Matt Sanham introduced the report and said
that Cabinet had agreed on an ambitious housing development
programme, which now needed to be funded through the annual budget
allocation.
Councillor Whitehead made the following
comments:
- In order to explain the rent
structure and context of the HRA budget further, it was important
to look at what was currently being delivered and what needed to be
delivered in terms of capacity;
- TDC used two forms of rental rate
within the general housing stock; social rent and affordable
rent;
- The Council’s version of
affordable rent was very different from the central government
definition, which generally defined affordable rent as being up to
80% of private rental rates. For Thanet, that would be far from
affordable. TDC therefore used a dual definition; affordable
housing was classed as up to 80% of private rent, but not to exceed
Local Housing Allowance rate (which historically for this area
never met 80% of the private rental market). Simply, Thanet’s
affordable housing would never go above Local Housing
Allowance;
- The vast majority of the
Council’s housing stock was at social rent; social rent was a
lower rent than affordable rent, and much lower than private market
rent;
- At a social rent, a three bed house
would cost approximately £452.52 per month; at TDC affordable
rent, it would cost approximately £704 per month;
- On the private market, three bed
homes were currently renting at between £1,100 and
£1,600 per month;
- The current Local Housing Allowance
rate for a three bed house was £797.81, meaning that for both
forms of rental that TDC offer would be more than covered by
housing benefit/universal credit, making both accessible for even
the most vulnerable or disadvantaged residents. It was worth noting
that the vast majority of individuals who rely on LHA to afford
their housing were currently trapped within the private rental
market. This was one of the principal reasons for creating and
adopting the accelerated delivery programme, as the most
disadvantaged residents in terms of housing affordability (and
therefore cost of living) were currently within the private sector;
to help them the Council had to expand its provision;
- In April the Council was also likely
to see a significant increase in the LHA rate; in all likelihood
this would mean that even the affordable rental would fall within
the mid range of LHA;
- The Council portfolio currently
consisted of 3,460 properties; only 165 of these were at an
affordable rent; the rest were let at social rent. The vast
majority of the residents had access to support with rental costs
through housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit,
and therefore any increase was covered by benefits in those
cases;
- Each year, councils were permitted
to raise rents, with the addition of 1% to the Consumer Price
Index. This September CPI stood at 6.7%; which meant that Councils
were permitted to raise rents by 7.7%. Information received from 19
other Councils regarding their rent increase this year indicated
that all were planning a 7.7% increase. The Regulator for Social
Housing had confirmed the 7.7% limit for 2024/25;
- Last year Council increased rents
across both tenures at 7%; this was a below inflation increase. Two
year inflation stands at 16.8%, and TDC was potentially increasing
rent by 14.7% across two years. That meant that Thanet was
currently 2.1% below inflation over two years, even with a 7.7%
increase this year. The Tenant and Leaseholder representatives had
been briefed on the potential for a 7.7% increase. They were very
supportive as they were aware of the need to expand and support
those residents in the private sector, and also supported further
expansion of the Council’s in-house temporary housing;
- Although these decisions were made
yearly, it was important to remember that they had a cumulative
effect. Choosing not to increase rent this year would not only
reduce housing funding for this year, but would reduce it in
perpetuity, as the Council could not choose to raise the rent to
“make up” for it the next year;
- It was also important to remember
that this increase, apart from households that receive no
assistance with housing benefit or the housing element of Universal
Credit, did not come from resident’s pockets; it would be
paid by the central government, as the increase was still well
below the full rate of Local Housing Allowance;
- The Portfolio Holder for Housing had
put forward an option that they considered provided the best
outcome for both current tenants and all residents in terms of
growing housing provision. Increasing at 7.7% across both forms of
tenure, but providing a support fund to ensure that any households
on a lower income, whose increase was not paid through benefits
were not impacted, allowed the Council to support more residents in
the private sector, grow the portfolio further, and not
disadvantage current tenants. The predicted net cost of this option
in 2024/25 was £30k;
- The Council would administer and
determine support, assessing those who had no access to benefits
and on a low income as eligible for support;
- The fund could be used in a range of
ways to support households facing financial hardship.
- It was essential to consider the
fact that the most vulnerable residents currently were those who
were homeless, struggling to afford private rent, and in insecure
tenancies. In only four months the Council had been able to add 123
extra properties to its portfolio to support these residents.
However, to continue supporting others in vulnerable positions, it
was vital that the portfolio was maintained and grown.
Members then asked questions and made comments
as follows:
- The proposals in the HRA budget
looked solid;
- Was the Council up to date with rent
reviews for non dwelling properties?
- How were rent reviews done for the
garages and shades? Some Members had received some complaints
regarding the new rent levels;
- There were also some issues with
some of the garages. It was important for the Council to look after
these properties;
- Another Member said that they
welcomed provision for social housing. They further said that a
robust social housing programme had financial benefits. Hope many
of these houses that had been bought by TDC were now occupied?
Councillor Yates said that he would look into
the issue of garages that needed attention.
Bob Porter and Councillor Whitehead responded
as follows:
- A thorough review of commercial
properties t that included garages was conducted last year and it
was quite unpopular as rents were increased;
- Officers would come up with
information on how many of the new homes h were now occupied;
- The Council was not looking to
increase rents for non dwelling properties in 2024/25.
Members noted the report.