Contact: Antony Payne, ext 6766

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the response submitted by the Director of Environment on the South East Draft Regional Housing Strategy be endorsed.

2. Reason

2.1 The consultation period was very short because of the Government's requirement that the first Regional Housing Strategy Statement be submitted by the end of July.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Failing to provide a response within the period for redrafting.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: ..................................... Date: ....................................

Councillor T K Thornber

Contact: Antony Payne, ext 6766

1. Summary

1.1 The draft Regional Housing Strategy has been prepared by the newly established South East Regional Housing Board. It sets out the Board's approach to housing investment and provides a framework for spending decisions. The Strategy is produced in the context of the change to a single regional housing funding pot and provides the basis for the allocation of resources from April 2004. It covers the period 2004/05- 2005/06.

1.2 Hampshire's needs are reasonably well supported by the Strategy, especially in relation to the recognition given to the importance of the planned Major Development Areas (MDAs). The recognition given to key worker housing is also to be welcomed by the Council as both a large employer and also because this issue, if not addressed, is likely to have an adverse impact on the performance of the wider local economy.

1.3 The Strategy can be viewed at:

http://www.gose.gov.uk/key%20business/ housing/ downloads/RHS12-06-03.pdf

1.4 The closing date for comments on the Strategy was 7 July 2003 and therefore a response was submitted prior to formal consideration of this matter by the Cabinet. A response has also been submitted on behalf of the seven South Hampshire Local Authorities, coordinated by Southampton City Council, which draws on this submission. A copy is attached for information as an appendix.

2. Detail

2.1 The Strategy combines policies on specific areas and policies on the housing needs of specific groups. New housing provision will be focused on the growth areas contained in the Sustainable Communities Plan (Thames Gateway, Ashford and Milton Keynes/Aylesbury Vale) and Key Strategic Growth Points identified in Regional Planning Guidance.

2.2 The Strategy identifies eight Key Strategic Growth Points as geographic priorities for new housing provision, including four in Hampshire (MOD land in Rushmoor, West of Waterlooville, Basingstoke and Andover).

2.3 The Strategy sets a target for affordable house building in rural villages and details the funding required to meet this target. Deliverability will drive the distribution of investment. The Regional Economic Strategy identifies South and East Kent, East Sussex and the Isle of Wight as priorities for support for affordable housing in terms of market towns and these will be prioritised under the regeneration agenda.

2.4 In recognising the need for urban renaissance/regeneration, the Strategy identifies areas with Neighbourhood Renewal Status (including Southampton and Portsmouth) as key priorities for funding. Other housing needs identified include areas with affordability problems based on the proportion of households who are unable to buy at lower quartile house prices, and key housing groups such as the homeless and those requiring specialised supported housing.

2.5 The Strategy proposes the following weightings in the distribution of funding, although it does not state how these relate to the geographic priorities:

Key workers (not defined in document) 25%

Homelessness 25%

Prospective Home Owners 20%

(Affordable housing for sale, not key workers)

Additional Care and Support 15%

Other Priority Need 10%

Black, Minority and Ethnic 5%

2.6 The Strategy seeks to clarify the respective roles of the Housing Corporation and local authorities. The former is responsible for ensuring that new social housing stock is built, whilst the latter have a more strategic role in ensuring affordable housing supply meets need, that special needs groups are well catered for and that the quality of the housing stock - public and private - is high. The allocations in the Strategy reflect these roles.

2.7 Section 4 details the transitional arrangements during the introduction of the new funding regime. It also allocates money for private sector renewal, an innovation and development fund, brownfield land assembly, shared ownership schemes and research and evaluation. An innovation fund is proposed to promote better understanding between different organisations and individuals and stimulate new ideas and fresh investment.

2.8 The Strategy provides an interim strategy and follows the spatial strategy in Regional Planning Guidance, the 2002 Regional Economic Strategy and the Housing Corporation's 2003/04 Regional Investment Strategy. Consultation will begin in autumn and winter 2003 on a new comprehensive strategy for housing in the South East.

3. Response by the County Council

3.1 The period for consultation was very short (just three weeks) to enable the responses to be considered and a revised draft Strategy to be sent to Ministers by the end of July. This deadline only allowed for limited consultation within the Council. The Board posed six questions on the Strategy and the following is the response submitted by the Director of Environment within the deadline. The response indicated that further comments may be submitted following formal consideration by Cabinet.

