Contact: Sue Clark, ext 5890 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That Cabinet approves the contents of Appendix 2 as the County Council's response to the draft Regional Housing Strategy.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aim 4 (Building Strong and Safe Communities) of the Corporate Strategy by working with others to build strong, safe and sustainable communities.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not sending a response.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member 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: Sue Clark, ext 5890 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The South East Regional Housing Board has published a draft Regional Housing Strategy (2006-09) for consultation. All consultation responses must be provided by Friday, 18 March 2005; but the County Council has been granted an extension until 21 March to allow the Cabinet's deliberations to determine the County Council's response. The final strategy will be submitted to the Government in May.

2. Background

2.1 Following a Green Paper which was published last year, the South East Regional Housing Board has now published a draft of the next Regional Housing Strategy (2006-09) for consultation. A copy of the draft Regional Housing Strategy's executive summary is attached as Appendix 1. The Regional Housing Strategy can be viewed in full at http://www.go-se.gov.uk/key%20business/housing/housingrhs.html, and a copy is also available in the Environment Department library.

2.2 The consultation draft Strategy sets out the Regional Housing Board's approach and priorities for investing in housing in the South East for the rest of the decade. The Board is proposing to channel most of its investment through the Housing Corporation to build new properties for rent in the areas of greatest need around the region. It will only invest in schemes that normally achieve a minimum of 40 units per hectare. Around two-thirds of the funding for affordable housing allocations will be for social rented accommodation (there was a net loss of 1,000 units of social rented accommodation in the South East in 2003/04 because sales through right to buy exceeded new build). The Regional Housing Board will concentrate its efforts on strategic sites where they are aligned with areas where need is greatest, and on sites large enough to meet a sub-regional need. It should be noted that the Major Development Areas (MDAs) at Waterlooville and Andover are not considered to be in the areas of greatest need and therefore may not be supported by funding.

2.3 The report states that more homes are needed for workers providing essential services, to help those who cannot afford to rent or buy on the open market and to address the backlog of housing need. The Housing Board has therefore prioritised new affordable housing in this strategy, with increased emphasis on social rented homes (55% of overall expenditure). The Government has indicated that the Key Worker Living programme should be maintained at 2005-06 funding levels with a small increase for inflation. This amounts to 25% of overall expenditure. The Board intends to broaden the definition of a key worker to better meet the needs of the region and proposes to use a further 8% of the overall expenditure for other forms of low-cost home ownership, including homes for this wider group of essential workers.

2.4 The report states that it cannot satisfy all need with current resources. In the medium term, substantial additional resources will be required to meet the need for affordable housing and to renew the existing stock.

2.5 The key responses to the regional housing strategy are set out in Section 3 below. The full proposed response to the Board's questionnaire is attached as Appendix 2. The questionnaire contains a number of questions which are directly relevant to District Councils as Housing Authorities but not to the County Council. The response to these questions has therefore been left blank. All consultation responses must be provided by 18 March 2005. However the County Council has been granted an extension until 21 March to allow the Cabinet to determine the County Council's response; proposals for consideration by the Cabinet are attached as Appendix 2.

3. Key Responses

3.1 Questions 4 and 5 are about the proportion of funding which should go to growth areas, the authorities with the highest level of need and the authorities with below average need. It is recommended that the proportions suggested in the Regional Housing Strategy be amended slightly for two reasons:

(i) Hampshire's MDAs at Waterlooville and Andover, and the other large housing sites at Aldershot Urban Extension and QEII Barracks in Hart are considered by the Strategy to be in areas of below average need.

(ii) The 2004-06 Regional Housing Strategy allocated 20% of the regional housing fund to Growth Areas but only 12% will be spent in these areas.

3.2 It is therefore suggested that less than 20% is needed for the Growth Areas and that the funding to Growth Areas be reduced from 20% to 15%. It is also suggested that the funding to areas with above average needs be reduced from 60% to 55% . This would mean that the funding for the areas with below average needs (including the strategic sites in Hampshire mentioned above) can be increased from 20% to 30%. This would increase the likelihood of funding for these strategic sites which form a significant proportion of Hampshire's future housing supply.

3.3 Question 6 asks whether it is considered worthwhile to commit additional funds to other locally defined "essential workers" (in addition to key worker investment which continues at current levels) when to do so would reduce funding available for the provision of social rented housing. Many essential workers on lower incomes are not currently classed as key workers, but are vital to local economies, including nursery nurses, hospital cleaners, care assistants and public transport workers. The proposed response is 4 (5 = agree, 1 = disagree) as it is thought that it would be worthwhile to commit limited additional funds for this purpose.

3.4 The strategy proposes to continue to develop homes in rural areas (settlements with 3,000 or less inhabitants) in line with current levels of investment. Question 9 asks if it is agreed this is the right number of homes. It is proposed to agree with this proposal as there is a lack of affordable housing in rural Hampshire. Small amounts of additional affordable housing in appropriate locations can help to support rural communities.

3.5 Questions 21 and 22 are about the additional number of pitches to be provided for travellers and gypsies. An assessment of the number of pitches required has not yet been undertaken but in Hampshire alone there are 250 gypsy and traveller caravans with no stopping place each summer. It is considered that the number of pitches proposed (450) is inadequate and that 1,000 pitches would be a more appropriate number for the whole of the South East.

3.6 An annex to the Regional Housing Strategy lists Strategic Sites and colour codes them to reflect whether or not they are in the areas of greatest need. It would like to support with funding those sites that are in the areas of greatest need. Many of the largest sites in Hampshire are in areas which are considered not in greatest need and are therefore less likely to receive funding. The questionnaire has a section for any other comments (29). It is proposed to point out that the West of Waterlooville MDA is in Havant District as well as Winchester District and was allocated to meet the needs of South East Hampshire, not just the two Districts in which it is located. It is an urban extension to Waterlooville and should be recognised as an area of housing need and supported by the Regional Housing Board. This example illustrates a significant problem with the approach suggested by the Board.

3.7 Finally, the Board asks if there is anything else which respondents would like to see included in the Strategy. The proposed County Council response calls for the Strategy to recognise the need to support the funding of strategic housing proposals which are designed to meet the needs of the sub-region. These are set out in adopted Structure Plans and are being taken forward in local plans, eg Hampshire's MDAs. It is important that this point is made, as a lack of funding from the Regional Housing Board will hold up the implementation of the MDAs.

Recommendation

That Cabinet approves the contents of Appendix 2 as the County Council's response to the draft Regional Housing Strategy.

274/SC