Agenda item

Purpose of the Report: To respond to the Select Committee’s request to consider the issues concerning affordable housing in Surrey and to introduce the concept of the Asset and Place Strategy through which the County Council intends to develop this

Declarations of Interest:

None

Witnesses:

Tracie Evans, Executive Director of Economy, Growth and Commercial Director Julian Wain, Programme Director, Economy, Growth and Commercial
Colin Kemp, Lead Cabinet Member for Place

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. Members questioned the current Council position on Key Worker housing and asked whether there had been any significant shifts in thinking. Members stressed that they felt the provision of affordable Key Worker Housing was crucial and questioned how this could be adequately delivered as a part of the Asset and Place Strategy. The Cabinet Member for Place explained that there had been a shift in thinking from what had been previously suggested and highlighted that there was an acute need for affordable Key Worker housing and that there was a renewed focus on the delivery of this which would be included as part of the Asset and Place Strategy.
   
   
2. Members questioned the definition of “Truly Affordable Housing,” and what this meant in practice. Officers and the Cabinet Member noted that this was a Surrey County Council definition, rather than a statutory one. However, officers explained that the evidence suggested that “Truly Affordable,” in Surrey would be that rents would be set at Social Rent level.
   
   
3. The Cabinet Member noted that there was a tendency to concentrate on the delivery of raw numbers of housing, rather than delivering “Truly Affordable” housing. The Cabinet Member stressed that he would prefer to ensure that the stock that were built were “Truly Affordable.” It was explained that work needed to be undertaken with District and Borough Authorities to focus more on “Truly Affordable” housing.
   
   
4. Members questioned delivery of “Truly Affordable Housing,” and how this could be undertaken in the current financial climate. The Cabinet Member noted that work must be undertaken with Boroughs and Districts to determine the best way to proceed. It was stressed that there needed to be better communication with Borough and District Planning departments and with Members to encourage utilisation of this.
   
   
5. Members pointed out that there was a disconnect between the need to get maximum return on Surrey assets, both from a statutory requirement and from a financial need for the Council, and the requirement to create “Truly Affordable Housing.” Officers explained that there was a balance to be struck between the need to generate income and the need to create affordable housing. It was also noted that, under statutory guidance, that the Council could sell land at less than market value if the sale was justified in terms of developing it into social housing.
   
   
6. Members and Officers agreed that setting the criteria for the utilisation of Surrey’s assets, including for the provision of affordable housing, was an important aspect to determine as part of the Asset and Place Strategy. It was also noted that determining criteria for delivery specifications of any project was also an important aspect of this design.
   
   
7. Members questioned whether there were assets that had been identified within Surrey’s property portfolio which could potentially be freed up to develop affordable housing. Officers noted that the authority had significant land holdings and that the service was assessing all that could be utilised; including operational buildings not currently in use. It was noted that this list was a work in progress and the service would seek Member’s local input as to whether the location would be suitable for use.
   
   
8. Cabinet member noted that Borough and District Authorities were reticent to take advantage of the lift on the cap of Housing Revenue Accounts, due to the possibility of losing stock resultant of Right to Buy. It was stressed that this may limit enthusiasm in Borough and District authorities which may require management. It was stressed that work was being undertaken to look at how to mitigate these barriers as part of the development of the strategy. 
   
   
9. Officers noted that approaches regarding affordable housing would be built in to the Asset and Place Strategy and that this would form part of a long term strategy.
   
   
10. Members questioned how the local authority could incentivise developers to create more social and affordable housing. Members noted that developers claimed that it was unviable for private companies to deliver in most instances and questioned how it could potentially incentivise developers to engage more. The Cabinet Member stressed that the Council was not a deliverer of affordable housing, but that it had a role as an enabler. It was stressed that it could work with developers to set criteria of how much is used for affordable housing development. Members stressed that there was a need to be clear on the ambition of the County and criteria that it will use to enable development of social housing.
    
    
11. Officers noted that, as part of work to determine the need for affordable housing, there were socio-economic impact studies that were underway to determine the impact on individual areas.
    
    
12. The Cabinet Member noted that there was work underway to bid on the Housing Infrastructure Fund and that the Council was also working with central government and with Local Enterprise Partnerships to deliver on affordable housing in future.
    
    
13. The Cabinet Member stressed that Extra Care housing was also a key part of the Asset and Place Strategy for the delivery of affordable housing, noting that there was a requirement to understand the need. It was stressed that this would be part of the information that would be part of the Asset and Place Strategy.
    
    

Recommendations:

1. That the Cabinet Member for Place ensures that a set of clear criteria is developed as part of the Asset and Place Strategy in Spring 2019, which would be implemented to determine how a Surrey asset would be utilised, including:

a)    Assessment of whether an asset could be used for housing, particularly affordable housing;

b)    Assessment of the options for delivery, including by the County, District or Borough, joint venture or a private developer.

c)    Numerical targets and ambitions for the future provision of “truly affordable housing” and that this be given high priority when considering the disposal of Surrey County Council assets.

2. That the Cabinet Member ensures that the Asset and Place Strategy has a clearly defined plan to deliver affordable housing in Surrey to attempt to meet demand, and that this is demonstrated in the completed strategy before approval by Cabinet in April 2019.