Agenda item

Daren Turner, Strategic Director of Housing and Investment:

a)    presented a report to members to propose an increase to Council rents of 2.7% for dwellings, within the terms of the Government’s rent policy for social housing, and 3% for garages, respectively; and to seek approval for the introduction of revised rents from Monday 7 April 2025

b)    confirmed that Lincoln Tenants Panel LTP were consulted on the proposed increase to rents for the 2025-26 financial year, at their meeting on 7 January 2025

c)    added that the average 52-week net rent for Council dwellings would increase by £2.36 per week, across all property and rent types, under the proposed 2.7% increase. The average 52-week rent for Council garages would increase by £0.27 per week under the proposed 3% increase

d)    explained that annual increases to housing rents were capped at CPI + 1% per annum for dwelling rents. The CPI figure used was from September of the year prior to the annual increase, with September 2024 being the applicable CPI figure for rent setting for 2025-26. CPI in September 2024 was 1.7%. Therefore, the maximum housing rents can be increased in 2025-26 is 2.7%

e)    highlighted that there was a total of 7348 properties that were charged at social rent as at week commencing 2 December 2024. The average increase per property could be seen at paragraph 5.1 of the report on page 16 of the agenda pack

f)      added that there was a total of 441 properties that were charged at affordable rent as at week commencing 2 December 2024. The average increase per property could be seen at paragraph 5.2 of the report on page 16 of the agenda pack

g)    stated that an increase in garage rents of 3% was proposed in line with the Authority’s general Fees and Charges increase. The result in an average increase in the rent charged to £9.27 per week for 2025/26 (based on a calculated 52-week charge period), an increase of £0.27 per week

h)    concluded that a review of garage provision was ongoing, and City of Lincoln Council (CoLC) were committed to a fundamental revaluation of the garage rent structure as part of the wider garage strategy

i)      welcomed comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail. The following questions and comments emerged:

Question: Was the rental period for 50 weeks or 52 weeks per year?

Response: At present, the rental period was a 50-week rent year however consideration had been given to the movement to a 52-week rent year under new tenant agreements. A rent reduction scheme over four years resulted in a loss of circa £11M.

Comment: There were a lot of people out of the city that garage income could be generated from; a good way of additional revenue. There were some problems experienced in some areas but not others and therefore, all area should be different. Consideration should be given to the areas where parking spaces were in demand.

Response: In consultation with the Portfolio Holder, a differential pricing model had been considered where there would be a different price for tenants and non-tenants. In addition, the possibility of bands going outwards from the city centre. It was understood that some garages were quite small and whether they were let out for storage. It was also understood that a lot of inner-city garages were used as commuter sites. The number of void garage had dramatically improved.

Comment: Garages already let out only paid approximately £2/£3 more than a tenant paid.

Response: It was within the gift of the Committee to make the decision on the charging regime and how that fits in with the strategy of garages. Informed decisions could be taken further to information presented.

Question: Reference was made to the number of properties that were charged social rent. Would the figure be affected by Right to Buy and were more properties lost from right to buy than were being built?

Response: The incoming Government made significant changes to the Right to Buy regime. In mid-November 2024, the discounts through Right to Buy was moved back to the initial discount in the 1980’s. Individuals submitted applications quickly to remove the risk of losing the larger discount; approximately 100 applications were received compared to approximately 60 per year ordinarily. we received approx. It was thought that the number of Right to Buys would drop off significantly, the reasons that rent levels looked more positive moving forward. There would be net increase in stock numbers. Rent was not affected by Right to Buy, only the number of properties that rent could be charged for.

Comment: Reference was made to paragraph 4.2 of the report. The market value of a property based as affordable rent was only considered when the property became void. Reference was made to paragraph 5.2 of the report. Such properties were considered as a market value for rentable purposes. Therefore, it could be the case that two individuals lived in two houses but paid different rent. Whilst living in our affordable properties, tenants only paid a small increase instead of the increases experienced on the open market.

Response: The increase was for £128.55 if the formula worked correctly. Market rents regularly changed.

Comment: Reference was made to Hermit Street. The houses were charged social rent, not affordable rent.

Response: The houses at Hermit Street were partly funded by Homes England grant, as such, they had to be social rented houses.

Question: Where money was received from Homes England, was it the case that the authority had to charge social rent and not affordable rent?

Response: If the grant was specifically related to building the property, not the infrastructure, then depending on which fund Homes England use, social rent could be insisted upon. They don’t not always insist on social rent however they could. In the Hermit Street case they insisted on social rent however the City of Lincoln Council felt social rent was correct for the area.

Supplementary Comment: TheHousing Revenue Account was a business. There demand to be placed in Council housing was high as the prices and rents were a lot lower than the open rental market. If rents were not brought somewhere in line with keeping t properties up to date, it was possible some services would have to go.

Supplementary Response: The counter argument was that if an organisation covered 40% of the build cost, the authority only covered 60% but collected all of the rent for the property.

RESOLVED that the content of the report be noted with thanks.