Written evidence submitted by Cllr Mrs T Reid, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Regeneration, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Hampshire [RTB 119]

 

Basingstoke and Deane is a Conservative administered LSVT borough council situated in north east Hampshire. The stock of social housing (around 13,000 units) is owned and managed by over 20 Housing Associations locally. The council is therefore very dependent on working with the associations to deliver its housing objectives and deal with our statutory homelessness obligations. The council also recognises the importance of housing in its widest sense in ensuring a high quality of life for our residents.

 

Main Points in Summary

 

The main purpose of my response, as relevant Portfolio Holder is to:

 

  1. In support of the overall policy direction:

 

1.1.      Confirm my general support for initiatives which might open up new avenues for home ownership to lower income households

 

1.2.      Recognise the wider support for and popularity of previous Right to Buy policies

 

1.3.      Confirm my support for measures which stimulate supply of and investment in new affordable housing, and

 

1.4.      Recognise the general ethos and objectives underpinning the Government’s welfare reform initiatives

 

  1. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise the current context within which the extended RtB is being proposed, together with some genuine and significant concerns being expressed regarding the potential adverse impact of a blanket extension of the Right to Buy for Housing Association properties. These include:

 

2.1        The particular impact and implications for affordable housing availability in rural areas (which would include BDBC), as well as specialist / adapted accommodation

 

2.2        The possible impact for the national debt

 

2.3        Arguably, the relatively indiscriminate provision of financial incentive to certain social housing tenants as a time of austerity and a need to target resources most effectively

 

2.4        Financial and community risks besetting marginal homeowners

 

2.5        Implications for stock transfer authorities (who cannot dispose of higher value council homes to compensate RtB losses)

 

  1. At the same time the RtB cannot be analysed in isolation from other changes also likely to impact affordable housing delivery and supply:

 

3.1        The budget decision to impose 1 per cent annual rent reductions will directly reduce social landlords’ rental income, and therefore their financing for, and returns towards, investing in new house building

 

3.2        Short term impact decisions on some aspects of welfare reform may lead to increases in homelessness in the longer term which will ultimately have more costly and unacceptable consequences

 

  1. In the circumstances I would therefore support a cautious and consultative way forward – one which adopts a firm, confident and positive approach to securing policy objectives yet also works collaboratively and flexibly with experts within the housing and financial sector. Concepts such as portable discounts, exemptions / exceptions to blanket approaches and voluntary adoption of Right to Buy are interesting and innovative suggestions which I hope will be explored with genuine and open vigour.

 

 

August 2015