Decent Homes standard, whilst the Conservatives had pushed forward the right to buy scheme, resulting in fewer homes being available.  She stated that empty council properties was also a major concern with figures showing an increase.  She added that the welfare reform had played a massive role in this.  She commented that when you read the reports, customer satisfaction with the Decent Homes Improvement Programme was almost perfect, however when you spoke to tenants, they said that the focus was on getting the work done as quickly as possible.  She added that there was poor workmanship in many areas of the district and she hoped that the remaining properties would be improved in this respect.

Councillor L Spence commented that this Council had done a lot of good, but the truth was a lot of mistakes had been made.  He stated that the Labour Group were usually on hand to provide good counsel, which unfortunately had not been listened to.  He felt that this ranked as one of the worst mistakes, as the desktop exercise had been completely flawed, with £600,000 in funding being claimed that the Council was never entitled to, and other homes that were eligible which could have been claimed for.  He questioned whether these figures could be trusted given the track record on this issue.  He referred to the high level of customer satisfaction stated in the report, and that Members were all too familiar with the disaster stories.  He stated that three and a half years later, hundreds of homes requiring improvement were coming to light.  He commented that this was inept and nothing short of incompetence.

Councillor J Legrys thanked the Head of Housing for providing an excellent presentation on this issue.  He commented on the total lack of attendance from the Members of the Conservative Group, with the exception of the Portfolio Holder.  He added that the Administration obviously took things as written but did not check the information.  He referred to one of his constituents who had been waiting 2 years for works to her property and another who had had 26 visits, and commented what a legacy this was.  He stated that tenants were becoming angry and frustrated.

Councillor D De Lacy stated that £3,000,000 was a lot of money and approval of the expenditure was not without significant consequences.  He pointed out that the Council was due to repay loans in 2021/22 and would now not be in a position to do so.  He commented that the shortfall was bad enough in itself, but this could increase further due to rent policy changes and the sale of council houses.  He added that the high level of empty properties could also have an impact, and there was a real risk that this could rise further if rent defaults increased.  He stated that the solutions set out were to either borrow more, reduce expenditure or both.  He commented that increased borrowing was not without further costs.  He felt that not doing the work would clearly be the wrong option and funding from the Council’s own resources was better than borrowing, therefore he would support the recommendation.  He believed that if there had been more investment upfront, clearly the costs could have been reduced.  He queried why the satisfaction figures seemed to be at variance with the number of complaints received.  He stated that the Administration was responsible for mismanaging the Council into this situation of incurring costs and facing a massive financial risk for the future.

Councillor R D Bayliss responded to the points made and advised that a 70% condition survey had been initially undertaken, which was above the national average.  He pointed out that there had been a very short time in which bids for funding had to be put together and therefore it was inevitable that there would be discrepancies.  He commented that he did not regard this as a fault, but as a robust recommendation of the work that had been done previously.  In respect of the financial issues, he commented that a business plan was in place that was flexible over the 30 years to take up the flack.  He added that he regarded this to be a resounding success, and he had confidence in the assiduity of staff to advise Members and provide options.  He acknowledged that there were shortcomings with contractors.  He referred to the discrepancies in respect of the satisfaction rates and commented that there were some hard luck stories.  He advised that the Tenant Scrutiny Panel had interviewed recipients of works face to face and had also reported very high satisfaction rates.  He explained that the results of this exercise showed that although many people disliked the process, 90% of tenants were satisfied with the outcome.  He concluded that overall, this was a success story.

It was moved by Councillor R D Bayliss, seconded by Councillor N J Rushton and

RESOLVED THAT:

a)   The reduction in grant eligible properties and the additional non decent homes identified as part of the 2014/15 decent homes programme of improvements be noted, as detailed in the report to Cabinet attached as Appendix 1, and the impact on the HRA Business Plan as explained in the report at Appendix 2.

b)   The reports to Cabinet and the associated recommendation from Cabinet (included in section 1.5 of this report) be noted in relation to funding the required works.

c)   The revised 2014/15 Housing Capital Programme and HRA budget as detailed in Appendix 4 and 5 of this report be approved to fund the increase in costs.

d) The amended prudential indicators detailed in Appendix 6 be approved.