Agenda item

The Council considered a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth that sought approval to adopt the County Durham Housing Strategy (CDHS) as detailed at Appendix 2. Cabinet had agreed to adopt the accompanying 12-Month Delivery Plan, as detailed at Appendix 3, subject to the HRSS being adopted by County Council (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth advised that the current housing strategy was adopted in 2019. The wider economy had changed significantly since then, with the impact of covid, the cost-of-living crisis and rising levels of homelessness requiring a new strategy and vision for housing in County Durham.  The Housing Strategy set out the strategic direction for housing activity in County Durham and a vision to provide good quality housing that met everyone’s needs, was affordable for local people and supported the creation of great places to live. It’s purpose was to set the context as to how we would meet the housing challenges faced. The Strategy would help deliver the ambitions of the County Durham Vision, the Council Plan, the County Durham Plan, the Climate Emergency Response Plan and the Inclusive Economic Strategy (IES) which recognised that housing was a major enabler to achieving economic growth and better social outcomes for the council’s communities. It was also recognised that the Housing Strategy was being developed in the context of emerging devolution work, including a Strategic Place Partnership between the North East Combined Authority and Homes England. The Housing Strategy had been developed following two rounds of consultation with partners and stakeholders, including residents. The first round of consultation focused on developing the high-level principles and priorities for the strategy, with a second round focusing on the draft strategy itself undertaken between 30 October 2023 and 18 December 2023.  The consultation determined that there was overwhelming support for the proposed vision, principles, and priorities. However, comments were received suggesting changes to improve the document, and these were made wherever possible. Also, as a result of comments made during the consultation and working with partners, including the Housing Forum, a delivery plan had been prepared for the first 12-months following adoption. Cabinet had agreed to adopt the 12-Month Delivery Plan, subject to the County Durham Housing Strategy being adopted by County Council. A more long-term delivery plan would be prepared following adoption.

Councillor Rowlandson recognised the hard work put into the development of the Housing Strategy by officers and partners and he thanked residents and other stakeholders who had engaged in the process in enabling a clear and focussed document.  He believed that housing was more than just bricks and mortar. It was at the heart of families, communities and the local economy. Whether renting or buying, there was clear evidence that having access to good quality, suitable, secure and well-maintained housing had a profound impact on health and wellbeing and, therefore, quality of life. A sufficient supply of housing, including affordable housing, was also a key component of achieving inclusive economic growth.

The new Housing Strategy would build on the successes of the existing 2019 Housing Strategy which included:

·               bringing 955 properties back in to use;

·               7500 properties benefiting from new energy efficiency improvements;

·               the issuing of nearly 13,000 licenses in selective licensing areas;

·               over 4000 properties receiving adaptations; and

·               securing a partner to deliver the Council House Building Programme.

Councillor Rowlandson said that the County Durham Housing Strategy provided a framework to inform the actions and investment of the council and its partners and would ensure the council was well positioned to maximise future opportunities for funding support. The Housing Strategy aimed to support people, to live independently with support where required, and remain in their home for as long as they desired by ensuring houses were flexible to differing needs over their lifetime, including supporting family living and adaptability for older age.  He added that needed to do much more to drive up the quality and standard of properties, whether newly built houses coming through the planning system or existing houses in the private rented, market or affordable sectors, so that everyone had access to a warm, safe and decent property that they could afford.

Bringing empty properties back into use, wherever possible, was a key aim of the strategy as this both helped deliver much needed housing and tackled what could otherwise be a blight on the community. The actions and outcomes in the 12-month delivery plan would ensure no delay in delivering the strategy as the council developed a longer-term delivery plan. Some examples of the important outcomes in the delivery plan included:

·               delivering the Council House New Build Programme to deliver affordable homes to meet needs;

·               developing a housing delivery pipeline to access funding opportunities;

·               reviewing the current allocations and lettings policy to ensure it met the needs of customers;

·               preparing a temporary accommodation placement strategy to provide suitable accommodation for those in need and reduce costs; and

·               delivering the disabled facilities grants to enable people to stay in their own houses.

