Agenda item

Councillor Donald Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing, provided an update report on the work of his portfolio.

Councillor Nannestad reported that the last twelve months had been an extraordinary time for everyone, with effects of the Covid-19 pandemic impacting all aspects of life. In terms of housing, the service the Council had been able to offer had varied in relation to what level of lockdown was in place at the relevant time. Many areas had been operating in different ways and, where possible, staff had worked from home with some areas, such as supported housing services, being delivered via telephone. The report provided further details in respect of how different elements of the service adapted to continue service delivery throughout the pandemic, with updates also provided on the following:

·         homelessness;

·         tenancy services;

·         housing repairs;

·         voids;

·         housing investment;

·         new build and allocations;

·         private sector housing;

·         health.

In relation to the housing repairs service, this was a pilot project which had sought to scale back journeys from across the city. On average, a reduction of 4,200 miles a month and approximately £2,000 in fuel was being saved. The pilot had not been able to run properly in its first year due to the complexities of the pandemic and various restrictions impacting its operation but the next year would be monitored in order that a true reflection of changes to the service could be measured.

Councillor Nannestad reported that the pressure on allocations continued to be immense which showed how much the Right to Buy legislation affected the Council’s ability to provide Council housing for those who needed it. He highlighted that, upon the introduction of the 1980 Housing Act, the City of Lincoln Council had approximately 11,000 Council houses for rent in the city. Right to Buy had reduced this by about 30% to approximately 7,800 with sales consistently outstripping any efforts the Council had been able to put in place to replace them. Furthermore, Councillor Nannestad reported that properties were being sold at a discount with restrictions on how the authority could spend the receipts and the vast majority of former Council houses inevitably being owned by private landlords. Private rents in the city could be around 80 to 90 percent higher compared to an identical Council property, which was a real concern.

Councillor Bob Bushell reported that feedback he had received in respect of the housing repairs pilot had been very positive. The fact that this pilot involved reducing the Council’s carbon footprint by cutting out journeys across the city was a good contribution to the Council’s zero carbon ambitions. He also acknowledged improvements to the Council’s fleet, highlighting the significant costs associated with electric vehicles compared to diesel equivalents at the current time, but looked forward to when the whole fleet would consist of electric vehicles.

Councillor Jackie Kirk asked if any further support would be provided to those tenants in rent arrears as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Councillor Hilton Spratt reflected on the considerable financial support provided by the Government and was pleased in particular that sufficient support had been put in place to assist rough sleepers and those who were homeless. He took this opportunity to praise the work of the Housing Department who he said had done an amazing job in the circumstances throughout the pandemic. In terms of the sale of Council houses, Councillor Spratt said that people often aspired to get onto the housing ladder, with the Right to Buy scheme providing people with that opportunity, especially young people. He understood that the original intention of the 1980 Housing Act was to enable local authorities to sell Council houses and build more with the receipts, however, this was not what had happened with restrictions introduced on what Councils could do with the receipts. He agreed that local authorities should be building more Council housing. In terms of health, Councillor Spratt commended the excellent partnership working that had occurred with the health sector in respect of the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccination programme.

Councillor Edmund Strengiel agreed that the Right to Buy scheme had always been a contentious issue but was pleased that some new Council houses, albeit on a small scale, had been built in his local ward. Applications for Council housing continued to come through the Planning Committee which was positive, together with affordable units as part of new developments. Councillor Strengiel was of the view that a house sold through the Right to Buy scheme was not taking a house off someone on the Council’s housing waiting list as those tenants already occupying the property were still living there. He also reflected on the number of new houses built that were classed as affordable since the reduction in the Council’s housing stock from the early 1990’s and queried how many new Council houses and affordable homes had been built in that time.

Councillor Ric Metcalfe reported that when he joined the Council in 1982 the Council had more than 12,000 Council houses on its books which equated for 25% of the city’s housing stock whereas it now owned less than 8,000. The perception that those houses bought under the Right to Buy scheme were still occupied by the tenants that bought them was untrue in that the vast majority of former Council houses acquired through the scheme were now owned by private landlords who charged extortionate rents in comparison to rents charged by the City Council for the same size and type of property. Tenants of these properties would not receive the same security of tenure, repair or maintenance as the City Council could offer as a landlord.

Councillor Christopher Burke was of the opinion that the Conservative Government had no intention of building Council houses and instead wanted to see an increase in private rented housing, the result of which had been a disaster.

Councillor Thomas Dyer asked whether the Portfolio Holder could provide statistics as to how many Council houses had been built between the Labour Government of 1997 and 2010 in comparison to the Conservative Government of 2010 to date.

Councillor Nannestad agreed that the Council’s Housing Department had been fantastic throughout the pandemic and should be thanked by the Council for their commitment and hard work.

In terms of further support for people in rent arrears, support had been provided for Council tenants, however, this could not be applied to those in private rented accommodation due to restrictions associated with the Housing Revenue Account. It was noted, however, that the Housing Revenue Account had received no additional support from the Government throughout the pandemic. A debt respite scheme had been established to assist people in private rented accommodation which provided a period of two months where landlords could not take any action against tenants in arrears.

Councillor Nannestad reminded Council that consideration should also be given to what the Council acquired as well as built in respect of new homes. 65 additional properties had recently been bought as part of the purchase and repair scheme.

In respect of the Right to Buy scheme, Councillor Nannestad agreed with the points raised by Councillor Metcalfe in respect of the vast majority of houses bought under the scheme being owned and operated by private landlords. He understood that people aspired to own their own homes but also reminded Council that people also aspired to have a Council house, with the security of tenure and reliable maintenance and repair associated with such a tenancy. Councillor Nannestad reiterated his earlier comments regarding the impact of the restrictions imposed on Councils as to how they used receipts from houses sold under the Right to Buy scheme, with the City Council having lost over £100 million over the years in the sale of properties which it had not been able to replace. This did not take into account the significant amount of rent the City Council had lost out of as a consequence of such sales.

The report was noted.