To consider the above report

Members considered details of the Community Housing Fund (CHF) allocation of £103,375 awarded by Government. The funding came from a  new government fund of £60m to help local authorities tackle the problems of second homes in their area. The council proposed to use the funding to investigate the idea of a Community Land Trust (CLT) in the borough.  A CLT was a non profit corporation owned by its  members, similar to a co-operative, set up to steward the community assets on behalf of its members. A CLT could provide affordable housing for more than one generation.

The funding would be used to commission consultants to undertake a feasibility study for a CLT on a borough regeneration site. The initial spend of £30,000 would cover an options appraisal, business plan and financial modelling. It would be important for the council to understand how a CLT would affect revenue streams.

The Chairman provided a hypothetical scenario where the council used 10 acres of the 132 acre golf course site for a CLT. Housing on the site would only be available for those with a significant nexus with the borough, at a price less than the market. Any increase in house prices would be linked to average earnings growth in the area rather than the market increase. When the individual came to sell the property, they would only receive the uplift related to earnings; the property would then be available to another person with a significant nexus with the borough. There was an impact on the land value because properties were not available at the market price.

Councillor Saunders referred to a section of paragraph 2.9:

‘The study will investigate whether there are local community groups in the Borough who have an appetite for forming and running a CLT. If parties are identified then the appointed consultant will engage with them to provide specialist advice and build capacity to enable them to form a CLT.’

He commented that the way this section was written suggested a significant part of the activity would be identifying community groups and establishing how they could fit together in a CLT. He was unclear how  the selection process would work and who would make the selection. The Strategic Director responded that the paragraph should refer to initial capacity. As part of the feasibility study the consultant would work with local groups, thereby inherently building capacity.  The feasibility study would look at the potential process for selection.

Councillor Rankin explained that a report back to the Sub Committee in September 2017 would identify high level options supported by business plans and financial information. Members needed to understand the impact on financials to enable them to decide in a rationale and informed manner whether taxpayer money should be used in a CLT. 

The Strategic Director confirmed that S106 funding could still be used towards affordable housing in a CLT, although the feasibility study would identify whether this would be a sensible approach or not. CLTs could be quite restrictive and this would therefore not be something developers naturally moved to, however they often had corporate social responsibility policies and affordable housing obligations to meet.

Members noted that the consultant for the golf club site was working on the best approach to developing the site including planning, the process to identify a development partner, and funding routes. Councillor Rankin commented that the impact on infrastructure was a key resident concern, therefore the consultant was looking to get transport stakeholders together to discuss the issue. The recently approved Parking Strategy demonstrated that the borough was prepared to invest to ensure issues were addressed.

Councillor Dudley suggested that ex-service personnel should be included in the groups of people to whom the CLT would be available. The Strategic Director confirmed that officers in Adult Services had been involved in developing the proposals. The council could include any group it wished as long as it complied with the Housing Act 1996 as amended.

It was noted that paragraph 2.5 should read:

‘The second tranche of this years allocation of £51,687 will be paid if the Council can provide evidence by 10^th March 2017 that robust plans are in place to use the grant to support development of community led housing projects in accordance to the funding objectives’

It was confirmed that the DCLG had been informed of progress by the deadline.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet Regeneration Sub Committee notes the report and:

          i)            Approves a budget of £103,375 in 2017/18, funded by the 16/17 DCLG ‘Community Housing Fund’.

          ii)           Approves the use of this funding to explore the feasibility of a Community Land Trust and, if this approach is determined to be feasible by the Council, that the remaining monies would be used to support its establishment.