Agenda item

Purpose: To review the Individual Decision relating to the Review of First Step West Berkshire. 

(Councillors Irene Neill, David Rendel, Tony Vickers and Keith Woodhams declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that they held accounts with Newbury Building Society. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Commission considered the call-in of the Individual Decision relating to amendments to First Step West Berkshire (Agenda Item 6).

Councillor Tony Vickers, one of the Members that had called the decision in and Opposition Spokesperson for Housing, made the following points in support of the reasons for calling-in the Individual Decision:

·                    He firstly apologised for not commenting as part of the consultation process for the Individual Decision.

·                    There was no confidence that changes to the scheme would result in a higher take up.  This view was supported by the failure of similar schemes operated in other local authorities and in some areas the scheme had been brought to a close.  Difficulties with the economy had been named as the primary cause of these problems.

·                    The modifications proposed to the scheme made it less targeted on the most vulnerable in the district.  This could lead to the exclusion, for example, of families on benefit and those on the Common Housing Register.

·                    The option of ending the scheme had not been detailed within the report and it was felt that this option should have been given greater consideration.  This was the main reason for the call-in. 

·                    When considering the limit to resources, the scheme was not felt to be a high priority and did not merit the use of valuable officer time which should be concentrated on assisting residents in greater need.  This was only making a small impact and was another reason why ending the scheme should have been given further consideration.

·                    The flexible home improvement loan scheme was a success and it was suggested that the resources given to First Step West Berkshire should be transferred to this scheme in order to improve the housing stock.

Councillor Roger Hunneman, also one of the Members that had called the individual decision in, added that he felt the scheme was a disappointment and would like to have seen the Section 106 funding allocated to this scheme utilised for building affordable homes. 

Councillor Alan Law, Portfolio Member for Housing, circulated a response to the call-in and made the following points:

·                    He felt the call-in was inappropriate and only made for political gain. 

·                    No response was made by the Opposition Spokesperson as part of the Individual Decision consultation process.

·                    Call-in reasons two to five were inappropriate as they opposed the principle of the scheme, whereas the Individual Decision was to review the working of the scheme and not its principle. 

·                    No positive suggestions had been made for the improvement of the scheme, the only suggestion made was to bring it to a close. 

·                    Call-in reason one (no confidence that changes to the scheme would result in a higher take up) was a matter of opinion.  The schemes referred to in other local authorities did contribute to the formation of West Berkshire’s scheme, but there were differences.  It was accepted that the scheme had been a disappointment, but the reasons for the slow take up had been analysed and in his opinion the following changes would result in a higher take up:

§         The size of the equity loan would be increased from £10k to £20k. 

§         The scheme would be extended to include residents wishing to purchase shared ownership homes and current or previous homeowners as long as appropriate safeguards and checks were in place.

§         The requirement for applicants to be on the Common Housing Register would be removed and the First Step application amended so that an assessment of housing need could be undertaken at that stage.  This would help simplify the application process and avoid duplication of effort. 

§         A new public relations campaign would be launched to promote the scheme.

§         The first time buyers market was at an all time low and increasing the size of the equity loan and widening the acceptance criteria would help to address this issue. 

·                    In terms of the remaining reasons for calling the decision in, the more vulnerable people in the community were already offered assistance with housing through separate initiatives.  This scheme, which was aimed at middle market residents, was therefore in accord with the Council’s priorities as people in this category were included within the definition of social housing. 

·                    The work undertaken in partnership with Newbury Building Society (NBS) was seen as an innovative approach to help this sector of the housing market.  NBS actively promoted the scheme, but first time buyers were not coming forward at this time. 

·                    Approval was sought from the Commission to accept the Individual Decision as it stood and avoid further delay to making the proposed changes.

Reference was made to the fact that the First Step scheme was created as part of a response to the recession and was approved by the Executive on 8 October 2009 partly on that basis.  A six month review was agreed to by the Executive, this had been undertaken and new initiatives were proposed.  Councillor Quentin Webb then proposed to accept the suggested changes as set out in the Individual Decision.  This included the need for a further review of progress in six months time when it was hoped that an increased uptake would be seen.  This would allow an opportunity for the scheme to improve. 

In response to some of these comments the Members that had called the Individual Decision in advised that:

·                    The call-in was not politically motivated as only two applications to the scheme had been completed.  Ending the scheme was therefore felt to be a valid option as it would enable limited resources to be concentrated on those residents with the highest need. 

·                    It was accepted that these changes could lead to an increased uptake, but it could also lead to financial assistance being given to residents in a better position than others in greater need.  The proposed changes would increase the potential for this beyond the existing scheme.  Priority should be given to the most vulnerable. 

·                    The principle of the scheme should have been a consideration of the review.

It was pointed out that those targeted by the scheme were not necessarily wealthy and assistance offered to them could prevent future housing needs.

Councillor Brian Bedwell reiterated his view given in the report that he was happy to accept the report and proposals for improvement.

Councillor David Rendel made a proposal to only accept the amendment to remove the need for applicants to be registered on the Common Housing Register and to reject all the other proposed amendments.  This was seconded by Councillor Keith Woodhams. 

Councillor Law felt that the proposed amendments should be taken forward in their entirety as it was not viable to only pursue one of them.

Councillor Rendel’s proposal was put to the vote and was rejected by the Commission.

Councillor Webb’s proposal to accept the Individual Decision was then put to the vote and was accepted by the Commission.

RESOLVED that the Individual Decision be accepted without amendment.