Question 1

Is the general thrust of this strategy correct?

Response

(i) Yes. Hampshire County Council welcomes the more balanced approach than previous strategies, giving greater emphasis to rural problems, to solutions such as shared equity and key worker housing, and the recognition that homelessness is not the only major housing issue to tackle.

(ii) It welcomes the funding of Key Strategic Growth Points such as Andover, Basingstoke, Rushmoor and West of Waterlooville. The potential impact of these points could be increased by linking them to urban renaissance and regeneration aims and objectives, as demonstrated in sites in and around Popley, on the north edge of Basingstoke. However, according to the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, `Can work, Can't buy', the least affordable districts in Hampshire, based on key worker incomes, were Hart and Winchester (both inside the top 15 in the South East) and the greatest house price to income ratio in Hampshire was found in the New Forest. The County would welcome recognition of the affordability problems within Hampshire.

(iii) The new priority for Key Workers is strongly welcomed and the comments in paragraphs 3.2.7 and 3.2.13 to 3.2.15, on raising the importance and role of Key Worker Housing and recognising the lack of affordable housing as a key reason why people are unwilling to relocate to the region, are also strongly supported.

(iv) The aim to target 20% of the Single Regional Housing Pot at key workers is also supported, although it is unclear why there are two different weightings for key workers (25% on page 5 and 20% in paragraph 3.2.15). The proposal to widen the definition (paragraph 3.2.14) is welcomed as the current definition used in the Starter Homes Initiative of teachers, police and health workers is inadequate.

(v) There is a need for all Local Planning Authorities to acknowledge key workers as an important component of affordable housing, to develop new Local Plan policies and to use planning obligations to achieve key worker housing. At present there is some resistance to this from Local Planning Authorities in Hampshire because of the extent of the problem of providing housing for people in priority housing need. Employers also have a key role to play in developing strategies and loan/grant schemes, however most lack experience of the housing market and are reluctant to get involved.

Question 2

Do you agree with the geographic priorities set out in the Strategy?

Response

Generally yes. The Council particularly welcomes the inclusion of the Key Strategic Growth Points in Andover, Basingstoke, Rushmoor and West of Waterlooville and the regeneration priorities in and around South Hampshire. The emphasis on the regional growth areas is understandable, although the Strategy should recognise that they have less acute affordable housing problems than other parts of the South East, and that this should be reflected in the level of resources they receive. We would also draw your attention to the affordability problems highlighted in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report where two districts in the top 15 least affordable districts in the South East, based on key worker incomes, were in Hampshire (Hart and Winchester). There is also a mistake contained in the report and referred to in paragraph 3.2.2 - the reference to Portsmouth being the fourth worst area in the country is an error, please correct this paragraph.

Question 3

Are the benchmark weightings on page 5 reasonable?

Response

Yes. The overall weightings reflects the different issues and problems in the South East, particularly the recognition of the housing needs of key workers. Is there a reason why key workers have a weighting of 25% on page 5 but only 20% under paragraph 3.2.15?

Question 4

What is your reaction to the approach to allocations and managing the funding process - as described in Section 4 - funding?

Response

The proposals are to be broadly supported in principle.

Question 5

What are your views on the proposals for an innovation fund for 2005-06?

Response

The County strongly supports the idea of the innovation and development fund aimed at bringing together local authorities, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and developers. This could be extended to include landowners and landlords. The County Council's Estates Practice would be interested in this in relation to its own Key Worker Housing initiative. A scheme promoting employer loans, to help individual new or key workers acquire housing, may also merit further investigation.

Question 6

How should we go about preparing the full strategy in Autumn 2003?

Response

The strategy should be developed in the light of the findings of the Barker Review into issues affecting housing supply in the UK and, if necessary, by commissioning additional in-depth research to provide a South East region perspective. Look to bring together key South East players in conference/workshop events to debate and discuss ideas across Local Authorities, RSLs and landlords/developers. This would lead in to the preparation of an action paper to help deliver the identified geographical/ housing priorities. There is also a need to clarify the definition and priority of key workers.

Additional Comments

3.2 As a major employer of over 30,000 staff in key public services, Hampshire County Council is actively exploring possible ways to work with Housing Associations, Local Planning Authorities and developers as referred to in paragraph 3.2.9 to address some of its own employee/key worker housing issues. A report is also being produced which analyses affordable housing supply and need (including key workers) and the options available to address these issues in Hampshire. A conference is also being planned for this autumn to draw together people involved as proposed in paragraph 3.1.6.

