Agenda item

Question 1

Councillor N Symonds asked the Executive Member for Health and Wellbeing what the Council could do to make sure that affordable rent for social housing was affordable rent for all, particularly for some of the most vulnerable residents, especially as one housing association, Hightown, was putting their rent above the local housing allowance.

In reply, the Executive Member for Health and Wellbeing shared these concerns and referred to the national problem of local housing allowances being set above a level that was affordable for the most vulnerable residents.  In respect of Hightown, the Council had challenged several of their nominations and refusals and had succeeded in overturning some of them.  Their rent levels were typically £20 - £40 above the local housing allowance rates and the Executive Member explained how these were set according to a needs assessment involving property size, local area circumstances and benefit entitlement.  Given the benefit cap up to the local housing rate due to be implemented in 2019, many properties would become unaffordable to residents relying on benefits. 

Hightown’s policy was to charge 80% of market rents and although this was similar to other providers, they did not cap the rent at the local housing allowance level.  Some housing associations imposed a cap in order to make their properties affordable.  The Executive Member advised that he written to the Chief Executive of Hightown and would copy the response received to all Members. 

As for what East Herts could do, its Members and Officers could continue to fight for its residents in meetings and forums with housing associations.  The Council could also seek to achieve more explicit section 106 agreements that would provide a better deal for residents.  In respect of Hightown, the Council had offered them the use of an office in Hertford so that local residents would not have to travel to their offices in Hemel Hempstead.  However, this had been declined on the basis of staffing difficulties.

He concluded by stating that he would continue to monitor the situation.

Question 2

Councillor I Devonshire stated that under Clause 4.7 of the Regulation 22 Consultation Statement, it stated that “in terms of the tests of soundness, legal compliance and Duty to Co-operate requirements 3,500 (90%) of responses state that the Plan is considered to be unsound.”  He asked the Leader of the Council if she considered this very high percentage to be worrying and if so, how would the Executive and Officers address respondents’ concerns.  Furthermore, he asked if the Inspector was likely to be concerned and if so, whether this would require wholesale changes to large sections of the Plan.

In reply, the Leader stated that this related to the Regulation 22 Consultation Statement, an item for Council’s consideration later at this meeting (Minute 656 refers).  This report had summarised the process undertaken by the Council from 2014 until March 2017.  She reminded Members of the process that had been followed culminating in the Draft District Plan being agreed in September 2016.  This had been followed by the formal duty of the Regulation 22 consultation that had resulted in the 3,500 comments referred to.  The Draft Plan, alongside all the comments submitted under the Regulation 22 Consultation would be considered by the independent Planning Inspector.

The Leader referred to the number of meetings and discussions at which District Plan matters had been considered over many years involving detailed consideration and robust challenge by many Members.

The Leader commented that 3880 comments had been submitted by 2472 respondents, of which 1796 lived in the District and the remaining 676 were from organisations and individuals who lived outside the District.  This represented just under 2% of local residents who had commented.  The Leader acknowledged that the majority of comments had objected on the grounds either of unsoundness, legal compliance or the duty to cooperate.

The Leader reminded Members of the complexities and sensitivities around planning issues and accepted that some people would have concerns around the increase in housing numbers and infrastructure issues.  She had met with every parish and town council affected to understand local issues of concern.

Finally, the Leader stated that all relevant documentation would be submitted to the Planning Inspector.  The date for the Examination in Public had yet to be decided, but would be advertised as soon as it was known. 

In response to a supplementary question on the impact on the Princess Alexandra Hospital, the Leader accepted this was a pertinent question, given the issues faced in dealing with the existing population.  She advised that consultations had been engaged by the Trust to look at the strategic case for building a whole new hospital.  The Council was engaged with various stakeholders in this process and looked forward to the Trust’s assessment in the coming months.