Cabinet member for affordable housing
introduced the report. This was a requested refresh of the strategy
for applications for bids for affordable housing. Aims to ensure
bidders are clear on requirements before applying, and criteria
will be given which will be used by officers for bid
assessment.
The committee considered the report and policy
document (plus application form) for Section 106 affordable housing
funding.
The committee asked questions of the cabinet
member (Cllr Sue Caul) and officers Paul Fielding and Suzanne
Malcolm.
There was understanding that the policy was
designed to encourage applications and ensure the funding was used
up, not deterring smaller and different types of bidder.
The committee did make a range of observations
on the report to Cabinet, and the policy. Although members did not
vote on a recommendation, they were in
agreement that officers and the cabinet members should
action where possible the following suggestions that Scrutiny offer
for improvement. It was noted that South Oxfordshire’s
scrutiny committee would being doing the same exercise and there
would be joint discussions between south and vale cabinet members,
in order to agree the best wording that would encourage bidders and
stand by the aims of the councils. Officers and the cabinet member
explained that the aim was to get the money spent and keep the
policy open to many types of developer and not deter schemes that
could potentially be worthwhile. Ensure that smaller bidders can
access support to develop suitable schemes. The points below
summarise the suggestions to be taken forward.
- It was requested that wording was
strengthened in the report to emphasise that the money for bids was
ringfenced
- Paragraphs 20-21 in the report
– clarity requested on the spend limits for full council
approval
- Paragraph three of the policy
– clarify wording to explain this applies to housing sums
only
- Paragraph four of the policy –
wording to be amended to explain the delivery of affordable housing
and that affordable housing in perpetuity was a requirement
- Paragraph four of the policy –
it was asked that officers distinguish between essential and
desirable. It was confirmed that this was in line with the Housing
Strategy but officers agreed to
streamline the wording.
- Wording requested in the policy to
explain that a report on the assessment of the bid would be shared
with the applicant.
- Members felt that criteria from page
two of the policy could have more explanation, but officers did
explain that the purpose was to not be overly prescriptive, as this
would deter some bidders.
- Please remove undefined acronyms or
provide explanation – as it was a public facing document
- A discussion was had on what
“low cost” housing meant. Officer to add a line of
wording on asking bidders to explain what the resident’s
experience would be for utilities/ low-cost housing.
- Make “low running costs”
a markable criteria. This would include non-carbon utilities such
as water.
- Explanation wanted of what
“adding social value” was
- On page three of the policy,
committee were in agreement that the
wording suggested for South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) on
gas boilers being given a rating of zero should be replicated for
Vale of White Horse District Council (VOWH), but with
reconsideration of the wording. It was agreed that the cabinet
member would discuss with her counterpart at SODC to come up with
suitable wording that aligns for SODC and VOWH. The committee were
keen to balance encouraging bids with the commitment the council
has to climate, noting that officers were intending to not exclude
potential properties that already had gas boilers installed, but
would work with bidders to move towards efficient carbon zero
options that have low running costs. Committee felt that if gas
boilers scored low, it was one of many criteria and shouldn’t
deter bidders if the wording was considered carefully.
- Officer will check whether bidders
would need to provide architect’s drawings at this
stage
- A member asked a question about
paragraph 23 of the policy with reference to ‘an indication
of timescale’, and whether more detail can be given.
Chair suggested that this was something picked up in the
communications on the website. Committee members noted the officer
response as to why it would difficult to
provide clarity within the policy as each case will vary.