4. Conclusion

4.1 The Regional Housing Board was only formed earlier this year and has made a commendable attempt at putting together an interim strategy for the South East within a very short period. The limited time allowed for consultation is regrettable, but understandable, given the Government's very tight deadline for draft strategies to be completed. Any deficiencies should be addressed when work commences on the full Strategy in the autumn.

4.2 The emphasis given to the regional growth areas in the Strategy is understandable as they lie at the heart of the Government Sustainable Communities Plan. However, it is important that their limitations in terms of meeting wider regional housing needs, and the fact that housing is generally more affordable within them than other parts of the South East, is recognised in the distribution of funds.

4.3 Hampshire is reasonably well supported by the Strategy, especially in relation to the recognition given to the importance of the planned MDAs. It is regrettable that the South East of Eastleigh MDA is not currently being taken forward by the Borough Council as it is likely that it too would have been identified for priority funding as a Key Strategic Growth Point.

4.4 The recognition given to key worker housing is also to be welcomed by the Council as both a large employer and also because this issue, if not addressed, is likely to have an adverse impact on the performance of the wider local economy.

Recommendation

That the response submitted by the Director of Environment to the South East Draft Regional Housing Strategy be endorsed.

8119/AP

APPENDIX

Paul Martin

Regional Director

Government Office for

the South East

Bridge House

1 Walnut Tree Close

Guildford

GU1 4GA

Dear Paul

South East Regional Housing Strategy - Draft Consultation Document - South Hampshire Consultation Response

The local authorities of Eastleigh, Gosport, Havant, Fareham, Portsmouth, Southampton and the county council are working across South Hampshire to link housing to transport, economic development and spatial planning. This is our joint response to the draft South East Regional Housing Strategy. (Authorities will also be submitting individual responses).

1. Is the general thrust of the strategy correct?

South Hampshire authorities welcome the draft strategy and recognise that it has a key role as a sub region to help deliver its aims and objectives.

As a sub region, we would like to see plans to meet all housing needs in the region including an emphasis on improving existing homes both in the social and private sectors.

Future levels of funding for the sub-region to meet our high levels of housing need is a key concern.

2. Do you agree with the geographic priorities set out in the strategy?

Although Brighton and Hove has the largest population in the region in a local authority area (250,000), there are other large centres of population which cross local authority boundaries. For example, south Hampshire could be seen as a single conurbation, with a housing market which is largely unaffected by the boundaries of local authorities.

The emphasis on the growth areas within the region is a major concern. Housing need is less of a problem in the growth areas and they therefore merit less resources for affordable housing than other parts of the South East, such as South Hampshire. These areas will have minimal effect on meeting housing need for most of the south east. If resources are diverted to these areas this will deviate from the capacity to meet sub regional housing problems in South Hampshire.

3. Are the benchmark weightings on page 5 reasonable?

It would be useful to have supporting information about housing need to show how the benchmark weighting have been arrived at.

The high emphasis on key worker housing is of concern particularly as there remains a strong need in the sub region for a significant increase in the numbers of general affordable housing for rent.

However it should be noted that from the County Council's perspective the current emphasis in the Strategy on key worker housing is supported. This is partly because the need for key worker housing is acute across the county (especially in the middle and north), and also because it is their view that a continued lack of support for key worker housing threatens to undermine the delivery of important public services and that this, in turn, will have an adverse effect on the wider local economy.

Homelessness remains a major problem in the sub region.

4. What is your reaction to the approach to allocations and managing the funding process - as described in section 4 - Funding?

It would be useful to disaggregate the funding for the growth areas so that there is a clear idea around the size of the remaining pot. It would be helpful to have an idea about sub-regional allocations to help us to plan effectively to meet housing needs across boundaries.

5. What are your views on the proposals for an innovation fund for 2005/06?

It is important that the lessons learnt from innovation are disseminated between local authorities.

6. How should we go about preparing the full strategy in Autumn 2003?

The sub region wish to remain involved in the future development work of the Regional Housing Strategy and would welcome a bottom up approach involving local authorities in identifying key issues and targets for action.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft.

Eastleigh Borough Council

Fareham Borough Council

Gosport Borough Council

Hampshire County Council

Havant Borough Council

Portsmouth City Council

Southampton City Council