Councillor Rowlandson moved the recommendations set out in paragraph 11 of the report.

Councillor Wilkes seconded the report.

Members debated the strategy at length and some members expressed concerns about houses of multiple occupation (HMOs), particularly in former mining areas, amidst growing public concern and the impact HMOs had on local communities. A number of Members felt there were discrepancies from the information reported to Scrutiny, which they believed had changed when reported to Cabinet and Council on the number of houses proposed to be built.  A number of councillors opposing the report referred to 500 new build properties in addition to any acquisitions.  In response the Corporate Director advised that HMOs were subject to licensing criteria and the Article 4 threshold needed to be met locally, and that the aspiration was for 500 homes including new builds and those the Council would acquire.  She added that the presentation to scrutiny was a critical step in the process before going to Cabinet for approval.

In response to a point made about the revised report not going back to scrutiny the Director of Legal and Democratic Services advised that there was no requirement for the report to go back to scrutiny.  Members were advised that the report had been available for members to see and raise any questions for the Cabinet meeting held on 10 July and that members also had the opportunity to submit any questions ahead of the meeting.

Councillor R Bell, referring to Article 4 directives about HMOs said that the Council would need to consult with central government about changes to the legislation.

Councillor K Shaw moved a Motion without Notice to defer the report. The Motion was seconded by Councillor J Miller.

Councillor M Wilkes said that if the main issue about approving the strategy was due to HMOs then the Council needed to ask central government to look at the legislation around this and change the rules.  Councillor Wilkes expressed concern that delaying the approval of the strategy would delay the development of housing that was so badly needed in the County.  He felt that deferring adoption of the strategy  would not be beneficial for residents of County Durham and that councillors could lobby the new 412 Labour MPs to help with the HMO issue.

Councillor C Hood requested a named vote, which was supported.

Councillor Rowlandson confirmed that it was reported that there would be 500 new build homes, this was alluded to in paragraph 5 of the report.  The housing sites had been put forward to the North East Combined Authority (NECA) and was the biggest plan for the North East.  Councillor Rowlandson was concerned that any delays in agreeing the strategy would set back any new developments.  He added that rural housing was a new addition to the report which was welcomed, and that HMOs could often provide wrap around care for the homeless. Councillor Rowlandson commented that it appeared that those opposing the strategy and seeking deferment wanted this in the east of the county which sent the wrong message.

Upon a vote being taken

For the Motion – 48

Councillors R Adcock-Forster, V Anderson, V Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, K Batey, C Bihari, D Boyes, J Clark, R Crute, S Deinali, L Fenwick, J Griffiths, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, S Henig, J Higgins, M Johnson, C Kay, B Kellett, R Manchester, C Marshall, D McKenna, I McLean, S McMahon, J Miller, B Moist, D Mulholland, D Nicholls, P Pringle, J Purvis, J Scurfield, P Sexton, K Shaw, G Smith, T Smith, T Stubbs, A Surtees, F Tinsley, S Townsend, E Waldock, J Watson, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke.

Against the Motion – 45

Councillors A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown, J Charlton, J Cosslett, B Coult, M Currah, T Duffy, J Elmer, D Freeman, D Haney, P Heaviside, C Hood, A Hopgood, G Hutchinson, A Jackson, N Jones, P Jopling, C Lines, C Martin, S McDonnell, J Nicholson, D Oliver, R Ormerod, E Peeke, R Potts, A Reed, G Richardson, K Rooney, J Rowlandson, A Savory, A Shield, J Shuttleworth, A Simpson, W Stelling, A Sterling, D Stoker, D Sutton-Lloyd, C Varty, M Walton, A Watson and M Wilkes.

Abstentions – 1

Councillor L Maddison

The Motion was carried.